Read User Reviews and Submit your own for Victor Frankenstein

10

ScottLangDec 21, 2019

Absolute national disgrace at how poorly reviewed and unpopular this film is, this film deserves to be widely regarded as a treasure of the English nation, it was THAT GOOD! It seems to just be Americans that hate this film and I think partAbsolute national disgrace at how poorly reviewed and unpopular this film is, this film deserves to be widely regarded as a treasure of the English nation, it was THAT GOOD! It seems to just be Americans that hate this film and I think part of the reason why Americans hate this film is that Americans are jealous of the greatness of the British Empire and London in Victorian England when they watch this amazing film. Americans know that their hot ugly native American lands will never be as beautiful as Britain's when they see Britain's magic and beauty in this film, they know when they watch British geniuses that the USA will never get as big as the British Empire or as influential due to their governments relative stupidity and ultra Liberalism. I bet the Americans also didn't appreciate Victorian London and probably struggled to understand the British accents so that's also why this film's ratings are so unfairly low.

So my message to the Americans is this, if you don't like it simply because you're jealous that you'll never be as good as your country's Father then you can stick to watching your crappy, mind dulling, simplistic American films instead and get even more stupid and simple as a result of watching your rubbish TV and films! If you DARE give such foul barbaric low ratings to films produced on your ancestors sexy island ever again, then I'll make sure Britain colonises the USA, grounds the USA for a month, forces the US to live with it's Dad again and force Americans to give 70% of their yearly wages to the British government in the form of taxes!

This film was amazing, complex, thought provoking and above all British through and through. A truly amazing film, don't be turned off by Americans unappreciative **** and their retarded and pathetic jealousy of our amazing history lovely Brits. This movie is unsuitable for Americans but I recommend it to all Brits.… Expand

4 of 4 users found this helpful40

All this user's reviews

10

hendrikchipmanJan 6, 2016

I liked this movie very much. I was expecting way worse because of the poor ratings on meta critic. Yet I found the movie to be funny, well acted, engaging, and well produced. The graphics were incredible. I really liked the old English set.I liked this movie very much. I was expecting way worse because of the poor ratings on meta critic. Yet I found the movie to be funny, well acted, engaging, and well produced. The graphics were incredible. I really liked the old English set. Daniel Radcliffe was great in the movie. I think he played the character really well. The storyline for the movie was interesting. Igor seemed to be torn between the woman he loved and the man who saved him from the circus. Great film.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

10

johnbman11Nov 27, 2015

Loved it! My wife and I just saw it today and were pleasantly surprised! I'm not sure what some of these reviewers are talking about. It's a very creative and really intelligent film. I loved all the twisted science and art direction theyLoved it! My wife and I just saw it today and were pleasantly surprised! I'm not sure what some of these reviewers are talking about. It's a very creative and really intelligent film. I loved all the twisted science and art direction they used. The story and characters were interesting and made you excited to see what would happen next. I won't give any details but if you appreciate movies that make you delve a little deeper than what's on the surface, you'll like this movie too. It's not your ordinary mindless adventure.… Expand

11 of 14 users found this helpful113

All this user's reviews

6

TVJerryDec 7, 2015

The difference in this reinterpretation is that it focuses on the relationship between crazed scientist Victor Frankenstein (James McAvoy) and his hunchback Igor (Daniel Radcliffe), who has been reinvented as his brilliant protégé. TheThe difference in this reinterpretation is that it focuses on the relationship between crazed scientist Victor Frankenstein (James McAvoy) and his hunchback Igor (Daniel Radcliffe), who has been reinvented as his brilliant protégé. The interesting twists to the traditional story begin with Igor's origin and continue thru the entire narrative. Most of them provided a fresh perspective, although McAvoy's ranting does get tedious (Radcliffe creates a sweet character). The cinematography, art direction and costumes beautifully capture the period. An absorbing, vigorous and interesting new version.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

9

Mal_oneNov 29, 2015

My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The casting was terrific, the acting superb and was complimented perfectly by its setting and wardrobe choices. Further appeal of this picture comes from the strength in its solid storyline thatMy wife and I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The casting was terrific, the acting superb and was complimented perfectly by its setting and wardrobe choices. Further appeal of this picture comes from the strength in its solid storyline that kept us interested from start to finish. It was refreshing to see a quality Hollywood film that was not simply a special effects production. Well done. We would see it again. … Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

6

TrilobiteGDec 13, 2015

This really is an entertaining adaptation. But it lacks a lot of substance and somewhat lacks integrity. Acting was very enthusiastic but seemed like they were trying their hardest in a story which is so overused and has been done a millionThis really is an entertaining adaptation. But it lacks a lot of substance and somewhat lacks integrity. Acting was very enthusiastic but seemed like they were trying their hardest in a story which is so overused and has been done a million times that they needed something extra for imagination. There was just nothing particularly new or surprising. Plus, the very end scene really got me pissed off from the film's overall moral, it felt like a betrayal in honesty. That said, I wasn't angry with this movie, nor was I bored for the most part. It was solidly entertaining and you'll have a good time at the cinema with this one.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

