"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. The crackling lightning. The mad genius. An unholy creation."

And so opens up the lastest interpretation of Mary Shelley's legendary novel-turned-pop culture myth. So, what does this version add to the time-tested tale? Surprisingly, a fair amount.

An amalgamation of various film versions (taking most of its cues from Universal and Hammer), this film tells the origins of Victor Frankenstein through the eyes of a nameless hunchback who, after a quick and very nasty surgery, is dubbed Igor. It tells the story of how the world around Victor reacts to his experiments, from the conniving entrepeuneur to the over-zealous man of faith trying to stop him.

And how does it all hold up? Again, surprisingly really well. The chemistry between Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy sparks the film up quite a few notches while Andrew Scott, Jessica Brown Findlay and Freddie Fox all make good work of their admittedly under-developed supporting roles.

The direction by Paul McGuigan is energetic and lively, even if the pace is a tad too frenetic at times. The use of practical effects for the monstrosities that our heroes bring to life are impressive to behold and everything is boasted by a powerfully theatrical score by Craig Armstrong and some beautiful production design by Eve Stewart.

As I said, pacing is a tad too fast and certain bits of writing could've used some tweaking, but the cast and enthusiastic direction definitely make this a more than worthy entry into the Frankenstein mythos that I will gladly welcome into my collection as soon as it makes its to Blu-Ray/DVD.

I'm pleased to say that it is very much alive.

There are no spoilers here, just a real person's true review. I almost did not watch this due to the overall reviews, and that would have been a shame, because I liked it. To all the naysayers looking for a solid track to the original story, this is a bit different. This a a completely different take. Parts of the movie were not so great, but overall, I LOVED IT.Depends on what you're looking for. If you are looking for a story perfectly true to original - not so much. This movie is a wonderful alternative view. I appreciate and really enjoyed the risk-taking and the different view. May not be for everyone, but thoroughly enjoyed it.

"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.

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.

We follow the story, mainly with Igor. Igor is taken in by Victor Frankenstein; His life flips upside down, they become a team, and we, the audience continue to follow the adventures, as well as embodiment of these two characters, as they both create a scientific breakthrough. Or in this case, reanimation. Honestly, I found this movie to be a little misspoken for. I can see where many were expecting non - stop occurrences with the reanimated creature we've all come to know and love. Before anything else of this review, there is little of that. But here's the thing, does that make this entire thing bad? No. This film was actually creative, and quite good. First off, I honestly love the charm, and creativity of this story. The entire execution of the film's telling of this entire tale, I found to be flawless. The entire telling fell within the amazing character chemistry between Igor, and Victor. Which, by the way, both Daniel Radcliffe, and James McAvoy had amazing chemistry together. You could watch, and feel the connection their characters, if that, actors shared together. The characters in this film, while on the topic, were all around great. I can't emphasize this enough, horror, if that, thriller's now, usually have unlikeable characters - But not here. This film has characters that you could actually bare with, characters that'll you'll grow to, and actually bond with, sharing feelings for their actions. Of course, however, you have a small collection of characters you grow to dislike, but of course by intend of the film itself. I personally found the entire, overall plot, and storyline to be charming. I found the rescue, and bonding of savior friendship between Igor, and Victor to be all around charming, and just flat out awesome. It thrills us, audience, while at the same time develop feelings for the characters. Moving to visual elements, first of all, I honestly loved the entire visual effects of this film. I felt as if it was beautiful, and succeeded in giving us a flat out, solid display of the Victorian era, or in other words steam-punk. It felt intriguing to look at, visual eye-candy as far as the eye can see, giving an attention - grabbing effect. The camera work compliments as well, giving us some pretty well placed shots of which show the action sequences, as well as the meaningful ones. Lastly. I honestly liked the creations. The re-animated figures looked distorted, something they're supposed to succeed at. It didn't look cheap, and honestly was great for the time they came around, with their grotesque features, not too gory, or disgusting, but at the same time not too light, or cheap.

In conclusion, this film succeeds in a pleasant surprise. Once again, I can see where people get disappointed, as we see barely any real "Frankenstein" or in this case, the reanimated monster, at least not as much as many may of expected. However, the film succeeded in dismissing that, as we're giving many succeeding elements, including stunning visual effects, great, likable characters. I fun, at the same time thrilling story, and an overall unique charm that doesn't disappoint. Although, as said before this wasn't a strong "horror" but for what it was, aside the dismiss of the appearances of monsters, this was a fun film, enjoyable, and over all fantastic. I'd highly recommend this one.

