उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

This was decent when they decided to get the the meat of the story. For some reason the writers or whoever thought you want to see an hour of build up and 15 min of anything of interest on screen. It felt like they purposely avoided getting to anything to with the subject matter. Idk what the deal was. Could have been good. Wasted time here.

I think what bothered me the most about this movie is that it couldn't decide what kind of movie it would be. Is this a found footage documentary or is it a traditional movie? It's hard to suspend belief when things like this are inconsistent. For instance, there are 5 people in the group at one point. They are all in a tent. The camera holder is in a sleeping bag. So who is holding the camera? Also, if this is found footage, what is there music and sounds during the "boo" moments? It was questions like these that made it hard for me to get into. It was pretty slow, but I appreciate the slow burn kinda movie, so that didn't bug me too much. The acting was solid. Nothing great, but nothing laughable, either.

I found this to be a bit more interesting than some of the other documentary style found footage films I've seen. The story is basically about a descendant of the real Dr Frankenstein trying to prove that there really is a monster, and that the novel was not really a work of fiction as everyone believes it to be. He has made it his life's work and is obsessed with proving his theory. No one really believes him and think he's nuts (including his wife), but a documentary crew led by a personal friend of his follow him to Canada where he is convinced he will find the monster.

I've seen some really negative reviews about this film, but I don't think it's too bad.

Honestly never got the "story" to this movie. I almost turned it off in the beginning during a drawn out 'interview' stage, but decided to give it a little while longer... reached to turn it off again due to irritation at a relationship based on a woman who apparently despises her boyfriend, only around to yell at him in front of others, then talk behind his back and berate him... yet, upon heading out to get a drink, I returned, it was still on and watched some more. It turned out to be the worst thing I have watched this year, for sure. Possible the worst I have watched in the past couple years (nothing comes to mind that can out-rank it in crappiness). Seriously thinking the 10 * ratings that go into music and other details (I do not even remember music other than one song toward the end; and I will admit it was not bad... only reason I did not balk at being made to give 1 star and no 0 stars available) are made by people associated with the film, especially when there is only ONE review made by them on the accounts. lol

Some brain farts should just waft away in the wind.

An hour and a half of pointless yammering. The writers ripped off Blair Witch but didn't have any idea of how plot points work or how to create any kind of atmosphere. The script is so poorly written and phlegmatically directed I wonder if the director ever made it past the craft service table. The lame excuse of being low budget is wearing out its welcome. If you don't have enough money to film what you're written - don't. The film isn't good, it's really terrible and to present this to an audience as entertainment is criminal. This is not a case of subjectivity. Some films are just terrible. Hardly any of the people in the making of this presentation knew what they were doing. Learn your damn craft or find something else to do!

It's so boring! This film is perfect for those who suffer from Attention Surplus Disorder. I was expecting bad, but this went light years beyond awful.

Plus you never get a nice view of the tundra!

I can't honestly recommend this film as it's not scary and quite boring. To have characters talk so much about nothing or mapping out the narrative is ludicrous and wears on an audience.

How do these films ever get released? It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

I found out about this movie in Fangoria Magazine and even though "The Video Eye of Dr. Cyclops" only gave this movie 1 1/2 "eyeballs" out of 5, I saw it on Netflix and decided to give it a try because it was a brand new take on the Frankenstein story. I figured it would be too "Blair Witch" for me but jumped in anyway and AM SO GLAD I DID. While it does have that "lets make a documentary" essence that made "Blair Witch" a blockbuster (spurning a whole lot of similar movies that sucked)and which now the "Paranormal Activity" movies have brought back to life, I was instantly captured from the first sentence. I was particularly taken by the intelligence of this film. The character of Dr. Jonathan Venkenhein (which is very reminiscent of how "Frankenstein" sounds) starts right out by telling the camera that it was HIS family that created the monster and that he believes it is still alive and wants to go on an expedition to find it. This film is not for you if you're looking for lots of gore, but in this case I think less is more. Jonathan has researched his family archives and put together theories his entire life that convinced me in the first 5 minutes of the film that I was all in and would have gone with him in a second. While the info he gives in the beginning is rather abundant and (more importantly) believable, he continues to divulge more information as the expedition goes on keeping it interesting. I highly recommend it!

The Frankenstein Theory is another horror film made in the style of a faux documentary. Basically, a film crew follows a Professor around while he tries to redeem himself after being fired from his job. I know I say this a lot, but this movie started out extremely slow. Probably one of the slowest found footage horrors I've ever seen all the way through. I can't even really critique what happened in the first hour because I'm pretty sure my brain shut off. It starts to finally pick up when they're out camping in the snow and even then, it's really the last 15 minutes or so that are interesting. The ending was a little creepy, but I don't know if it's worth watching an hour of film that's boring, just to get to a few minutes of entertainment. I would definitely wait till this movie is available on Redbox or streaming through Netflix. But I don't suggest renting it at full price on VOD or you will be majorly disappointed.

