YouHeart I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Poe-17 This isn't a bad film, just (probably) shouldn't have called upon the Frankenstein mythology in it's title. Various and numerous films and tales have approached the "bring the dead back to life" idea. "Frankenstein" doesn't own the franchise on this. Call the work ... oh, I don't know, ... Re-Animator or something. It isn't a great film, possibly earning "good" by the grace of the "we-love-horror" crowd. Some nice "re-animating" scenes. It never aspired to "mind shattering" and shouldn't be faulted for not achieving that. Dropping the name-dropping "Frankenstein" and just calling it "Reborn" would have worked just fine. And would have been more honest. Still, with all its faults, and bows to some killer scenes (and some forced ones), it isn't a horrible movie. It just doesn't belong in the Frankenstein lineage. Nice watch.

todbrowning2000 I bought FRANKENSTEIN REBORN based on how much I liked THE BEAST OF BRAY ROAD. Yikes. Was I snowed...! While the same people were involved with both movies, we end up with very different results. I knew I was in trouble when two of Dr. Franky's nurses get into some heavy lesbian action while he works on a little freebasing. The kinky take on the Frankenstein mythos worked for ROCKY HORROR, but that was an over-the-top send up. Here, it's just a tired and way-too-obvious tacked-on bit of raunch. Overall, I was seriously disappointed, but then again, I usually am with most releases from The Asylum.This movie seems to have it's champions, so I won't say not to see it, but proceed with caution. Watch it for free if you can.

slayrrr666 "Frankenstein Reborn" isn't that bad of a film.**SPOILERS**Victor Franks, (Rhett Giles) is in an insane asylum and is quickly tagged as a sociopath by his doctor, Emily Hertz, (Amanda Barton) and relates to Dr. Walton, (Thomas Downey) about his recent project, restoring limb functions to Bryce, (Joel Hebner) a paraplegic. At first, the operation is a success, but soon after Bryce begins to experience severe side effects. Trying to save the work, Victor and his assistant Hank, (Jeff Denton) end up making Bryce into a monster. He goes crazy when Victor refuses to help him change back and goes on a rampage, killing women to help him in his experiments. He is eventually taken into police custody for protection against the creature.The Good News: Another adaptation on the Frankenstein legend, this one isn't all that bad. Instead of doing a straight-up re-visioning, the new twist here is that the doctor is trying to perform valid scientific experiments unrelated to building a creature, which just by coincidence it happens that way. The change is most welcome, as is the quite graphic and brutal killings. We get legs ripped off, ice shards pierced in the stomach, a very messy scalpel slicing and a dissection scene where a body is torn completely open and exposed. There's more in here as well, making this the bloodiest version of the book. The dark and serious tone it has also works wonders for the film, as a light and campy atmosphere would've easily undermined the whole film. It's concept and execution requires the film to not have a constant joke thrown in to keep the viewers attention. It was done the smart way and making the film a little more unsettling. The design of the creature is quite impressive and scary on first look, with exposed bones, frayed skin and tall figure make it a great villain. The rampage scenes are quite well handled and make for some tense stalking moments, especially the sequence with the babysitter in the living room. A quite unexpected surprise.The Bad News: The decision to tell the story as a series of flashbacks is the main problem with the film. It's told in a rather convoluted manner that doesn't make too much sense. Rather than tell it in a linear frame, and it decides to cut back and forth between events and times, making for some convoluted telling. This doesn't seem to serve any narrative or artistic purpose and only succeeds in slowing down the progression of the story. It also fractures the narrative so much that many of the relationships between the characters become disjointed, this especially hurts the relationship and it's evolution between Franks and the monster which becomes extremely murky as we are never able to see it grow along a linear time-frame. This is the main problem, and it lowers the film slightly.The Final Verdict: With a slightly annoying approach to the story, this shouldn't be a wrongly maligned film. It's a well made film that will nicely please true horror fans as well as those looking for a little more mean-spirited film than what else is out.Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Nudity, a short sex scene and mild drug use

ghost-9 This would have been a nice low-budget horror movie. I enjoyed Rhett Giles rendition of the good doctor. Only thing that bothered me was during the dialog, the score would annoyingly drown it out. I kept having to turn the sound up and down and I still couldn't catch all of what was said. Movie makers take note, please add English subtitles so we can read the dialog if we can't hear it over the crappy score. Whoever did the sound for that movie should never be allowed to mix again! Other than the lousy sound, the actors did fine and were believable enough (except for that part with the little girl not being scared!) for a horror movie. The violence and gore were over the top, the way I like it and the monster looked just great! I wish more of the Frankensteins looked as good as he did. Please, if you otherwise have an OK movie, don't ruin it with bad sound and do add subtitles.