User Reviews

I'm going to be honest, this is the not the movie I thought I had selected. I confess I wanted to watch the big blockbuster Aaron Eckhart I Frankenstein (2014)and it was only about 20 minutes in of the eccentric scientists treating their 'monster' like a baby I decided to check what I had selected. There is no gentle way around it, Frankenstein is violent! It's quiet almost tranquil moments are shattered by outburst of mutilation and gruesome beatings. The narrative creates a disturbance within your opinions of the monster; you sympathise with him being in a new world alone and scared without the mental capacity to comprehend his existence, but then you fear him and despise the pain he inflicts on others (even when they deserve it). The writers playing on the age old theory that the scariest monsters are those that closely resemble humans. The acting is beyond good, the story an interesting take on the Mary Shelley classic but there was something that didn't sit right with me watching this film. Maybe it was because I was expecting an over-budget under-story movie with Frankenstein Vs Gargoyles, or the psychological battle the lead character creates for the viewer. Either way if you can stomach the violence then worth a watch, but would not be the top of my list.

Modern update of the famous story, here set in LA. Instead of a nuts and bolts style monster, such as Karloff, we have a pretty boy who is fond of saying the word "Mum". We get the young girl thrown into the lake, plus the befriending by a blind guy (well played by Tony Tod, who generously pays for Adam - I mean the monster - to have his wicked way with a hooker!). Plenty of gore. And production values are all good enough too. Now I'm all in favour of reimagening classic stories but I felt that this one didn't quite work and if I want to see a Frankenstein movie then give me Universal or Hammer instead.

I had high hopes for this movie.

I've watched every Frankenstein movie I could, and this one is the worst one I've ever seen. It's bad enough that it is boring and slow, it is sad, sad, sad.

While the acting is very good, it in no way redeems this movie, in my humble opinion.

Talk about about a depressing movie, this one is the most depressing movies I've ever seen.

I cannot recommend this movie in good conscience.

However, if you like depressing movies, then this is the one for you!

Did I mention that this movie is depressing!?!?

I haven't read what people are saying about this movie. I can just say that it is a 100% cruel story. It is cruel to see how everyone turns out to be a victim: the Monster, his victims and his "mother". Shocking images throughout guarantee that this movie fall into the horror category, but it is certainly not a good horror movie. In fact, it can be considered "effective" only due to the heavy use of gore and violence, but it lacks both character and story development. Also, I have some problems with the adaptation itself. For me, the monster looks more like Dorian Gray rather than Frankenstein. Similarly, the script was rather weak, though I really enjoyed the performances of Carrie-Anne Moss and Xavier Samuel. The bottom line: This movie will be good for the ones who like to suffer, but for me it is a lot of clichéd stories brought together by a very underused cast.

I skipped this small release (although it does feature recognizable actors Carrie-Anne Moss, Danny Huston and Tony Todd in supporting roles) in my survey of Frankenstein films back in 2018 during the 200th anniversary of Mary Shelley's novel, apparently, as I now know from seeing it, with good reason given that it's largely a retread of the same episodes we've seen in prior cinematic adaptations of the popular story--mainly, the 1931 Universal classic. There's the "It's Alive!" reiteration, the little girl being tossed in a lake, the mob attack and the monster threatening Frankenstein's white-clothed bride in her bedroom--none of which is actually from the book, but rather from the 1931 film. That's not to say these filmmakers didn't read the source, though, as they evidently did from some of the additions here: the blind man, the narrated philosophical musings and a fiery end closer to the original text than to James Whale's pictures.

The most readily apparent distinction of this version is, of course, how grotesque the monster is, but there are also a couple other oddities here--one of which makes me happy I saw the movie. First, the part I'm not keen on is the picture's biblical allusions. Besides the creature being named "Adam," when the Frankensteins go about trying to murder him, they strap him down in a crucifixion pose, although they employ supposedly-more-civilized means to execute him with lethal injection. Little wonder, then, whether this Christ figure will be resurrected. Come to think of it, though, the 1935 sequel "Bride of Frankenstein" also included some Christ allegory with Boris Karloff being tied up by a mob--so this part isn't even that unusual.

