User reviews

Early reviews, particulary the one from Bloody Disgusting intrigued me a lot, and I've always had a lot of respect for Larry Fessenden and the work he does on indie horror scene, from directing to producing to acting. I'm happy to say this is my favorite work of his.

"Depraved" is the good old Frankenstein tale, put into a modern setting with modern problems. Henry, an army veteran and a field medic who's suffering from PTSD has teamed up with his life-long friend, the rich, greedy and egocentrical John to create a new life - Adam. All three of the main characters are more than one dimensional, brought on to screen by good performances, with the most pleasantly surprising being that by Alex Breaux who portrays Adam or the created life, the monster. Unexpectedly great portrayal, perhaps the main reason I'm recommending this. "Depraved" runs for 110 minutes which was concerning at first, but the pacing endured and boredom can be avoided (can, of course, also means there's a can't). Make no mistake, it's a drama before it's a horror, but it flows nicely and evenly, the dialogue is enjoyable and there's enough thought provoking material to filter. The FX is good and believable, cinematography is crafty and diverse though I noticed a few seemingly unintentionally out-of-focus shots.

I generally don't like Frankenstein tales much, there have been a lot of painfully average examples, even the one with Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy was worse than this. "Depraved" might not be the freshest or richest one of them, but it feels steady, heartful and entertaining. I've seen almost every directional feature of Fessenden (the ones that've come out since 2000) and I do think I can objectivly conclude that this is his best. My rating: 7/10.

Granted, as an avid horror fan, of course I sat down to watch this 2019 movie titled "Depraved". Sure, I didn't know what the movie was about prior to getting the chance to sit down and watch it. But still, being a horror movie is more than sufficient to get my attention.

While "Depraved" was watchable, it was a movie that just somewhat felt sort of unnecessary, as the "Frankenstein" theme has been over-used in the horror genre already, and "Depraved" didn't really offer anything overly new or innovative to the genre.

Think of this as a modernized take on Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", just aimed at a young audience of today's age.

This movie was actually more of a drama than it was a horror movie, which was a shame.

It should be said that actor Alex Breaux, playing Adam, was actually putting on a great performance and he was solely carrying the majority of the movie alone with his performance.

I managed to sit through "Depraved", but I can't claim that I was impressed, nor was I more than adequately entertained. As such, my rating of "Depraved" lands on a mediocre five out of ten stars. One can only watch so many re-inventions of "Frankenstein" before it starts to wear thin.

Not bad... I watched this without reading the description or watching the trailer and I think that really made it better. I enjoyed the cinematography (9/10) and the modern take on a classic storyline, I also liked the subtle dig on the pharmaceutical industry. Acting/Script (7/10) was lacking in certain areas but was better than average overall.

Meh...Super B movie...Very low budget, and it shows...acting is so so..Nothing special here

It starts out great with consistently good shots, interesting effects and visual aids but quickly loses it footing and fall painfully into a very mediocre plot. The 'dark reimaganing' was not all that dark and fell flat of the mark unfortunately. I really wanted to like this film but it should have been a darker depiction of the inhumanity of man like frankenstein or an absolute balls out bizarre journey more like reanimator; instead it was neither as it fell into a cheese mediocre snooze fest that even good camera work and imaginative shot cant save.

Before watching Depraved (what a strange and stupid title for this movie) I didn't think we really needed another Frankenstein movie, I mean that story has been done over and over again so what's the point? Unless you make it a gem I don't really see the point of it. Now, after watching it, I can say it wasn't the worst copy of this classis story and that's mostly due to Alex Breaux who did a great job playing his character. All in all it isn't a bad movie, I liked it more than my wife, but it's just not a refreshing story.

I gave it a shot coz of the reviews missed opportunity but Movie is really slow , poor attempt , plot holes , bad execution

It's not perfect, but what film is? It certainly is not within 5/10 territory, as its rating currently stands here on IMDb. The story was the opposite of flat, and it was neat to see this classic tale take some fresh turns. I'm a big horror guy, and a very picky one at that, and I would certainly recommend it to fans of the genre. It's perfect for a quiet day or night in, perhaps with some weed and popcorn, and plenty of time. It does run a bit long at just under two hours.

There wasn't enough blood and guts for my taste, but the gore we did see was extremely well-done and realistic. The makeup, prosthetics and special effects were extremely on point. Although there is a little bit of questionable acting, the main characters are believable and fit their roles well. Alex Breaux -- the dude who portrays Frankenstein -- couldn't have been a better pick with his angular and intense bone structure and height. If you're in the mood for a well-done take on Frankenstein and have a couple minutes, you're in for a good little treat.