5

DotTheEyesNov 27, 2015

This is a handsome, but empty production. Or, put another way, it is an imposing shell energized by the lightning of fine acting and craftsmanship, but adrift without a soul. The idea is obvious: create a spry, postmodern, and looseThis is a handsome, but empty production. Or, put another way, it is an imposing shell energized by the lightning of fine acting and craftsmanship, but adrift without a soul. The idea is obvious: create a spry, postmodern, and loose adaptation of the often-often-adapted Mary Shelley novel to attract the audience which drove Guy Ritchie's two enjoyable Sherlock Holmes films to around one billion worldwide. But Shelley's gloomily Romantic story of science gone awry (and the prior cinematic versions which gave us malformed laboratory assistant Igor and "IT'S ALIVE!") proves an uncomfortable candidate for too-cool-for-school revisionism. The result is a curious case of hyperactive lethargy in which no charming diversion—not a wild-eyed camp performance by James McAvoy as the title character, not a love story for a straightened and beautified Igor (Daniel Radcliffe), not the extensive Victorian-era production design, not composer Craig Armstrong's thundering original score—distracts from the fact next to nothing of consequence is transpiring, and there is a waning sense of anticlimax when the film finds its way around to the main creature-feature attraction just in time to end.… Expand

7 of 11 users found this helpful74

All this user's reviews

4

NerdConsultantDec 11, 2015

Victor Frankenstein is not one of the worst films of 2015 but it’s hardly good at the same time. It’s a very forgettable film, it doesn’t really have much to offer, the actors are very decent but they are so bland in this film and it’s aVictor Frankenstein is not one of the worst films of 2015 but it’s hardly good at the same time. It’s a very forgettable film, it doesn’t really have much to offer, the actors are very decent but they are so bland in this film and it’s a real shame that it’s a blight on the careers of Director Paul McGuigan and Writer Mat Landis who are both very talented people, hopefully their next project together will be better. There is very little praise to really give to the film, but at least it’s a decently shot film and it never feels awful, it just feels boring and dull and you know that everyone involved can do better. It’s a mess pure and simple and it’s probably down to studio interference and constant re-editing, which once again destroyed what was clearly a promising film, and it’s a shame for James McAvoy and Daniel Ratcliffe who are actors that I really enjoy and have been given a film that is clearly not up to their talents. I would skip this one altogether if I were you.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

8

chrismovieguyDec 15, 2015

ok saw this recently was it the best movie i saw this year well no was it the worst agin no it was just an avrage movie meant for fun if u go see it looking to be disapointed then thats what u will receive but if u go in with some what hopesok saw this recently was it the best movie i saw this year well no was it the worst agin no it was just an avrage movie meant for fun if u go see it looking to be disapointed then thats what u will receive but if u go in with some what hopes of a good movie then u will be suprized its fun good action great story and scares i say go see it… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

MattBrady99Nov 29, 2015

[Movie opens with Igor narrating]

Igor: "You know this tale". *MOVIE CUTS TO THE END CREDITS* Red Letter Media basically summed up the movie in the most funniest way possible. James McAvoy and Daniel Radcliffe were great in the[Movie opens with Igor narrating]

Igor: "You know this tale".

*MOVIE CUTS TO THE END CREDITS*

Red Letter Media basically summed up the movie in the most funniest way possible. James McAvoy and Daniel Radcliffe were great in the movie, but that's really it.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

10

Unladenswallow0Dec 7, 2015

Not really sure what to make of this, I was a little confused to see Gollum Radcliff scuttling about at the start. Other wise i thought it was good, i dont have anything to compare it to as this move has rendered me permanently brain damaged.

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

2

EpicLadySpongeJan 15, 2016

It's alive! It's ALIVE! IT'S ALIVE!!! IT'S..... oh wait... it's dead. That's funny how there's no negative reviews before this review popped out of nowhere and now there is one.

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

8

TheQuietGamerApr 14, 2016

An exciting reimagining of the classic horror story brought to life (pun intended) by the deliciously mad performances by Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy. Okay, so perhaps "mad" only applies to McAvoy. His eccentric performance as theAn exciting reimagining of the classic horror story brought to life (pun intended) by the deliciously mad performances by Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy. Okay, so perhaps "mad" only applies to McAvoy. His eccentric performance as the bat-crap crazy Victor Frankenstein is outstanding. Radcliffe brings a more human and sweet side to the whole affair.

We really shouldn't be surprised that these two knocked it out of the park. As far as their talent as actors goes, have they ever let us down? Here they seem to be having a lot of fun. Particularly McAvoy. To be honest it's the sense of fun that saves the film. The whole thing is as completely mad as it's title character. It's willingness to fully embrace it's craziness is what makes it so enjoyable.

