Victor Frankenstein (2015)

the leading man is my tpye

Wow! Such a good movie.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

I love Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy, and the two for me were just spectacular! Their Acting was amazing! I particularly loved the dialogue and the dark and sinister feel of the beginning scenes. Daniel played quite a convincing hatchback lol. For some reason I liked the story been told from his point of view. Another interesting bit is when you are from a place like Ghana in West Africa, you don't grow up knowing much about America myths (because of course you have your own country specific myths to worry about) so a story like Frankenstein's was known to me wayyyyy older in my life, and frankly all I can remember about it is the Monster not the Man. This adaptation, for me reveals somewhat the MAN not so much the monster.

Nothing beats Mary Shelley's story. Nothing. However, that doesn't mean a writer shouldn't try to write his/her own adaptation.In this adaptation, we have an interesting change of events and characters. We have Victor Frankenstein (McAvoy) rescuing Igor (Radcliffe), a circus hunchback and self-taught doctor and transforming him into his medical partner. We have a Scotland Yard detective hot on the duo's tails. We have not one, but two monsters. We have several typical formulas (perhaps too many) already seen in other movies. We have too many conflicts muddying the story, and we don't have Shelley's message... Or any message at all. Both McAvoy and Radcliffe have created interesting characters, but never really take us deeper. Even when we learn that the untimely death of Victor's brother is what turns him into a "mad scientist". Charles Dance, as father Frankenstein, is riveting. Unfortunately, he only has a few lines. He should have been used as the antagonist instead of the religious detective who is on Frankenstein's heels throughout the story. Who can relate to a religious zealot detective these days? Especially, when the writer doesn't give us any back story other than his wife is dead. On the flip side, most everyone can relate to father/son squabbles.The CGI sets, costumes, and props in Victor Frankenstein are colorful and full of rich detail. However, dazzling us with fake backgrounds and antique-looking objects doesn't help to elevate this story to Shelley's masterpiece novel. And neither does the adaptation. Read Mary Shelley's book. It's a masterpiece with a message that will live on forever.

We all know the story of Frankenstein. Or at least we think that we do. I've read the novel, and seen a number of movie versions (some faithful to the novel, some not). Paul McGuigan's "Victor Frankenstein" branches the story out, telling it from Igor's point of view. It's odd, since there was no assistant in Mary Shelley's original novel, least of all a hunchbacked one. But here we get Igor's backstory and how he came to know the doctor whose name is synonymous with bad science, and how they set about animating a dead body.Unfortunately, much of the movie is sort of silly. Although I liked how the depicted the police inspector as a hardcore Christian fanatic who considers science a form of witchcraft - sounds like a lot of Christians today, doesn't it?* - the movie goes too far on CGI. This isn't something of which Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy should be proud. It's not a bad movie, but it shouldn't be your first choice. "Young Frankenstein" is the best adaptation ever.*A strange irony is that so many of the religious people who denounce science as witchcraft or something similar have no problem using all of life's modern conveniences, all of them based on science.

A story told more times than this has needed to be, it is proof to me that the alterations to the plots of classic literature is as wrong as messing with nature. James McAvoy is Victor Frankenstein, rescuing abused hunchback Daniel Radcliffe and renaming him Igor after de-humping him by removing the liquid from a severe growth. He knows that the newly monikered Igor is a genius when it comes to medical procedures and utilizes him in his bizarre scientific experiments. It's up to the moral Igor to stop McAvoy from going too far, which is an understatement considering his plans.Starting off perfectly fine, this quickly descends into predictable melodrama and noisy, dizzifying camera work, and even a disturbing creature I can only refer to as Frankenchimp. Not giving you moments to think or breathe, it goes right back to the issues of 1994's "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" which tried too hard to engage its audiences through visual tricks.Looking like Vincent Price at the height of his American International. Edgar Alan Poe era, McAvoy is far too intense, melodramatic and yet not quite camp. Radcliffe manages to be subtle and seems to be trying to tone what the legend of Igor was, much like the melodramatic manner that Robert De Niro attempted to play the creature. It just gets to be too much rushed together, and even with the look of authenticity towards the setting never really completely gels.