Frankenstein Reborn

Very bad acting. This time i could not even laugh at the bad acting as it can be in other horrors sometimes , for some reason i felt sorry for the actors in this case. I also wish Rhett Giles (Victor) could speak more naturally , less drama in his nonstop half whispering voice maybe.

The characters was not interesting ,or believable in any way and i could not care less how the story will develop either . And what is it with the sound , that was really irritating. The sound is changing constantly between to quiet , so you can hardly hear it and very laud , so you can hardly manage to continue watch .

I did not.

I was expecting little from Frankenstein Reborn, considering The Asylum's reputation. But while it is far from a good movie, as far as Asylum movies go it is not that bad. The monster is actually very menacing in disturbing in look, the opening scene is gory and really promises much and Thomas Downey, Joel Hebner and especially Rhett Giles, finally in a role that gives him something worthwhile to do, are remarkably good in their roles. Sadly, what the opening scene promises is not matched with the rest of the movie. Visually, Frankenstein Reborn is very amateurish, the settings look as though they are somebody's basement, the camera work is rushed-looking and tries to do too much that you don't feel any connection with anything you see and the effects are very cheaply rendered. The music is overbearing, poorly utilised and is not fitting with the rest of the film at all. As a consequence, the scares and tension are further severely diluted. The script has very little of interest, it is very talky and a lot of it reads of aimless exposition. It is cringe-worthy in a cheesy sense also. I knew that Frankenstein Reborn was not going to be faithful to Mary Shelley's story, Asylum movie adaptations never have been, so that wasn't an issue. However, the predictable way the story is told, the many sluggish and needless scenes and the unoriginal and non-scary killings really let the side down. The gore is not so bad visuals-wise, but does little to enhance the atmosphere, which generally just wasn't there. The characters are ones I found myself indifferent to, other than the monster, Victor and Robert they are annoying. The rest of the acting is very bland and passionless. Overall, not a good movie but not a really bad one either, it promised much and does try hard but with largely disappointing results. 4/10 Bethany Cox

While of course a low budget movie, I think, if judged by these standards, "Frankenstein Reborn" is a decent film. Naturally, it follows the story of old Frankenstein, however the modernization of circumstances surrounding the characters puts this film a notch above many retellings of Frankenstein. I love how Walton, the ship captain, is replaced with Walton, the head doctor of a psych ward. Little changes like this prevent the film from having the appearance of trying to be something it cannot; much like Coppolla's 1994 version. The acting is pretty amazing for a B flick like this, and the story is surprisingly accurate. This film is probably the book that Mary Shelley would've written were she alive today.

Ultimately, "Frankenstein Reborn" is among the highest of films of it's kind, I would recommend it to anyone seeking out good bad-movies, of which this film almost transcends.

Granted, I didn't really harbor much of any expectations to a movie titled "Frankenstein Reborn", as it just oozed of low budget. But still, as it was a movie that I hadn't already seen, of course I opted to give the movie a fair chance.

But I am sure that most of us agree that the Mary Shelley "Frankenstein" story has been used beyond the threshold of what is acceptable in movies already. And with the rather dull and laughable adaptation that writer and director Leigh Scott managed to do, it felt like a mockery of Shelley's classic tale.

I wasn't familiar with the cast ensemble in the movie. Though I will say that the acting performances weren't all that bad.

The audio in the movie was all over the place. In some of the scenes you had to struggle to hear what was being said, because the audio was so insanely low. And in other scenes it was just amped up. That was very amateurish and dragged the movie down a notch.

Visually then "Frankenstein Reborn" was okay. It certainly managed to keep the movie somewhat afloat.

I wasn't impressed with this movie, much less overly entertained. There are far, far better adaptations of the classic "Frankenstein" story out there.

My rating of "Frankenstein Reborn" lands on a three out of ten stars.

Where to begin? First off, most of the film is flashbacks. Second, the beginning was stupid, and third, a lot of boring dialog and bad actors. The monster is quite disturbing and so is his roar. They had small parts like when a woman is shown for 2 minutes and is killed. There was parts when i felt like turning it off but I had nothing else to do. After the credits end, there is a minute of the screen pitch black and the music still going. I bet it was to make the movie a minute longer. I gave it a 3, because I like b-horror films,i like Frankenstein movies and you have to give Leigh some credit. My recommendation: if you see it at the video store, tell a person working there that it is a waste of money for you to rent that. So stay away as far as possible. Don't say I didn't warn you.