Victor Frankenstein (2015)

Victor Frankenstein: While we have a young Frankenstein this is no Young Frankenstein as Igor's hump turns out to be an abscess which is swiftly drained by VF. But there is a verbal allusion to YF. No numbskull, Igor is an assistant, nay, a partner to VF.VF meets Igor during a visit to the circus where the poor soul is abused but VF recognises Igoe's abilities when he observes him save the life of an acrobat. He rescues Igor from the circus but an evil clown is killed during the escape. This draws the attention of a religiously obsessed Scotland Yard Inspector.A Steampunk version of VF set in London during the late 19th Century captures the horror and wonder of the story but has a vein of humour running through it. The Monster when he finally appears, bears an uncanny resemblance to IDS. Definitely leaves the prospect of a sequel. 8/10.

"I looked into the eyes and there was nothing there!"It would be unpleasant of me to direct this quote from Lorelei (Jessica Brown Findlay) towards James McAvoy's performance as Frankenstein, but it isn't without a certain truth here. As with his turn in 2016's inexplicably acclaimed 'Split', his every movement, intonation, posture, grin and gesticulation never lets us forget he is acting. With sentences instilled with dangerous singularity, McAvoy spits out the words in textbook eccentric, rapid staccato. He is indulged by Paul McGuigan's excellent direction and looks great, but rather like a stage turn projecting to the back rows, there is not one ounce of anything naturalistic about his Victor Frankenstein. Perhaps it is deliberate; the confidence, bravura, enthusiasm, heightened unreality might be traits attributed to Frankenstein - or to these heightened performances in general - but unlike co-star Daniel Radcliffe's Igor (for example, and other characters too), we never *know* him, never like/dislike him, never really care for him, not even when the truth is revealed about his brother (Henry, brother of Victor: two of the most often-used names for Baron Frankenstein over the decades). As with all things, I can only offer my opinion on this.The long-awaited creation scene is spectacular. Occasionally threatening to lose hold of reality, it nevertheless takes advantage of modern filming technology; we can actually travel along the power-lines with the electrodes as they head for the inanimate creature. Whereas the first experiment involved a hellish and extremely effective chimpanzee amalgamation, the eventual human monster is battered and torn by the elements even before (or perhaps during) a time when life has been given him. A clay-like golem, he is a spectacle, but has no time to be anything more. An enhanced, stomping killer hulk that brings the house down.In two pleasing (deliberate or otherwise) nods to past glories, the police inspector Roderick Turpin (Andrew Scott) loses a hand (à la one-armed Inspector Krogh from 1939's 'Son of Frankenstein') and the monster is animated only to wreck the laboratory and bring things to a close of sorts (à la the monster rallies at the end of the 1930/40's Universal run of pictures). Despite my reservations about McAvoy's performance, I enjoyed this a lot. It breathes new life into the pioneering story, which is no mean feat after all these decades, whilst never losing the guiding light of Mary Shelley's original novel.

Not really a retelling but an imaginative prequel to the original 1931 Frankenstein film which itself was a major deviation from the book.Some people may think this is a retelling, but by the end of the film it's clear that it is a prequel, though the hints are there all along.The film has much to commend it, including the acting of James McAvoy (Frankenstein), Andrew Scott (Detective Turpin), and Jessica Findlay (Igor's love interest). The music and photography are excellent and the set and costume people create an excellent picture of Victorian London.I particularly liked the idea of the film being told from the POV of Igor.On the negative side, Daniel Radcliffe's performance added very little and the film was a tad too long.There is nothing to match the 1931 original nor the 1935 Bride of Frankenstein, but otherwise this film holds up well against the hundreds of other Frankenstein films. OK. I'm not counting the Abbott and Costello version, which is great.

if the start point is the novel of Marry Shalley, nothing. if the start point are the adaptations of the little , splendid novel, not more than "decent". because nothing new is discovered by the viewer. except, many, the religious dimension who is used not in the most inspired manner and the poor Andrew Scott, who could be a decent Javert, gives, against his noble effort, sketch of a character. sure, the intentions of director are is real good.and technically, the film is a good job.but the story seems be a sentimental improvisation, at the limit of soap opera. so, what to say ?