Please like me on Facebook! You can read more of my reviews and get info on the latest movies in horror: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Heart-Horror/338327476286206

OK right from the get go I have to say I was biased by an issue that plagues a lot of media nowadays - the worship of youth, and the unreal way in which it is portrayed so often. In this movie we have a bunch of twenty-something kids masquerading as adults, one of whom we are supposed to believe is a college professor with a PhD. We really need to stop pandering to 'young adults' who wanna pretend they're actually adults, but that's an entirely different rant. Problem is, this pseudo- real world of the kids who made this flick runs thru the fabric of the whole movie. But I soldiered on, and did my best to suspend my "this is really stupid" reflex. I probably should have listened to that first reflex, because the movie never really took off. It's a pseudo- documentary style, but the script is pretty weak and formulaic, and there are no solid actors in the bunch; no one with on screen charisma to draw you in. The scares are few, and not very scary, honestly. I'm not sure how I keep getting drawn into these independent, handi-cam shot, "found footage" films that all end up looking like a college art project (and maybe are.) I guess I keep hoping to stumble across some gem that will be original, not stupid, and genuinely spooky, like "The Blair Witch Project" or "Paranormal Activity," but I guess I'll have to keep looking, because this wasn't it.

I'm actually disappointed with the fact that you can't vote zero or negative scores about a film. Because, truly, if I had the opportunity to choose the biggest waste of time in front of a screen, the minutes I spent watching this film, without even fast forwarding until the very end, would be my number one. I don't need to tick the spoiler alert box. Even if I wanted to, there's nothing actually surprising to add to what you already see when you grab the DVD box. The image that promotes the film is, indeed, powerful and, believe me, that cover is, by far, the best part of the entire "Frankestein Theory" experience. Without giving away any crucial information that you may consider a spoiler, although such a predictable storyline makes it hard for me to try and choose any possible spoiler to reveal, I may say that a very nice idea (Frankenstein story may have been based in true facts - which would be an extremely insteresting starting point) is murdered since the beginning of the film. All the actors, when you honestly look at them, seem already aware that this is going to be a huge flop. You look at the image that promotes the film, featuring a terrifying Frankestein (one of the best visual personifications of the monster that I've ever seen) and your expectations grow high. But that's it. You should stay there. The 20 seconds you may spend looking at that image will be - should you ignore my advice and actually watch the film - the most rewarding and exciting part of the next one and a half hour in which you'll see a bad copy of the Blair Witch Project, considering that 14 years have passed since that Witch surprised us all and several low budget (and high budget) followers completely dried out the milking tit of that awesome filming idea. The Frankestein Theory does not convince you, for a minute, that those events may actually have happened. The acting is so poor - and the actual story is so... empty - that the only positive thing I took from the afternoon when I've watched it was that heroic feeling that I took the poisoned bullet but, at least, I'll be able to warn any innocent soul considering to press play that he/she should be quiet, remove the DVD from the player asap and spend the rest of the afternoon watching something incomparably better, such as REC (it's Spanish and actually very good, with the same filming technique).

If this IMDb search you did for the Frankestein Theory was good for anything, let it be because at least you found out about REC when you were looking for rubbish.

Best regards and keep on trying.

Welcome to the best way of wasting 87 minutes that you will surely never, ever get back in any possible way. This movie was horrible and just lacked any chance of ever being interesting.

The movie is sort of a pseudo-documentary, but the problem is that the movie never manages to take off, and just heads ahead in a speed that is not even a trot. The movie takes forever to get nowhere, and if you don't die from boredom along the ride, you might just die from the absolute sheer lack of purpose there is to the movie.

Essentially, this is just a bunch of people sitting around in various locations and discussing rather pointless and uninteresting things, in regards of Mary Shelley and the Frankenstein myth.

This is without a doubt one of the worst movies I have ever had to suffer through, and I wouldn't wish this upon anything. So a word of warning, you should have an excessive interesting in the Frankenstein myth or have some particular connection to any of the actors or actresses in the movie (or possibly even the director) to find any kind of enjoyment and amusement in this movie.

This was suffering to sit through, to say the least.

I have researched the novel and taught Frankenstein at the university level for a number of years. I have also read the novel at least fifteen times, so I regard this film as an intertextual work rather than a stand-alone work, and that probably makes a huge difference. As far as I know, no successful film adaptations of the novel exists. Kenneth Branagh's "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" is interesting, but ultimately it is a howler of a B movie thanks largely to Branagh's decision to make Victor Frankenstein a wholly admirable character. "The Frankenstein Theory" illuminates the novel just as much, or more, than Branagh's film.