If you are wondering what different things can they do for this very familiar story to make it worth watching - they do succeed in giving a fresh perspective - Igor's The cast is likable and watchable. Daniel Radcliffe is a good actor and his roles since Harry Potter are actually show his range. The transformation from hunchback to Igor is quite an extreme makeover. James McAvoy is a also a very convincing actor and acts obsessed enough. Despite both actors being small sized they can pull off a big action movie. Jessica Brown Findlay of Downton Abbey is a pretty love interest (for Igor no less) and her role isn't irritating.

The first resurrected creature and organs are quite morbidly frightening for what they are.

The ending is grand but kind of wonder what did Victor expect once they brought him to life? Anyway it's not necessary to look to deep into a story like this.

Worth a watch.

It's hard not to be cynical about Hollywood sometimes, particularly when it produces films as lazy as Victor Frankenstein, an uninspired origin story of Victor Frankenstein and his assistant, Igor Straussman.

Before a chance meeting with Victor Frankenstein (James McAvoy), a then nameless Igor (Daniel Radcliffe) worked as both a clown and a physician. A medical incident one night at the circus leads to their first meeting and Igor becoming Victor's assistant.

Sharing a passion for medical science, the pair embark on a project to bring about life from death. After a few mishaps, Igor feels they should stop but Victor's drive to make a name for himself leads to the most volatile creation that even he thinks is too far.

Right from the very beginning, Victor Frankenstein feels all over the place. Paul McGuigan directs the film as if he hadn't made his mind up on what sort of film this should be. Unfortunately, in the end he went with an edgy modern retelling of a classic tale that brutally highlights McGuigan's lack of imagination as a filmmaker.

Considering the acting talent in Victor Frankenstein makes it even more of a disappointment. James McAvoy majorly hams it up as Victor, coming across as a mix between Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock Holmes and David Tennant's Doctor. Daniel Radcliffe, who I've never thought to be a very good actor, takes a step backwards with his portrayal of Igor, with awkward line delivery and no chemistry being his main problems here.

They also manage to waste Andrew Scott, most famous for playing Moriarty in BBC's Sherlock, as a police detective on the tail of Victor. His character is so underwritten that Scott has little room to manoeuvre and ends up delivering one hell of a monotonous performance.

Max Landis' story lacks any real punch and his script is daft yet not totally void of quality which, considering the history of this story that he had to work with, is a real shame. There are some good visual effects that lead to some entertaining moments and Craig Armstrong's score is a rare highlight in this ultimately disappointing film.

I pray to God that the last scene isn't one that means we are going to get a sequel mind, because that is really what we could do without.

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.

Despite what the trailers will try and tell you, "Victor Frankenstein" is in fact a fairly straightforward, character-driven drama about the relationship between mad scientist Victor Frankenstein (James McAvoy) and his hunchbacked assistant Igor Strausman (Daniel Radcliffe) that just happens to have a few monsters.

Rather than remake the classic story (or should I say monster), "Victor Frankenstein" is a prequel revealing the origins of Dr. Frankenstein's most famous experiment. Effectively filling the gaps provided by Shelley's novel, this film provides a ghastly look at his first hideous, soulless attempts at creating life, which predate the sympathetic, flat-topped creature as portrayed by Boris Karloff that we all know and love. That being said, this film owes much more to the film adaptations of Frankenstein than the book itself. A tip-off is the prominent inclusion of Igor, an invention not of Shelley's but of Universal Studios, who cast the incomparable Dwight Frye as Fritz in James Whale's "Frankenstein" (1931), which morphed in Ygor and finally Igor in subsequent sequels and adaptations.

Bearing a somewhat misleading title, the film is really Igor's story. Working as a nameless freak in a circus due to his physical deformity (which Radcliffe portrays brilliantly; he could be the next Lon Chaney Sr.), he is a stranger to kindness until he meets Victor, who recognizes his brilliant mind and vast medical knowledge. Igor is given a new appearance, a new name, and a new life by his generous benefactor, on the condition that he work as Victor's partner and assistant, bringing his expertise to animating individual body parts for use in the highly-strung medical student's unholy enterprise. Victor, in his megalomania, as the "creator" of Igor, demands his complete loyalty, something that is easy for the grateful younger man to give until he strikes up a romance with Lorelei, the aerialist he worshiped from afar during his time at the circus. Slowly, he begins to see beyond his unwavering devotion to the disturbed madness of Victor's mania for creating life out of death.