Yet, the dreams are something else. My ranking of Frankenstein films is now over 50 entries, and I've never seen one movie that attempted to depict in any way the disturbing and intriguing nightmare from Shelley's story. This one comes closest. In the book, Victor Frankenstein's dream of kissing Elizabeth turns into one of his embracing his dead mother. The dream here, while it plays out seemingly for more bittersweet intent and from the creature's dreaming, still manages to incorporate similar suggestions of incest and necrophilia. The Elizabeth Frankenstein in this movie, after all, is both the mother figure to the creature and the focal point of his romantic and sexual desires. Each time the monster attacks Victor Frankenstein, then, to get to the mother, it becomes an Oedipus complex. That seems more frightening to me than a guy made up to appear covered in boils.

This is a very interesting take on the Frankenstein tale. We get to see the Monster basically take his first breath and become born into this world. He slowly becomes accustomed to being alive when suddenly he's betrayed by his creator and thus sets about on a rampage. This film illustrates it fairly well and I feel like the character of Adam/Monster is fairly sympathetic. He lacks a vocabulary like in the novel and in the 1994 adaptation, but it's far more realistic for the vocalization capacity of a newly formed creature. Bernard Rose does a fairly good job directing and the pastoral dream sequences are nice in particular. It has a nice pace and good use of practical special effects. The Monster's transformation was thoroughly engaging and I feel if anyone is a fan of the horror genre that they should at least do themselves a favor and see this interpretation.

6.75 of 10. Frankenstein zombie or Frankenstein clone? It's definitely not Frankenstein robot. Nonetheless, it feels like a horror story inspired by Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? - or at least the the question, not the more developed Blade Runner adaptation.

It's better than any of the film/TV versions of Frankenstein. Rather than trying to stay literal to a story we know is, at least technically, nonsense, it pursues a more realistic though still at the moment purely sci-fi angle.

What makes the film engaging beyond the slightly revised plot setup is the pacing and the thoughtful adaptation and fitting in of the book characters that interact with "Monster". What makes it less engaging is the narration. By the end it feels like a setup for either a TV series or a sequel or 2 rather than a complete story.

Bernard Rose has successfully translated Mary Shelley's original novel by turning it into a Cronenbergian body horror tragedy.

The performances are stellar with Xavier Samuel making a heartbreaking Monster and Tony Todd stealing the show as a blind musician.

The direction is superb and horror fans will be pleased by the gruesome practical effects. If there are any weak points here, it would be the extremely brisk pacing and a few odd editing decision.

The ending is also frustratingly abrupt. Beyond that, it is nothing less than a triumph of genre filmmaking and the sort of thing I wish to see more of from the horror world.

The plot was decent. It didn't always make sense but mostly worked. The problem with this film is only a string of bad things happen. So while the movie manages to be moving at times, it's a miserable experience overall. I was expecting a happy ending since the monster narrates the film and he sounds highly intelligent and sophisticated which turned out to be misleading... Bottomline, I recommend this to anyone who enjoys sad, tragic films.

Right, well first of all I didn't even know that this movie was released back in 2015, I guess it was overshadowed by "Victor Frankenstein" that was also released that very same year.

Regardless, I stumbled upon director and writer Bernard Rose's 2015 "Frankenstein" movie in 2019 and decided to give it a view, based solely on the fact that it was based on the Mary Shelley novel. I didn't even know who starred in the movie, and had not even heard about it prior to sitting down to watch it.

I must say that the movie was a mixture of both good elements and not so good elements. First of all, the cinema world really didn't need another interpretation of the Shelley classic, and spicing it up to be modern really didn't alter that fact. With that being said, then I will also say that this 2015 version is actually one of the more enjoyable adaptions in quite some time.

