Victor Frankenstein

"Victor Frankenstein" is a weird movie using Mary Shelley's notorious and famous character. There are many versions of this adaptation of the novel to the cinema, but this one rewrites the story in a totally different situation. The result is entertaining and intriguing in the beginning but becomes boring and annoying in the end. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Victor Frankenstein"

Everyone knows the story of Frankenstein, whether or not you've seen the films. A mad scientist named Victor von Frankenstein, with help from his friend Igor, manage to reanimate a corpse consisting of different parts from different bodies. A monster, if you will. From a storytelling perspective, Victor Frankenstein is as run-of-the-mill as you can get. The only unique aspect is that it's told from Igor's perspective, which isn't much different since Victor is still a large part of the story. We all know what's going to happen. Even the first line is, "You know this story," and it proceeds to tell it to us again. The only conceivable reason I can think for this movie's existence is for the performances. James McAvoy is excellent as the mad genius, and Radcliffe does a fine job as his right-hand man. Andrew Scott is always nice to see, playing another antagonistic role as the inspector assigned to Frankenstein's case. And Charles Dance makes a small cameo for some reason as Victor's disapproving father. But the bulk of the movie revolves around Victor and Igor, as you can imagine, and it's exactly what you would expect, beat by beat.

Victor Frankenstein is not a bad movie in the traditional sense. If this was the first telling of this story, it would be a perfectly serviceable standalone film. But since it's so well-known, nothing about Victor Frankenstein is memorable. It's just the same narrative with different actors playing it out. No surprises, no innovations, no purpose. Just a talented cast reenacting a renowned tale.

It's the story of Professor Frankenstein and his creation as you'd expect, but it's primarily the study of Igor, his man servant, we get his history, his present, and a glimpse into his future.

It's a very good film, it's very nicely made, beautifully acted, it's a very nice gothic drama. I would argue it's not a horror as the classification states, if you are wanting lots of Monster action there isn't a great deal of that, what there is looks fantastic.

Great special effects, particularly at the dramatic finale, it looks terrific.

Not sure which of the two was billed as the star of the show, maybe an equal billing, but Radcliffe is excellent. I love how on occasion you hear McAvoy's wonderful Scottish accent peep through.

Clever and well made, 7/10.

"You know this story. A crack of lightning. A mad genius. An unholy creation," intones Daniel Radcliffe's Igor Strausman, who warns us at the start not to expect a literal re-telling of Mary Shelley's beloved horror classic. Instead, as imagined by writer Max Landis, this latest spin focuses on the relationship between the titular mad genius – played by James McAvoy – and his trusty associate Igor who becomes instrumental to his dream of re-animating the dead. Yes, though Victor first meets Igor as a nameless hunchback at the circus, the latter is in fact a gifted physician whose knowledge of the human anatomy makes him invaluable to Victor's plan of assembling various organs into an outer shell and introducing life into it.

But even before that, Victor recognises something special in the filthy clown with the rat's nest of a hair who rushes to the aid of a trapeze artist Lorelei (Jessica Brown Findlay) following a near- fatal fall during a show and manipulates her bones in order to save her life. So Victor decides to give the destitute sad-sack a new lease of life by first busting him out of the circus, where at his cavernous home cum laboratory, he proceeds to drain the fluid from the young man's massive abscess, fit him with a back brace, and give him the name of his absent flatmate Igor whom Victor says is a morphine addict who has not been seen for months. Igor is indebted to Victor, and so without much question, assists his 'saviour' in his experiment to bring life to a homunculus stitched from animal- part discards from the local zoo.

If you're waiting for the iconic hulking man-monster to appear, let us warn you that you'll have to wait until the very finale, which takes place on a very stormy evening in a remote Scottish castle right next to the sea. Indeed, this is less a movie about Victor actually creating his monster and what happens afterward than about the process leading up to that pivotal moment, which its director Paul McGuigan centres on a debate between theology and technology as well as an emotional complement in the bond between Victor and Igor. To introduce the former into the narrative, McGuigan interrupts the scientific proceedings with the entry of a moralistic Scotland Yard detective (Andrew Scott), whose past has not only made him a man of unwavering faith but also obsessed with stopping Victor's experiments he perceives as Satanic.

It is also this said inspector who causes Igor to question Victor's research, especially in the wake of Victor's Royal College of Medicine presentation of his first hodgepodge Prometheus which unsurprisingly does not end well. Not unsurprising too is how Victor is constructed as both the emotional and moral centre of the film – though he starts off subservient to Victor, Igor struggles with the ethical implications of using science to achieve immortality, which ultimately leaves him conflicted with the dilemma of sticking by the person who had rescued him from eternal ignominy or following his own conscience. Igor also finds his heart with Lorelei, who makes a somewhat amazing recovery to help Igor find his centre of being.

Though the romance is contrived, McAvoy and Radcliffe are actors with charm and gravitas, and they make good use of both qualities to keep us engaged in their bromance. McAvoy overdoes the mad-genius bit on more than one occasion, but is on the whole appropriately brash and obsessed to play the brilliant, extroverted yet socially bizarre Victor. At least Radcliffe complements his partner with a nicely understated performance, which expresses his character's anguished, good-hearted and conflicted nature at various points. Next to Victor, Igor is a much more straightforward persona, but Radcliffe does what he can to make us empathise with the latter's plight.

On his part, McGuigan keeps a tight balance between horror, drama, romance and even a few spots of comedy, while ensuring that the pace doesn't sag. No stranger to Victorian-era London from directing several episodes of 'Sherlock', he forgoes more handsome evocations for a more grimy and downbeat vision of 19th-century London that is more befitting of the grotesqueness of Victor's creations. Oh yes, despite the rating, you'd do well to note that some images are absolutely not for the squeamish, in particular because the film does not shy away from displaying the various organs of the body which Victor uses to assemble his unhuman work of science.

As an origin story, you could do much, much worse than 'Victor Frankenstein', which is loud and messy all right, but has a quieter, more grounded centre on its arguments of faith versus science as well as a compelling relationship between its two lead characters. That's provided of course that you're willing to accept a revisionist take in the first place, with Frankenstein played as a soulless hulk that is prone to violence but nothing more and relegated almost to an afterthought right at the end. Like we said, this isn't about the monster as we typically know it, but the journey leading up to its creation, one that is undeniably intriguing in itself.

Does that mean that it's better than others? Maybe not, but maybe you are looking for a new way of telling a story that you are familiar with. Some do not like this, others really cherish the way this movie went. And it's up to the viewer to decide what he wants from a Frankenstein movie. A theme that I'm pretty sure everyone watching has heard of at least, before watching the movie.

Since I haven't read the novel, I'm not sure if some of the "changes" are already in the book, but weren't used before in other adaptations. Both main actors are really good and convey the characters they portray. With all their flaws and downfalls, with all their dreams and hopes. Whether you agree with those or not, this is more than a decent effort and a really good movie