To add to the conflict, Victor and Igor find themselves being pursued by the Javert-like Inspector Turpin (Andrew Scott), who, as a man as consumed by his religion as Victor is by his rejection of it, refuses to rest until he and his ungodly experiments are brought to an end. This gives the film a chance to explore the cautionary message present in Shelley's novel about trying to control to forces of nature in further depth than simply showing the misbegotten monsters alone.

Visually, "Victor Frankenstein" is a treat. Turn-of-the-century London is portrayed in equal parts glittery and grimy, with period-appropriate costumes and hair adding to the effect. You can't have a "Frankenstein" movie without a few dead bodies, and this film is not shy about showing the various viscera, though it is all for a purpose and is far from excessive, with much less blood, gore, and grotesqueness than I was expecting. Much more is implied than actually shown in detail. As someone who avoids modern horror films for their indulgence, I applaud the filmmakers' restraint. The action scenes, which number precisely four and take up less than a quarter of the film's one-hour and forty-nine minute running time, are brief but intense, though rather tame when compared with your average action movie. They give Radcliffe a chance to utilize his gift for physicality, which he plays to the fullest.

Yet for all its trappings as a horror film, the heart of "Victor Frankenstein" is the relationship between Victor and Igor. Both social misfits, they find themselves appreciated for who they are for the first time in their lives. It soon becomes very clear that Igor is the only real friend Victor has in the world, and that the latter, for all his grandiloquence, needs his lowlier creation more than Igor needs him. The chemistry between Radcliffe and McAvoy is there and is what makes the entire film tick. They both give equally strong performances individually, with McAvoy perfectly capturing the monomaniacal, socially awkward mad genius, a sharp complement to Radcliffe's soulful, loyal, levelheaded partner, but together they are a powerhouse, bringing delightful touches of humor and pathos to an otherwise rather serious film. More than once I felt myself growing teary-eyed. How many horror films can do that?

As to the many negative reviews, I don't believe the critics and I watched the same movie. The pacing and focus was tight, the acting good, the film itself a rather straightforward drama with dashes of horror and action thrown in rather than a mixed bag, and the various subplots, rather than distracting from the main plot, came at the appropriate times, and helped to move it along. The only faults I found were the slight overuse of slow-motion in the action scenes, the rather quirky choice of superimposing anatomical drawings over various characters, and the script's occasionally on-the-nose dialogue (though Radcliffe and McAvoy's sincere performances made them less noticeable), but these are small qualms. Overall, there is much more to like than to dislike.

My only explanation for all the hatred is that "Frankenstein" is a revered novel with a strong literary following; critics came in expecting a remake of the classic monster story, and after they were disappointed at what they saw as a desecration of Mary Shelley's 1818 novel, they took their vengeance out on this film, which never pretended to be an adaptation of that story in the first place. It goes without saying that if you're expecting a faithful facsimile of Shelley's novel or a 360-degree reinvention, you're in for a disappointment, because "Victor Frankenstein" is neither. But if you want to experience a well-acted, entertaining prequel to the classic story, you're in for a real treat.

The opening shot, blurry, a figure moving in slow motion, brought to my mind a scene in the book of the monster seen going across the snow- covered landscape from a distance, ... but that is about as close to the book as the film gets, which is both good and bad. It's good because it tells an original take on the story, but it's also bad because it tells a mostly satirical story, told from Igor's perspective, largely poking fun at the clichés in the various film versions of Frankenstein, rather than a faithful adaptation of the novel.

James McAvoy hams it up as Victor Frankenstein, with a brilliant intro ("Might I know your name?" Igor asks him, Vic turns to look at Igor, freeze frame, title appears) while the rest of the cast downplays it nicely, Jessica Findlay is quite attractive, even in the unrevealing Victorian-era clothing. The film is sightly more serious than its comedic-looking trailer made it appear. Good sets and costumes, and some quick witted, sharp dialogue, but the story never really comes alive (pun totally intended)

Curiously released at Thanksgiving 2015, it might have fared better than its $600.000 opening if it had been released at Halloween. Considering this was filmed in late 2013, it surely must have been ready for Halloween 2015, or 2014 for that matter.

Everyone else has made in depth reviews, but no one had explained why this movie totally fails to live up to its inception. The premise is established early on, Igor's perspective and his love for a woman, as well as the promise - we know what happens in the end.

