The Frankenstein Theory

I think what bothered me the most about this movie is that it couldn't decide what kind of movie it would be. Is this a found footage documentary or is it a traditional movie? It's hard to suspend belief when things like this are inconsistent. For instance, there are 5 people in the group at one point. They are all in a tent. The camera holder is in a sleeping bag. So who is holding the camera? Also, if this is found footage, what is there music and sounds during the "boo" moments? It was questions like these that made it hard for me to get into. It was pretty slow, but I appreciate the slow burn kinda movie, so that didn't bug me too much. The acting was solid. Nothing great, but nothing laughable, either.

I found this to be a bit more interesting than some of the other documentary style found footage films I've seen. The story is basically about a descendant of the real Dr Frankenstein trying to prove that there really is a monster, and that the novel was not really a work of fiction as everyone believes it to be. He has made it his life's work and is obsessed with proving his theory. No one really believes him and think he's nuts (including his wife), but a documentary crew led by a personal friend of his follow him to Canada where he is convinced he will find the monster.

I've seen some really negative reviews about this film, but I don't think it's too bad.

I have researched the novel and taught Frankenstein at the university level for a number of years. I have also read the novel at least fifteen times, so I regard this film as an intertextual work rather than a stand-alone work, and that probably makes a huge difference. As far as I know, no successful film adaptations of the novel exists. Kenneth Branagh's "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" is interesting, but ultimately it is a howler of a B movie thanks largely to Branagh's decision to make Victor Frankenstein a wholly admirable character. "The Frankenstein Theory" illuminates the novel just as much, or more, than Branagh's film.

The film is a sequel to the novel. At the end of the novel, the "creature" jumps off a ship near the North Pole and bounds over the ice, having promised that he will build a funeral pyre and kill himself in the Arctic wastes. But does he? That's the question that drives the story of the film.

The writer/director obviously knew the novel as well as its biographical background. Jonathan reflects the monomaniacal determination of Victor Frankenstein. His backstory--expulsion from Oxford--also refers to the biography of Mary Shelley's husband, Percy. References to Percy Shelley's "Ode to the West Wind" and to Mozart's Requiem--a commissioned work that ultimately became the composer's own requiem--create some clever textual layering. Percy Shelley presaged his own death, as does Jonathan and his crew in the act of documenting their pursuit of their own killer. Some of the tension of the frame story of the novel is captured, too: Victor Frankenstein has been rescued by Robert Walton, a captain with a hired crew bound for the North Pole (which had not yet been discovered). The film crew in "The Frankestein Theory" are analogous to Walton's nearly mutinous crew.

The premise of documentation is also meaningful in relation to the novel. Like many works of Gothic fiction, the novel is presented as an epistolary narrative--a documentation of "true" events. It is composed of some letters by Walton and a transcript of the story that Victor Frankenstein tells to Walton. At least one previous IMDb reviewer claimed that this entire film is a rip-off of "The Blair Witch Project," and, while I see the similarity, I think this misses the point. "The Blair Witch Project" and many other contemporary horror films (e.g., "The Ring" and "Paranormal Activity") foreground the act of documentation--a conceit they owe to Gothic literature. This film is the only one I know that actually acknowledges and plays knowingly with that debt.

Let's not stop there. "The Frankenstein Theory" plays with a couple other visual genres as well--the mockumentary (especially "The Incident at Loch Ness") and reality television shows based on wilderness survival. It also offers a delightful homage to "Jaws." The guide, Carl, played by an uncanny double for Viggo Mortensen, delivers a comic drunken story that parallels the terrific sailor's tale spun by Anthony Quinn in Spielberg's film.

Finally, let's face it...the Frankenstein story has never been truly terrifying in any of its manifestations. The novel is certainly creepy, but it's mainly a novel of ideas. This film should be credited for combining brainy intertextuality, comedy, and at least a few mild thrills. It's certainly not the scariest movie I've ever seen, but that's not the point. It IS the scariest media representation of the Frankenstein myth I've seen, with the possible exception of Blade Runner--another brainy, intertextual film.

It's not a masterpiece by any means, and I probably won't watch it many more times, but I enjoyed the movie. I went in with no expectations and was pleasantly surprised. The snowy outdoors areas they were in were creepy and in a way are more creepy than the woods. The writing and pacing needs work. The Frankenstein Theory feels like a ghostly image of a really good movie when you watch it... parts of the movie are good, some under-baked, some forgettable, and the movie itself feels like a ghostly image. You can see how good it potentially could be. I don't really disagree with the other reviewers that pan the movie or the ones that like it. If you are amenable to movies where a group of people are out on their own (like this movie and Blair Witch Project), then you'll probably be more receptive.

Honestly never got the "story" to this movie. I almost turned it off in the beginning during a drawn out 'interview' stage, but decided to give it a little while longer... reached to turn it off again due to irritation at a relationship based on a woman who apparently despises her boyfriend, only around to yell at him in front of others, then talk behind his back and berate him... yet, upon heading out to get a drink, I returned, it was still on and watched some more. It turned out to be the worst thing I have watched this year, for sure. Possible the worst I have watched in the past couple years (nothing comes to mind that can out-rank it in crappiness). Seriously thinking the 10 * ratings that go into music and other details (I do not even remember music other than one song toward the end; and I will admit it was not bad... only reason I did not balk at being made to give 1 star and no 0 stars available) are made by people associated with the film, especially when there is only ONE review made by them on the accounts. lol