I had perhaps expected a bit more horror elements, given the novel it is based upon, but this was more of a thriller mixed with drama elements than it was a horror movie, much to my disappointment.

However, I was rather impressed with the cast they managed to get together for this movie. First of all, I am not familiar with Xavier Samuel whom played Adam, but he really put on a great performance in this movie. But the fact that they had the likes of Carrie-Anne Moss, Danny Huston and Tony Todd on the cast list was a pretty nice achievement.

What worked the best in this updated modernized adaptation of Mary Shelley's timeless classic was the focus on the characters and the storydriven plot. I must admit that I was actually entertained throughout the course of the entire movie. Just a shame that the overall result of "Frankenstein" was a mediocre one.

The appearance and transformation - or shall we say decay - of Adam, Frankenstein's creation, was actually quite nice, and it was definitely a factor that kept the movie afloat and semi-interesting.

Having watched this 2015 rendering of "Frankenstein", I can honestly say that while it was entertaining, the movie was also at the some time mundane and generic. And it is hardly the type of movie that you will watch a second time.

It's definately graphic, the story was good but could have been executed differently to make more if an impact in its final build up. It's really a very heartbreaking story and Xavier Samuel pulled off "monster" beautifully. His heartbreaking portrayal of this poor creature had me pulling for him regardless of the terrible things he does.

It's not one I'd watch again for the story but I'll definitely rewatch for Xavier Samuel's performance.

So I saw this movie recently and honestly, its not that bad even though the monster is not made from dead body parts like in the book, hes somehow engineered and hatched in a lab in a giant incubator. So right off the bat the creepiness of the original is not there.

But main problem is that you just don't really have to much sympathy for the Monster. You cared a lot more about Boris Karloff in the original! This time, the monster is this really good looking guy with an Aussie accent -- and how I ask you -- are we supposed to feel sorry for a good looking Australian guy with an accent?!?!!?

Even though he was brutalized you just didn't really care to much. Just grossed out by all the violence and blood! So, Id say that was the major problem with this movie. That and the fact that it takes place in LA which just made it another sci-fi along the lines of "Embryo" or something like that... definitely not the True Spirit of Frankenstein.

Just look at the difference between this movie and "The Elephant Man." There was a classic! You really cared a lot about the elephant man, John Merick. Right off the bat you liked him no matter how grotesque he looked. You really cared. People in the audience were crying when he died.

But now in this movie,you just don't really care, your just waiting to see what happens and how he dies. Thats all. They tried to make the monster like an infant, a grown baby, but then they made the mistake of having an adult narration, so that didn't make any sense at all. It would of been much better with a very juvenile, basic narration with simple words to match the simple brain he had... The director said the narration was straight from Mary Shelly's book, but because they went with this Big Baby concept, instead of the Dead People stitched together concept, the voice over narration just didn't make sense! Very contradictory. This was unfortunate and severely hurt this movie I believe

OH WELL, at the end of the day I guess it still had it's moments Carrie Anne Moss always pretty good, Danny Huston,,, meh but Tony Todd was cool playing a blues playing home less guy... Hes great in everything, what an actor! - So I guess overall this movie really was not that bad, but honestly it was just not even anywhere CLOSE to the original with Boris Karolff - a true Cinema Classic!!

Anyway i give it a "2" because the Bad Badger with the gun at the beginning was to cute!

This film is about as ok as a film can be. The acting is ok. The story is ok. The script is ok. The camera work is ok. Sets were ok. Sound was ok. It was about as "middle of the road" as anything you'll ever see. Completely forgettable but not because it's bad. I'm only writing this review so I even remember I've seen it.

Bernard Rose has a knack for bringing the human condition into characters on screen, and from there, transposing it to our minds as audience members when we are experiencing his pictures. 'Candyman', 'Paperhouse', and 'Immortal Beloved' are all zenith examples of mythical "genre films" wherein the real themes presented are the characters themselves, and the iconographies of genre lay by the wayside, standing as mere coincidence, rather than complete audience draw. In his newest picture, a modern retelling of Mary Shelley's classic story of Gothic horror and the default of man and his flaws, 'Frankenstein', carries on this method, and even perfects it in many areas.

Like 'Candyman', this film attempts to project the feared myths of culture past and folklore on an already assuming audience in attempt to bring the tale to real terms. What we get in return, is a story not about fabled characters, but real people; people that we all know. The plot (given brief) concerns itself with a more loyal take on the story - Doctor Viktor Frankenstein (Huston), his wife (Moss, who has never looked lovelier), and their assistant are research scientists attempting to create the perfect proto-human (Samuel). Once this goal is achieved, there may be a way to create cures and longevity in the medicinal field. The project is completed and a man is born.

Scientific difficulties prove unforeseen and our perfect human being becomes something a little less human. A practice to put the proto-man down via lethal injection backfires, and thus the "Monster" is unleashed upon the world. Instead of a London town in history, unleashed upon in fear, we have the modern Metropolis of Los Angeles swept away in doubt. This propels the story (and film) to a platform that renders anything possible, and for anything to happen. And it does. Many of the characters from the story are present here, devoutly portrayed, and slyly woven into the very fabric of how we view society today.

What this brings about, is an emotionally charged, utterly compelling, and beautifully deranged epic tale with relevant themes that reign very akin to previous Rose fare: Prejudice, class struggle, inner demons vs. the evil of man, et al. All the violence, degradation, mutilation, and gore to be found in the story are present, but in a way that reminds us how very human, and vulnerable we are. Slight bits of comic relief litter the film, but the direction is so spot on, and the story, so poignantly told, that it's actually difficult to catch the drift, and spot the poetic irony. Rose indulges in his fare share of gore, violence, and the surrender of man in the face of true danger, all the while making the audience realize how ignorant we are to how bad the world can be, and therefore taking away the sense of security we feel sitting in a darkened movie theater, and pulling the veneer off of the simple picture we are experiencing. However, it's there, in all it's glory. Rose tips his hat to the underdogs of the world today, while reminding us that it also takes a man (or woman) with good intention to bring about the changes that the world is perpetually cycling through.

A good film will, regardless of genre or intended audience, make it's audience laugh, cry, tremble, or become angry. The best ones are capable of accomplishing all, and leaving the audience in the deepest comatose state of reflection upon leaving the Movie House. Bernard Rose's adaptation of "Frankenstein" manages to do all of this and more. In the end, he delivers a bona fide ADULT Horror Movie that should satisfy genre fans and fans of the original story alike. Sadly, the film, being distributed independently will probably never be as recognized as it's predecessors, given the desensitization to horror and the egoistic regain of people of the "I" generation, who even in this film appear to be the real "Monsters" of this world.

Yes pun intended or meaning both the movie and the "monster" itself. This is a modern adaptation of one the best known monsters. Though obviously many still confuse the name Frankenstein (the inventor) with his creation (which would be the "monster" and not Frankenstein). But back to this, because by updating this and giving it somewhat roots in reality here with a great cast, the movie achieves something that other newer adaptations failed to do.

We do feel for the monster, which is splendidly portrayed here. It's almost existential to a point. What is life? What is the meaning? So all the things that made or rather make Frankensteing the story great, can be found here. So I do wonder: Where is the love? (again pun intended)

Cartoon fighting weird narration low budget like really low

I've read the original book and seen countless movies on this.

Totally crap! 2 stars for the actor portraying the monster.

Totally crap and disappointing!

I so much wanted to like this film but came from it thinking it was just okay. The effects were good, the acting not bad and the story, now this was the problem. Firstly it was all over the shop, and some scenes didn't make sense. When Adam was in the ambulance and the police try to kill him, why? In the station, yes the police were angry with him but don't give him a chance, they just shout at him and leave him in the room. When Carrie Ann Moss gets to the station, they believe her and don't ask why Adam has her work badge. Way to many mistakes which over ride the positives. A bit of a let down truth be told, watch it today, forget it tomorrow.