The movie, 50% in, departs into the all to common trash heap of needless violence and leaves Igor standing in the wings doing nothing. What could have been an amazing study in humanity degrades to mindless slashing, screaming, and absurd carnage.

It was very disappointing to leave the most interesting characters and plot points in the wings: the love interest of Igor, a brothers immortal bond, the parable of death and life as seen through Igor. The brother could have been a TRUE REVELATION but was cast aside for mindless violence. An original ending would have left Igor staring at the castle just before the "event" but not entering. We could have felt the pathos, experienced mystery and dread, actually felt a personal bond with the characters... but no. Mindless spectacle destroyed everything.

I went to see the film because I am a fan of James McAvoy, but sadly the movie did not justice to the amazing performance of James and Daniel Radcliffe.

The editing and script was so bad. Each scenes are very disconnected and scattered. It also feels very jumpy and certain places were not explained well. I especially hate how they use the title opening "Victor Frankenstein" as if it is a verbal line in the movie.. It was SO ODD!

The lines were also very cheesy and clumsy, which you just wouldn't speak to each other like this in real life. It was only of James' amazing acting skill that makes the movie barely watchable!

Everyone knows the story of Frankenstein, whether or not you've seen the films. A mad scientist named Victor von Frankenstein, with help from his friend Igor, manage to reanimate a corpse consisting of different parts from different bodies. A monster, if you will. From a storytelling perspective, Victor Frankenstein is as run-of-the-mill as you can get. The only unique aspect is that it's told from Igor's perspective, which isn't much different since Victor is still a large part of the story. We all know what's going to happen. Even the first line is, "You know this story," and it proceeds to tell it to us again. The only conceivable reason I can think for this movie's existence is for the performances. James McAvoy is excellent as the mad genius, and Radcliffe does a fine job as his right-hand man. Andrew Scott is always nice to see, playing another antagonistic role as the inspector assigned to Frankenstein's case. And Charles Dance makes a small cameo for some reason as Victor's disapproving father. But the bulk of the movie revolves around Victor and Igor, as you can imagine, and it's exactly what you would expect, beat by beat.

Victor Frankenstein is not a bad movie in the traditional sense. If this was the first telling of this story, it would be a perfectly serviceable standalone film. But since it's so well-known, nothing about Victor Frankenstein is memorable. It's just the same narrative with different actors playing it out. No surprises, no innovations, no purpose. Just a talented cast reenacting a renowned tale.

Yet another retelling of Mary Shelley's horror tale Frankenstein, this one focuses more on action and downplays the horror. I went in with low expectations after the reviewers mostly panned it.

Daniel Radcliffe stars as the hunchback Igor, Dr. Frankenstein's assistant. He works as a clown in the circus, backstory that was extrapolated on since Igor isn't even in the original novel. The hunchback is quickly dispelled in some ridiculous fashion about a puss filled growth on his back and his spine is straightened by a contraption so that Radcliffe can walk around normally and be a handsome lead. His performance wasn't terrible and I hope the Harry Potter actor continues to get interesting roles in movies.

James McAvoy was entertaining as always as the mad scientist himself. He seemed trapped within the confines of the script and the tired retelling but usually he lights up the screen in any performance. There was a hint at a sequel at the end but I think that was just wishful thinking.

Check out more of this review and others at swilliky.com

'VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN': Two and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

Another adaptation of Mary Shelley's classic monster tale 'Frankenstein'; this one is told from Igor's point of view. It stars Daniel Radcliffe as Igor, and James McAvoy as Frankenstein. It also costars Jessica Brown Findlay, Andrew Scott and Freddie Fox. The film was directed by Paul McGuigan (who's also helmed movies like 'LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN' and 'WICKER PARK') and it was written by Max Landis (who also wrote 'CHRONICLE' and 'AMERICAN ULTRA'). The movie received mostly negative reviews from critics, and it horrifically bombed at the Box-Office (as well); it's not that bad though!

The film actually tells the origin story of Igor (Radcliffe), Victor Frankenstein's (McAvoy) assistant. Igor was a hunchbacked circus clown, when the aspiring medical student, Victor Frankenstein, found him. Victor frees Igor, from his captors, and cures him of his giant cyst (and bad posture, because of it). He then enlists the surprisingly intelligent young man's help; in his extremely ambitious medical experiments. At first Igor is very excited, to be apart of such groundbreaking scientific work, but then he realizes Victor is insane; and his experiments are extremely dangerous.

