Victor Frankenstein

Perhaps the Frankenstein name is indeed cursed, there hasn't been a great Frankenstein based movie in years, even decades. From last year's I, Frankenstein to Van Helsing who only has it as subplot, all have met mediocre fate. Now armed with robust acting power and visual that oozes Victorian era, also a bit or horror and action attached somewhere, another rendition shares the same exact fate; cinematic tediousness.

A slight modification to the narrative is made, just like Sherlock the movie is narrated from the sidekick's perspective, in this case Igor's (Daniel Radcliffe). Aside from that, there's barely anything new that hasn't been done in similar or better fashion. To its credit, it's not utterly terrible in term of presentation, in fact the visual is rather nice. It's quaintly dark and electric version of last decade metropolis, Tesla would approve.

James McAvoy as the titular Viktor really tries hard on establishing the character. Given the stale material, he still manages to squeeze some emotional scenes as well as a good chemistry with Radcliffe in a bromantic kind of way. Andrew Scott from Moriarty fame, now plays the role of Inspector Turpin. He's the polar opposite of Viktor, conservative yet equally clever and ambitious.

Unfortunately, the far too familiar plot fails to produce any thrill, the strong acting prowess ends up rehearsing the same routine of mad scientist's banter. There's screaming, philosophical argument, faux science and slight mental abuse by the two leads. It's a lot of noise of little dramatic effect. Not that the script is bad in any way, it has occasional witty lines although any hint of humor or charm is muffled by the overly melancholy tone.

At some points, the movie tries to dabble in horror, action and even romance subplot. The atmosphere is already primed for thriller, but the shocking abomination is ironically timid and unmemorable. Action consists of a few scenes of slow motions repetition. Despite the production offering distractions, the main story line is very straightforward and streamlined, and sadly also predictable.

For all the star and flair, though they might be mildly amusing, the end product is a medium so lacking of life.

"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"

"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

Greetings again from the darkness. If a filmmaker is going to mess with the classics, there are two paths of creativity from which to choose: stay true to the original, or put a new spin on it. In this case, the classics in question are the nearly 200 year old novel from Mary Shelley (1818) and the nearly 85 year old movie from James Whale (1931). The filmmakers doing the messing are director Paul McGuigan (Lucky Number Slevin) and screenwriter Max Landis (son of director John). The spin they chose was (in theory) to tell the story from the perspective of Igor, the loyal assistant to Dr. Frankenstein.

It's an interesting approach, but one that immediately presents a problem … since the title they chose was not "Igor", but rather Victor Frankenstein. The film does begin with Igor's backstory in the circus as a hunchbacked clown/amateur doctor, and the character does provide some early and late narration. The conundrum stems from the fact that pretty much everything else in the movie is centered on the mad scientist, rather than the skilled apprentice/partner.

Daniel Radcliffe plays Igor and James McAvoy plays Victor Frankenstein (not Fron-kin-steen, in a nod to Mel Brooks), and both actors seem to be doing everything possible to bring energy and enthusiasm to a movie that can't seem to decide if it's a reboot or a reimagining or simply an origin story. Radcliffe effectively uses his physicality as the circus clown who is so mistreated and misunderstood, and McAvoy is such a hyper-active mad scientist that I'm sure his fellow actors many times were inclined to advise "say it, don't spray it". McAvoy does seem to be having a grand old time playing the brilliant yet unhinged young doctor-to-be, and to his credit takes a much different approach than Colin Clive when he gets to the infamous line "It's ALIVE!" The best parts of the movie are the intricate and amazing sets, the monster himself (albeit too brief), and the expert use of classical music and film score. The circus sets are colorful and active, while Frankenstein's soap factory home/laboratory is fascinating and creative, and the final Scotland castle on a cliff is breath-taking. Pulleys, chains and cranks are everywhere … as is an incredible amount of body parts, organs and fluids.

After a very well done circus opening, we are jarred with a seemingly out of place action sequence involving a slo-motion chase and fight scene that seems to be attempting to mimic some of the recent Sherlock Holmes movie stunts. Here they are unwelcome and ruin the flow. Another aspect that seems forced and unnecessary is a romantic interlude between Igor and a trapeze artist (played by Jessica Brown Findlay). It feels like an add-on to remind us that it's supposed to be Igor's story. Additionally, Andrew Scott plays an intriguing Scotland Yard Inspector who is every bit as obsessed with his faith-based beliefs as Victor is with his science-has-no-bounds stance. A story told from the Inspector's perspective might have worked, but instead it comes across as another add-on. Another add-on is the filthy rich and very devious fellow med student (played by Freddie Fox) who agrees to fund the experiments, but mostly the character is an after-thought necessary to move the plot along. Wasted is the always menacing Charles Dance, who has but one scene as Victor's strongly disapproving daddy.

A combination of the romance, minimal role of Igor in the grand finale, the medical school bumbling, the clunky Inspector involvement, and the all too brief monster appearance makes the film all but impossible for viewers to connect. They tell us twice "You know the story … a crack of lightning, a mad genius, and an unholy creation", but the reality is, the fact that we know the story, makes this one all the more disappointing. It's fun to look at, but is lacking the depth and soul that has allowed Shelley's book to stand up over two centuries.