It's got it's awkward bits though. The moral dilemma is pretty solidly captured, but the interference to Frankenstein's plan brought on by the side characters falls a bit short. Mostly because those characters are so bland. The stars of the show here and definitely McAvoy and Radcliffe. Their characters are lovingly fleshed out with complexities and layers. Everyone else just kind of falls to the side. Not a huge issue, but a flaw nonetheless.

Once you get past the awkward, slow motion ridden opening there is a dazzling movie to behold. One with two fantastic lead characters played by equally fantastic actors. There's also a surprising heart to it all. This is essentially a tale of friendship. It's a crazy, exciting, and at times sweet ride. One that proves to be an exciting and likable horror-themed fantasy. Mostly due to how outstanding it's leads are.

8.2/10… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

TyranianApr 14, 2019

McAvoy and Radcliffe are good but this is a bit of a disaster of a film in several ways.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

Meth-dudeJul 25, 2016

While most of the movie can be seen as boring and cliché, the last half hour, the great CGI and the superb acting by the main characters keep the movie above the average mark.It might not be an excellent movie, but it sure as hell is not a bad one.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

KinkyKidDec 8, 2015

El guión muy malo, flojo, sin chiste, da risa. Por lo mismo las actuaciones son flojas y aunque Radcliff y McAvoy intentan darle sentido a este despropósito no pueden. El diseño de arte bueno pero no destaca y la musica de siente invasiva enEl guión muy malo, flojo, sin chiste, da risa. Por lo mismo las actuaciones son flojas y aunque Radcliff y McAvoy intentan darle sentido a este despropósito no pueden. El diseño de arte bueno pero no destaca y la musica de siente invasiva en ciertos momentos. Muy mala.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

FilmPhonicJan 5, 2016

‘Victor Frankenstein’ kicks off with a narration by Daniel Radcliffe as “Igor” declaring to the audience that “you know this story”, implying that you’re in for something new, or perhaps lowering expectations, intentionally or not. What‘Victor Frankenstein’ kicks off with a narration by Daniel Radcliffe as “Igor” declaring to the audience that “you know this story”, implying that you’re in for something new, or perhaps lowering expectations, intentionally or not. What follows for the best part of 2 hours is a 21st century treatment of this 19th century story, originally set in the late 18th century.

To say that ‘Victor Frankenstein’ shares a lot with Robert Downey Jr.’s recent Sherlock Holmes films would be an understatement, from setting a typically mostly central European late 18th century story in Victorian London, to the stylized dramatic action sequences and overall aesthetic, you’d be forgiven for thinking you’re watching Guy Ritchie taking on Mary Shelley.

James McAvoy stars in the titular role accompanied by Daniel Radcliffe through whose eyes the story is seen, both deliver adequate performances with McAvoy given the chance to flamboyantly overact to his heart’s content, giving the film a graphic novel if not comic book sensibility. The production design is impressive as you might expect, with the dirty streets of Victorian London coming alive, as do the props and of course the creatures, literally.

The film is billed as a re-imagining of the “Frankenstein” story which brings something new, that’s certainly true in terms of veering away from the original novel, but in terms of the 80+ years of Hollywood treatment since, ‘Victor Frankenstein’ takes from virtually every version of this classic story making it disappointingly unimaginative for a “re-imagining”.

Director Paul McGuigan’s film does manage to shine a dim light on the original “mad scientist’s” motivational inner demons and the dangers of scientific overreaching, but despite a good momentum and the entertainment value, ultimately ‘Victor Frankenstein’ is a fuel-injected version of a well-trodden theme.

The Bottom Line…
Silly and fun, uninspired and forgettable, ‘Victor Frankenstein’ is an entertaining but unmemorable romp that offers little that’s new to an established story, beyond its lavish interpretation.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

RalfbergsDec 7, 2016

Great acting and interesting adaptation of Frankenstein etc. Can't really compare it or rate it comparing to other versions as this is the first Frankenstein movie I have seen to be honest. But as a standalone it seemed to be quite decent.Great acting and interesting adaptation of Frankenstein etc. Can't really compare it or rate it comparing to other versions as this is the first Frankenstein movie I have seen to be honest. But as a standalone it seemed to be quite decent. Not impressive, but ok.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

ydnar4Feb 18, 2016

Yet another version of the world famous Frankenstein novel Victor Frankenstein is a blend of several genres and it is really difficult to find a specific one that it fits under. This movie is intended to be reimagining of the classic tale butYet another version of the world famous Frankenstein novel Victor Frankenstein is a blend of several genres and it is really difficult to find a specific one that it fits under. This movie is intended to be reimagining of the classic tale but there is still not anything revolutionary going on. I enjoyed the first two acts of this film it may not have been the story that I was looking for but there was some fun to be had. In the third act though, everything falls apart in just a few scenes and it completely drags on and when the time comes you are not invested in the ending at all. James McAvoy was really the reason I watched this film in the first place and he is great here but there is some pretty obvious overacting in spots. Radcliffe is pretty solid as well as he often is.… Expand