Victor Frankenstein

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: November 25, 2015

5.5	USER SCORE Mixed or average reviews based on 127 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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