The movie is pretty cheesy, but somewhat entertaining. Radcliffe and McAvoy both give it their all, in their performances, and the directing is adequate. Landis's script is rather disappointing though, considering what a talented writer he's already proved to be; there's been many more original, and entertaining, adaptations of Shelley's classic work. Still, it's not nearly as bad as it's been made out to be.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/41q3ZuWGdEE

Just wanted to give my two cents on a great movie that is not getting a lot of recognition. I went to the movie because I wanted to see James McAvoy and Daniel Radcliffe in a movie together. Not really because I like the story Frankenstein. I was pleasantly surprised by an interesting, intense, and very believable film. The cinematography was dark, sort of like the Moulin Rouge movie. It was just really good from start to finish. Clean acting and engrossing story. The scenes where they are bringing dead things back to life can be very graphic and disturbing at times. I thought this would have been a better release around Halloween with an R rating. But overall awesome movie. I liked it better than Bond, Mocking jay (both good), and the Good Dinosaur (not that good). I reflected on the movie long after I left the theater, which to me, means I saw a movie that got me thinking! Only reason I gave it a 9 is, well, a 10 is a tough score to get!

Im just speechless as i saw that this movie got a rating as high as 6.2, i'm sure that most people who gave it a high rating saw only the trailer at best.

let me tell you a little about this movie without spoiling and pray god that my English will be understandable, well what this movie is about is that you wait for something to happen and you wait and you keep waiting and.... it happens, but when it happens actually nothing happens, to summarize it two weirdos make something to destroy it in the end, exactly like a kid who makes a sand castle but in the end he gets bored and destroy it.

This movie is a waste of time.

"The world of course remembers the monster not the man, but sometimes when you look closely there's more to a tale. Sometimes the monster is the man." Victor Frankenstein (McAvoy) is an eccentric scientist who has a dream of creating life from death. After rescuing his assistant Igor (Radcliffe) from the circus he has finally found someone he can work with. After bringing to life a small animal he is approached and asked if he can make a human. Victor and Igor set out to change the world, but somethings should be left alone. A story this old that has been told and seen over and over again faces an up hill battle. How can you turn something like that into something fresh and new? This one really pulled that off. The story you know is here, with a few needed twists and additions. This movie deals more with the madness within Victor rather than the actual monster itself. The best way to describe this is a Frankenstein done in the style of the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies. A movie that is just fun to watch and really adds to the story that everyone knows in a way that does make it seem new and exciting. Overall, surprisingly good and a movie that I recommend if you want to be entertained for a few hours. I give this a B+.

Despise the bad reviews from some viewers on IMDb I did enjoy Victor Frankenstein. There's been a lot of movies based on Mary Shelley's novel, some bad ones and some good ones, and I thought this version belongs to the good ones. It's a different approach but entertaining to watch. Daniel Radcliffe proves that he can act something else then Harry Potter. His collaboration with Victor Frankenstein played by James McAvoy works perfectly well in this dark picture. There are plenty enough moments of disgusting creatures and scenes to make the more sensation seekers happy. Why some people rate it so low remains a mystery to me. There are thousands of worse movies then this. I truly enjoyed it and I'm sure a lot of people will do also.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was more intended as a cautionary than an horror tale about man trying to become God; however in many aspects it respected the fight of man against the darkness of the morals and religion imposed limits of that age.

This new version basically retells the classic story giving more importance to Frankenstein assistance Igor; than the original movies gave; but is still Victor (and his madness) story.

The movie ends (perhaps a little to abrupt) few minutes after the monster is created; which is a pity because the second part is as much interesting as the second and full of grave concerns about human nature.

In any case; Paul McGuigan (the director) keeps the movie always interesting with elaborated action scenes, a few comic situations, lots of suspense but mostly because of the excellent chemistry between the two main characters.

Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy gives two outstanding performances as Igor and Victor Frankenstein. While the first is required a very physical acting as the deformed Igor the second has to make believable a borderline, sometimes hideous but still charismatic scientific. Both give a lot of themselves and make the movie works.

In brief; if you liked the Boris Karloff movies; this one will not disappoint you. Is well structured and somewhat updated retell with lots of respect on the original. If you are not familiar; this will like you; but let's hope the second is someday made in order to appreciate the whole novel.

