Inglaterra, 1875. Un siglo después del malogrado experimento de Victor Frankenstein, sus diarios han cambiado de manos durante décadas.Inglaterra, 1875. Un siglo después del malogrado experimento de Victor Frankenstein, sus diarios han cambiado de manos durante décadas.Inglaterra, 1875. Un siglo después del malogrado experimento de Victor Frankenstein, sus diarios han cambiado de manos durante décadas.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
Opiniones destacadas
This is a Frankenstein follow up ??.
A woman gets hold of Dr Frankensteins diary and recreates his experiment on her husband to cure him 100 years after Frankensteins original monster.
This diary has been sought after by many but a secret group are trying to locate the diary and destroy it for good as it goes against nature and god.
Sounds fairly interesting and and the overall concept is solid.
The costumes and settings are pretty believable for the time, around late 1800s.
The dialogue is a bit wooden however like a stage show, I'm pretty sure this is down to both the writing and the poor way in which the actors deliver the lines attempting to sound authentic from that Era.
There are some experienced and decent actors here but I never felt they embraced the ideology or the era properly.
Phillip Martin Brown does a decent job here but not enough to carry the film.
The way in which it was shot also removed an authentic feel and resembled a higher image quality version of a 90s tv movie.
I watched this to see Michelle Ryan as i liked her in Eastenders and the she did Bionic Woman and then her career fizzled out.
She appears later in the film in a limited role.
There were quite a few moments watching this where I chuckled at some of the poor dialogue or the poor delivery or facial over acting.
Honestly Id skip it even if you have Prime, unless you are a huge Frankenstein fan but then you might hate it even more.
4/10.
A woman gets hold of Dr Frankensteins diary and recreates his experiment on her husband to cure him 100 years after Frankensteins original monster.
This diary has been sought after by many but a secret group are trying to locate the diary and destroy it for good as it goes against nature and god.
Sounds fairly interesting and and the overall concept is solid.
The costumes and settings are pretty believable for the time, around late 1800s.
The dialogue is a bit wooden however like a stage show, I'm pretty sure this is down to both the writing and the poor way in which the actors deliver the lines attempting to sound authentic from that Era.
There are some experienced and decent actors here but I never felt they embraced the ideology or the era properly.
Phillip Martin Brown does a decent job here but not enough to carry the film.
The way in which it was shot also removed an authentic feel and resembled a higher image quality version of a 90s tv movie.
I watched this to see Michelle Ryan as i liked her in Eastenders and the she did Bionic Woman and then her career fizzled out.
She appears later in the film in a limited role.
There were quite a few moments watching this where I chuckled at some of the poor dialogue or the poor delivery or facial over acting.
Honestly Id skip it even if you have Prime, unless you are a huge Frankenstein fan but then you might hate it even more.
4/10.
Well, I had no idea what to expect on this movie. I thought maybe it was a horror film and I had not seen the previews or at least that made me remember anything about it. So I went in kind of blind, not having any expectations on this movie. But I found myself laughing in some of this movie and it kept me entertained and that's what a movie is for so I do believe it deserves at least a rating of five or higher. You won't be bored in it and for any of the younger folks, they were really find the movie, enjoyable, and funny. It's one of those movies that teens can see and it's just not a horrible or provocative show. So I felt like it was a movie that was fine for teenagers.
From the start it's clear this is a VERY cheaply made movie. They get an old house, dress some people up in period costumes and get out the digital camera.
It sure isn't Universal's Frankenstein. Heck, it's not even Hammer's Frankenstein.
The writing is really bad and the directing is amateurish. Perhaps because of a low budget that require a lot of close up so you don't see the surroundings.
It tries to be a serious effort but its all bogged down by a complete lack of talent for all involved.
Not sure why they bothered to make this movie. The concept might be OK but it really requires a bigger budget and better writing and acting to make it work!.
It sure isn't Universal's Frankenstein. Heck, it's not even Hammer's Frankenstein.
The writing is really bad and the directing is amateurish. Perhaps because of a low budget that require a lot of close up so you don't see the surroundings.
It tries to be a serious effort but its all bogged down by a complete lack of talent for all involved.
Not sure why they bothered to make this movie. The concept might be OK but it really requires a bigger budget and better writing and acting to make it work!.
The direction was solid overall, and the production design was visually engaging.
One of the most impressive aspects was the richness of language and expression, particularly in the portrayal of the doctor. The mother's character was intriguing, though unfortunately underdeveloped in several key areas. A deeper exploration of her emotional world and psychological depth would have added much-needed weight and resonance to the story.
However, some events came across as shallow or unconvincing, and the characters' reactions to them felt either weak or completely absent.
Additionally, a few performances such as that of the nurse were noticeably weak.
The portrayal of the young woman seeking the book from the mother was especially disappointing; the role had significant potential but failed to deliver any emotional or narrative impact..
One of the most impressive aspects was the richness of language and expression, particularly in the portrayal of the doctor. The mother's character was intriguing, though unfortunately underdeveloped in several key areas. A deeper exploration of her emotional world and psychological depth would have added much-needed weight and resonance to the story.
However, some events came across as shallow or unconvincing, and the characters' reactions to them felt either weak or completely absent.
Additionally, a few performances such as that of the nurse were noticeably weak.
The portrayal of the young woman seeking the book from the mother was especially disappointing; the role had significant potential but failed to deliver any emotional or narrative impact..
For a low budget film, I thought this was a very good effort that keeps in the spirit of Shelley's classic. The location of the old house was great and I think the best coup of the film. Great use of sets and decent acting. It was fun to see Michelle Ryan (Zoe from Eastenders) in a role again though wish she was in it more.
Small complaints were that I think some of the character scenes went on for too long and not enough of the monster. Also the location of the old house made other locations really stand out as sets (cut from a beautiful stately home to cheap looking special effects of an asylum)
Otherwise, great watch for a lazy afternoon.
Small complaints were that I think some of the character scenes went on for too long and not enough of the monster. Also the location of the old house made other locations really stand out as sets (cut from a beautiful stately home to cheap looking special effects of an asylum)
Otherwise, great watch for a lazy afternoon.
¿Sabías que…?
- ErroresWilliam and Liza mention Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson - yet the film is set in 1875, 12 years before the publication of the first Holmes story, but this could be a joking reference to imply that Holmes and Watson are real people.
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Frankenstein: Legacy?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 41 minutos
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta