Victor Frankenstein

The monster should be the highlight of Victor Frankenstein, but it's not. Perhaps in the moment when Frankenstein and Igor are still trying to revive the creature, which is stitched together from parts of monkeys, it works. But the moment the main monster appears, it's boring. Simply an action spectacle without any originality or depth. Overall, the film is extremely drawn out and all the characters are kind of underused. (30.10.2016)

The fact that parts of the movie seem filmed a bit in a B movie style changes nothing about the fact that I had quite a pleasant time watching it. It’s a pity that the middle part of the movie was quite boring. Fortunately, the ending saved the whole movie and improved the impression of this new-age Frankenstein story quite a bit. With James McAvoy, you can really see what a good actor he is. At the beginning, it wouldn’t even occur to you, but towards the end, his madness was literaly unrestrained. It’s a pity that the madness was so severe that it lacked any semblance of logic. It only pointed out the precision of the actor’s portrayal of the character, but a psychologist would have a bit of a problem trying to analyze the character. Well, I will happily leave this analysis to the wannabe experts. All in all, I was more satisfied than dissatisfied. The movie isn’t life-changing, but it does deserve a solid three-star review for sure. (17.05.2017)

Solid Job. The film is pulled up by the three leads: a manic James McAvoy, a solid Daniel Radcliffe, and the diabolical Andrew Scott, whose dialogue is at times almost disturbing, The film has a properly dark and dirty London atmosphere, great costumes, top-notch visuals, smart dialogue matched with elegant and polite British English, and an enjoyable and entertaining pace accompanied by science and medicine. The highlight of the film for me came right at the beginning, and that was the escape from the circus, which was filmed very briskly, originally and with fine slow motion, but the destructive ending with its eerie Frankenstein imagery was also a delight. Paul McGuigan also manages to create a cramped and creepy atmosphere in places (the experiment with the chimpanzee). I had a pleasant time, maybe there could have been more action, but to complain about a story whose source material everyone knows is completely irrational. A better choice than Hunger Games. Story 7/10, Atmosphere 7/10, Gore 0/10, Visuals 8/10, Action 4/10, Suspense 7/10, Humor 5/10. Entertainment 7/10. 75%. (27.11.2015)

Victor Frankenstein offers an alternative take on the story revolving around one of the most famous movie monsters of all time, and this time they’ve tried to present the subject in their own distinctive way, focusing mainly on Victor and Igor's relationship, which was both a plus and a minus for the film in the end. The film indeed plays nicely with the visuals, interspersed with many slow motion shots and CGI effects inside (not only) people, so it didn't look so drab. The plot was a bit wilder in places (SPOILER!) and personally I was expecting a bit more "involvement" of Frankenstein's monster, so I was a bit disappointed (END SPOILER!). In short, one more experiment to dress up a classic in a slightly different guise, which in the end landed in grey mediocrity. (30.01.2016)

A perfect James McAvoy, honest design and visual effects (the monster looks amazing - he's very similar to classic Karloff) and Craig Armstrong's music is great. The directing, which is also kind of seen in Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes, got about halfway there, and sadly, Daniel Radcliffe is bad. He didn't suit the character of Igor, and the story confusion, which tried to make something more out of all this by giving us uninteresting villains, but it didn't. It's not a completely bad film (certainly not as stupid as I, Frankenstein) and I didn't suffer, but I also don't feel like I ever want to watch it again. Ok, maybe a few of the scenes. (24.02.2019)