No movie captures the theme of the mad scientist better than this movie. James McAvoy's depiction of Victor Frankenstein is a show stopper. He absolutely carries the movie. His performance is fantastic. The movie also contains a finale that can be best described as hysterical. It must be seen to be believed and enjoyed. It is one of the great endings in recent movie history, maybe in all of movie history. That scene alone is worth the price of admission. In a way, this movie is a throw back to the movies of the 1930s, replete with all the electrical gadgetry, castles and large cavernous interiors with open roofs to let in the lightening. Electricity plays a key role in the story. The pacing of the story is fast and relentless. This Victor Frankenstein is truly obsessed, indeed frantic. Nothing will stop him from creating life out of nothing. But although obsessed, he is also engaging and charming, albeit erratic to the point of distraction. But that's to be expected from a scientist who's into what he's into. Daniel Radcliffe is also excellent as Igor, but this is James McAvoy's movie. Essentially, this movie is a prequel to the actual, well-known Frankenstein story. The movie also contains a moral: when you create a monster you must be able to kill it too. Otherwise you're asking for trouble. What was Frankenstein doing before he created the monster played by Boris Karloff? To find out, watch the movie.

I liked this, but then I'm (a) weird and (b) a massive fan of Steven Moffat's "Sherlock" and series of "Doctor Who," especially the current Capaldi era. There's enough crossover here with "Sherlock," with the director Paul McGuigan having directed most of the best episodes of "Sherlock" as well as inventing the technique of expressing its genius protagonist's thoughts on screen in the form of graphics (also used here to illustrate the ingenious ideas of Victor and Igor) as well as "Sherlock" cast members Andrew Scott, Mark Gatiss, and Louise Brearly, for it to count as part of the "Sherlock" canon. The fact that the Creature that Victor and Igor design has two hearts sort of ties it into the Whoniverse as well.

I have a theory that McGuigan would have liked Andrew for the role of Igor but was told that if he wanted McAvoy for Victor he'd have to get a marquee name for Igor. Which is fine: Daniel Radcliffe is adorable in the role and Andrew gets a break from being adorable in his stern grown-up role.

I do think there was a deliberate choice here to transfer the paradigm of Sherlock and John's complex working friendship into that of Victor and Igor--like John, Igor is a lost soul rescued by the friendship of a socially backward but brilliant and sort of even heroic man, though the comparison sort of stops there. James McAvoy's Victor bears no resemblance to Cumberbatch, either as Sherlock or Frankenstein, and he's an original as far as screen Frankensteins go, a fiery, passionate man full of infectious joy in the act of creation. He's really fun to watch.

Since the film's bombed at the box office there won't be any sequels, but there's rich material here for fanfics so the cultists who will inevitably be drawn to this film and get it despite its sub-zero ratings on Rotten Tomatoes will take care of that. Thanks in advance.

It is a shame this movie got almost no marketing whatsoever. I don't even remember seeing a trailer for it on TV or even youtube. We didn't make it to the cinema on time to catch The Good Dinosaur so we ended up seeing this instead. This film explores the relationship with Igor and Victor Frankenstein. I know that sound boring but James Mcavoy's portrayal of the mad genius alone if worth the price of admission! He is hilarious, energetic and off the wall. This is very much a character driven film but the story is solid and the action and special effects are more than enough to satisfy everyone. It is refreshing to know Hollywood can still turn out films that do not need to molest your eyes with CGI and explosions to keep you entertained. It is a shame how most people will discover this film only after seeing it on a smaller screen.

This is the best Frankenstein movie I have ever seen.

I've seen plenty of movies and TV shows pertaining to Victor Frankenstein and his monster. And I enjoy watching Victor Frankenstein (2015) more than anything I've seen. :D

While I think most Frankenstein movies have focused mainly on the Frankenstein Monsters, this new movie focuses mainly on Igor & Victor Frankenstein the people.

We see both Igor's and Victor's characters develop throughout the movie, which is I think is really refreshing. Igor's character developed the most, but we also see Victor's character development.

And there is also that very important romance element between Ignore and the beautiful girl. IMO, no movie can be fully enjoyable with some romance. IMO, the hero should always get that beautiful girl and they should live happily ever after. :D

Of course, no Frankenstein movie would be complete without the monster, and this movie actually has not just one monster, but 2 monsters, which is also different than most Frankenstein movies. In addition, the ultimate monster creation is quite unique in terms of physiology. It's insanely awesome in terms of anatomy IMO. I absolutely love it. :D

So although "Victor Frankenstein" may not be Oscar worthy in the eyes of most people, I unequivocally enjoy the heck out of it and would say it is among my favorite movies. I would also say that it is unequivocally the best Frankeinstein movie I have ever seen.