The film is a sequel to the novel. At the end of the novel, the "creature" jumps off a ship near the North Pole and bounds over the ice, having promised that he will build a funeral pyre and kill himself in the Arctic wastes. But does he? That's the question that drives the story of the film.

The writer/director obviously knew the novel as well as its biographical background. Jonathan reflects the monomaniacal determination of Victor Frankenstein. His backstory--expulsion from Oxford--also refers to the biography of Mary Shelley's husband, Percy. References to Percy Shelley's "Ode to the West Wind" and to Mozart's Requiem--a commissioned work that ultimately became the composer's own requiem--create some clever textual layering. Percy Shelley presaged his own death, as does Jonathan and his crew in the act of documenting their pursuit of their own killer. Some of the tension of the frame story of the novel is captured, too: Victor Frankenstein has been rescued by Robert Walton, a captain with a hired crew bound for the North Pole (which had not yet been discovered). The film crew in "The Frankestein Theory" are analogous to Walton's nearly mutinous crew.

The premise of documentation is also meaningful in relation to the novel. Like many works of Gothic fiction, the novel is presented as an epistolary narrative--a documentation of "true" events. It is composed of some letters by Walton and a transcript of the story that Victor Frankenstein tells to Walton. At least one previous IMDb reviewer claimed that this entire film is a rip-off of "The Blair Witch Project," and, while I see the similarity, I think this misses the point. "The Blair Witch Project" and many other contemporary horror films (e.g., "The Ring" and "Paranormal Activity") foreground the act of documentation--a conceit they owe to Gothic literature. This film is the only one I know that actually acknowledges and plays knowingly with that debt.

Let's not stop there. "The Frankenstein Theory" plays with a couple other visual genres as well--the mockumentary (especially "The Incident at Loch Ness") and reality television shows based on wilderness survival. It also offers a delightful homage to "Jaws." The guide, Carl, played by an uncanny double for Viggo Mortensen, delivers a comic drunken story that parallels the terrific sailor's tale spun by Anthony Quinn in Spielberg's film.

Finally, let's face it...the Frankenstein story has never been truly terrifying in any of its manifestations. The novel is certainly creepy, but it's mainly a novel of ideas. This film should be credited for combining brainy intertextuality, comedy, and at least a few mild thrills. It's certainly not the scariest movie I've ever seen, but that's not the point. It IS the scariest media representation of the Frankenstein myth I've seen, with the possible exception of Blade Runner--another brainy, intertextual film.

I've seen worse much worse. Nearly everything bad about this movie was redeemable except for the sound effects.

The plot is somewhat original. There are many movies/stories built on the premise of some fiction actually being sourced from some fantastical actuality in history.

I thought the acting was quite good considering the quality and budget of the film. A few recognizable faces. The acting and premise actually were the saving graces of this film.

The pace was very slow, but that is to be expected from this type of film.

The special effects were non-existent which was great. I've seen too many straight to netflix movies that try to make something happen graphically that is simply not in the budget.

Now for me the Foley artists really killed the film experience for me. As soon as I hear a monster scream/roar regurgitated from some of my favorite Saturday morning cartoons and commercials the entire effect of horror is ruined. Especially when its a mockumentary. Why not just make up some sounds instead of using stock Foley sounds that everyone recognizes??

I just watched The Frankenstein Theory on Netflix, and I was remarkably impressed. I would personally rank it amongst my top five found-footage films, alongside The Blair Witch Project, V/H/S, Grave Encounters, and Devil's Pass. I particularly loved the random interjection of quirky humor and personality flaws -- something which seems to be a rarity in this genre nowadays. It boosted the suspension of disbelief and the gave the movie some added smarts. I genuinely felt as if I was following ordinary people on an impromptu expedition rather than underpaid actors reading from a B-movie script. I also think the unusual choice of location was sufficiently compelling given the story's mythological basis (a la Devil's Pass and The Blair Witch Project). Although, the movie didn't pick up pace until the end, I enjoyed the character development. It added to the documentary's credibility and curiosity, rather than the typical detachment that I often experience with these types of films. My only disappointment was the final scene. It was almost too predictable. Maybe the director ran out of ideas? Still, that's a minor criticism given the overall production value. Highly recommended for anybody that is looking for a suspenseful late night sci-fi flick and is willing to tread off the beaten path of Paranormal Activity lookalikes.

The Frankenstein Theory is far from a masterpiece but I didn't find it nearly as bad as some have made it out to be.

It IS a total copy of "Blair Witch Project" with just the location changed, but that being said it's a reasonable recreation. I was never on the edge of my seat but the movie accomplished an important goal - it kept me interested enough to make me watch until the end.

The Frankenstein Theory also does a decent job (albeit slowly) of ramping up the tension until it climaxes in the last 10 minutes or so of the film.

There's nothing original here but as basic entertainment it's really not that bad. 5 out of 10.