Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

ivanlotter I do not see how even a horror/thriller fanatic will enjoy this movie. I would give it a miss.

Michael Ledo This is an interesting retelling of the classic horror tale, taking place in late 19th century London through the eyes of Igor Strassman,(Daniel Radcliffe) which would make for an uninteresting title. Igor starts out as a circus hunchback whose medical skills and genius is recognized by Dr. Victor Frankenstein (James McAvoy). His rescue from the circus involved a ruckus and a death, which is being investigated by Scotland Yard detective Rafferty (Bronson Webb) who puts together an unbelievable report of "high society hunchback and undead monsters."The film is also theme and theologically loaded with numerous statements such as Victor Frankenstein proclaiming, "God has no authority here" while being warned "There is no mercy in nature." The film also discusses Victor's past, need for a financial benefactor, and Igor having a love interest (Jessica Brown Findlay.) This brings in more characters, turning the feature into a drama with moments of dark humor and horror.Guide: No swearing, sex, or nudity. Monster horror.There are numerous wisps within the film that are references to previous Frankenstein films that may go unnoticed such as the mispronunciation of the name as was done in YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. The name Rafferty for the Scotland Yard detective immediately brought to mind the song "Baker Street" by Gerry Rafferty which was also the residence of Sherlock Holmes.

inkslayer 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.

drjgardner 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.