BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

kosmasp Yes pun intended or meaning both the movie and the "monster" itself. This is a modern adaptation of one the best known monsters. Though obviously many still confuse the name Frankenstein (the inventor) with his creation (which would be the "monster" and not Frankenstein). But back to this, because by updating this and giving it somewhat roots in reality here with a great cast, the movie achieves something that other newer adaptations failed to do.We do feel for the monster, which is splendidly portrayed here. It's almost existential to a point. What is life? What is the meaning? So all the things that made or rather make Frankensteing the story great, can be found here. So I do wonder: Where is the love? (again pun intended)

Nigel P Watching a clean shaven, unblemished young man behaving like a new-born baby can be a disconcerting thing; watching the early scenes of this, I was very much put in mind of Nicholas Roeg's 'The Man Who Fell to Earth (1973)'. Whereas David Bowie's John Newton was an alien, Xavier Samuel's 'Adam' is very much a construct from Earth technology, namely that of Viktor Frankenstein. 'This is not what I intended,' he admits when his attractive creation quickly begins to sprout lesions and decomposing skin, and is driven to end his progeny's short life.Adam's strength, however, prevents him from an early death and soon he is roaming the outside world, uncertain and physically powerful, meeting resentment and misunderstandings along the way. The police officer who interrogates him speaks as ignorant people speak to foreigners; the thought being 'if I shout loud enough he will understand'.The problem with adaptions of Mary Shelly's story is that it has been done so many times, it must be a huge challenge to still make the tale relevant and involving without criticisms of re-treading the same ground'. The other option is to add new layers and tweak the narrative so that it is laid open to criticisms that it strays so far from the original and that it is 'Frankenstein' in name only. By moving events into the present, and creating a version of the monster so entrenched in modern times, this version manages to be both faithful to the original, as well as adding a new dimension to it.A tremendous central performance from Samuel ensures the audience is on 'Monster's side at all times, even when he kills his only true friend, blind Eddie (Tony Todd), with whom there are scenes that even inject an affectionate humour into the proceedings.Directed by Bernard Rose, who, amongst other things is responsible for 1988's dream/horror 'Paperhouse', this is a thoroughly enjoyable, intelligent and refreshing adaptation of the well-known story, its release coinciding with that of 'Victor Frankenstein', starring bankable names Daniel Radcliffe and McAvoy.

redrobin62-321-207311 I had high hopes for this film, not because I'm a horror movie and goth-loving freak, but also because it was a fresh take on an old idea.The film started off well enough. Victor Frankenstein was really a marginal role here; his wife was pretty much the focus as well as the monster himself. Most of the elements from classic Frankenstein were there, and that was nice to see. The acting was generally good, too, especially the monster. I think the filmmakers did well with transitioning the monster from a baby to a man.But that's where the script fell apart. I know one thing for sure - if I was hustling on the street constantly, playing my guitar and begging for money, I don't think I'd give my hard earned cash away so some guy I just met can get laid for the first time.And you know, there are people today who are thoroughly perplexed by the GPS systems on their cellphones. How the monster was able to navigate with it after just being recently created is a mystery to me. The monster also sure knew how to say the right things at the right emotional time.I think that if I was a cop I'd protest this movie. Yes, the police do go over and above their call of duty at times (see Black Lives Matter), but are they really this unfeeling and barbaric? What I did like about the movie was the blood. Yeah, this one was violent as hell. The makeup was well done, too. If there's anything that stood out for me was the monster and the level of violence in the film. Just for those two things alone it's worth giving 'Frankenstein' a looksee.

Robert Terry The biggest mistake in this film is the final moment of the final scene, which is a bit too much like Darth Vader screaming "NOOooOOOooo!!" at the end of Episode III. Other than that, the film is remarkably restrained and allows mostly quality performances to link together this telling of the classic Frankenstein tale in modern LA. The newest wrinkle is the use of Elizabeth as a Freudian motivation for Adam, which mostly works and allows for an interesting psychoanalytic representation of the classic story.Otherwise, Xavier Samuel is very good as Adam, providing a restrained but effective performance as the Monster/Adam and generating significant pathos for the poor but terribly violent soul.