A reimagining of Shelly's Frankenstein and in many ways closer to the spirit of the book than any modern interpretation. Problem is, this film takes a very long time to develop. I read the synopsis and thought it would be interesting, and it is, but kind of dull partly because it's so close to Shelly's gothic masterpiece. The underlying message of the film has also been visited so many times that it felt over familiar. I was disappointed that with such a prolonged build up the action was strangely censored. Considering the grotesque nature of the back story it seemed odd to not show the murders. Weirdly feel good, not particularly horrible, could of been better than it was.

A near-perfect reimagining of the classic 'Frankenstine's Monster' tale; though this has a hell of a lot more emotion in it than one might expect at first glance.

The small but beautifully acted cast of characters is great, the set design and makeup is impeccable, and the writing and directing is on point.

I was way more impressed with this than I expected to be; I feel it's nearly a modern classic in hiding.

Throw it on Netflix and give it the exposure it deserves.

This movie brought tears to my eyes. Poor Alex. Its was written well and the actors did a great job. Those giving it low ratings simply didn't get it.

First, IFC forces the DVD buyer to sit & view a laundry list of their other offerings. Guess they wanted more money. As to the movie the science & anatomical reconstructions behind the new Frankie would fail a grade school science class. Hopefully the viewers got beyond that. Sorry, but reconnecting tiny blood vessels & nerve cells requires a large array of hospital equipment & staff. As to the plot, a very predictable love interest & turn on nasty scientist. Frankie would be disappointed in how his legacy was cheapened.

*NON-SPOILER*

The film didn't really capture the imagination, it was all a bit too unrealistic..I get for a Frankenstein type film things will get unrealistic, but this redefined the word.

It felt low budget, the storyline could've been way more gripping, a few twists here and there could've been added. The name drew my attention as I'm an all round horror fan, but unfortunately this just never really got going for me.

This movie surprised me tremendously. What I thought was going to be some psycho thriller about a mad man that pieced together parts of people to create a monster, turned out to be a heartbreaking movie through the eyes of the creation. And those who created him were the true monsters. The ending was happy and sad and made me feel something I havent in a long time.

Give this unique movie a chance.

7.2

...not a horror movie IMO bit a very decent scifi fantasy type film. It's going to be good as long as you are not expecting a true horror flick.

It doesn't add a lot to the genre, but is a very solid entry from indie auteur Larry Fessenden. Very well despite the budget. My biggest complaint was it didn't have more to say, as an allegory for how soldiers are treated after they return home, it could have pushed a lot further. Instead it told an organic version of the same old same old.

An uncredited adaptation of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" I guess I was expecting too much of this movie by Larry Fessenden, whose work I had lost contact with since "Wendigo" in 2001. It is not bad, but it goes on forever, has two or three endings, speeches get in the way of physical action when it is desperately needed, and it's literally a bloody mess if you compare it to James Whale's diptych in which (I believe) there were hardly blood stains or drops.

It is undeniably interesting in its first act, but the introduction of the Polidori character complicates things, needlessly extends the story to almost two hours, and it makes the movie lose the balance between realism and fantasy, leaving me indifferent.

Alex Breaux does a superb job as the monster with the tragic conscience of his condition and keeps the picture together whenever he is on the screen. If only for him, you can look at this Fassenden product.

This latest edition to the mad scientist genre has a PTSD veteran creating a human out of multiple body parts. Yes, it's the latest spin on "Frankenstein". Pretty much the only new thing that it offers is that it takes place present-day. A Larry Fessenden movie that I liked a lot more was the vampire flick "Jakob's Wife". As for modern-day Frankenstein movies, I liked Frank Henenlotter's "Frankenhooker" a lot more.

I understand that Guillermo del Toro is making an adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel. We'll have to see how that turns out. In the meantime, this one might be worth seeing once, but it doesn't really add anything new.

I nearly didn't watch this because of the title and the poster artwork. I just presumed it would be a cheap and nasty horror flick. But it's a really good reworking of the Frankenstein story and quite poignant in parts. The characters are well rounded and you actually do care about them. It has a good script though there are parts that seem rushed or out of character towards the end. I thoroughly enjoyed it and was glad I took the trouble to give it a go.

...the overlong, social drama disguised as indie horror "Demented" isn't one of his better efforts. Way too much much talk and far too little action make this sort of an endurance test. Less would have been more. Trim 30 minutes of meaningless dialogue heavy scenes and this could have been special. As it is, it's just ok.

I saw this at Frightfest and was really entertained by it. it nods to Karloff and Lee etc as well as the novel. it also references the wickedness and venality of american drug companies, capitalism etc. the acting especially the monster is great. it even nods to the novels snowbound ending. it delivers on gore and violence pleasingly. The monster has great pathos as it should.

Larry Fessenden's best movie in my estimation

Modern take on Frankenstein, well worth a watch! Visually great and a really cool story. Can not understand the harsh critics on here