Victor Frankenstein

I really wasn't sure what to expect when I first heard about this film. I wanted to see it based solely on the cast -- the always brilliant James McAvoy, Daniel Radcliffe, Andrew Scott (primarily known to me as Moriarty on the BBC's Sherlock series), Mark Gatiss (Mycroft on Sherlock, and also writer and actor for Doctor Who), and the inimitable Charles Dance.Life being what it is, I wasn't able to see the film when it first released, and subsequent negative reviews made me a little hesitant to see it after all, despite the excellent cast. I finally bit the bullet today and rented it from Prime, and I'm so, so happy that I did (and regret not ignoring the critics, and seeing it five years ago).This is an excellent movie, managing to take the familiar plot and turn it askew just enough to make it seem fresh, new, and interesting again. Although Daniel Radcliffe will always be Harry to me, he gives a remarkable and very sympathetic performance as Igor, who is discovered by Victor Frankenstein at the circus, and subsequently rescued from his life of misery and pain. Frankenstein takes Igor under his wing after witnessing him save the life of a trapeze artist, Lorelei, displaying medical skills he had been honing in secret. Frankenstein repairs Igor's twisted body (as it happens, he's not actually a hunchback, but had suffered from a buildup of excess fluid around his spine, which Frankenstein relieves). Igor quickly becomes Frankenstein's right-hand man, and indeed becomes a new man entirely, as Frankenstein has opened for him a world in which he never dreamed he would ever take part -- that of money, society, and respect.For me, Igor's redemption is what lies at the heart of the film, but of course it would be impossible to overlook McAvoy's towering performance as Victor Frankenstein, who is by turns brilliant, manic, depraved and captivating. The script is clever and it's an absolute pleasure to witness McAvoy deliver his lines, eyes wide and darting, with a wolfish grin that never quite leaves his expressive face (anyone who saw Split knows that this man has quickly become a master of his craft).As for the "feel" of the film, some have basically described it as Guy Ritchie's Frankenstein, and I don't entirely disagree, but I would counter that this movie has a softer edge and bit more of an empathetic angle than most Ritchie films, which makes it all the more enjoyable to watch. In addition to having characters you actually care about, Victor Frankenstein is just a really good-looking film, with sets capturing all the grit, grime and gore of the time period combined with special effects that are perfectly executed (not too garish, not too subtle -- just right). The costumes are perfect and there's plenty of action which keeps the pace humming along. I loved every minute of it.Don't make my mistake and let the negative reviews scare you away -- this is an excellent, very entertaining movie that I think everyone should see, not just Frankenstein (or McAvoy, or Radcliffe) fans. Get some snacks, some refreshing drinks, dim the lights, close the curtains and settle in with Victor Frankenstein. You won't regret it. :)

A great work and story with great actors. I loved this take on the story.

Wow. If a filmmaker is going to remake the endlessly popular story of Frankenstein (originally published in 1818), then they had better do it right. This director gets it right...sort of.Here's what I liked: I'm a giant Daniel Radcliffe fan and he does not disappoint in this movie. He's a strong actor, has handsome looks, and can carry a film with ease. If anyone still thinks this guy is a youthful Harry Potter with a forehead scar and a room at Hogwarts, you're wrong. Radcliffe is a grown up, accomplished, polished actor. Secondly, there's a nice little love story between Radcliffe's character and Laurelei (played by Jessica Brown Findley, or Sybil from Downton Abbey). I wasn't expecting that jewel of a story line in a movie about a monster-- I'm on board with that. Lastly, the look of the film is divine. There's a specific rich darkness to the setting, atmosphere, and especially the home of Victor Frankenstein. Production design is flawless. Some unique camera angles and slo-mo moments are peppered about the film, as well. Finally, the costumes are superb. Note the richly designed and patterned vests that Igor and Victor wear, the pinstriped suits, and Laurelei's dresses.What I didn't like: Oddly gross moments in the movie. I get that it's a Frankenstein movie, so the macabre will be in full force. However, when it's needlessly icky and just plain silly-- then it's for show and not for plot. One word: backjuice. You'll have to see it to believe it. Another word monkey-dog. Again, you must see it for yourself.What about the monster himself, you ask? That grotesque creation built by Frankestein's hands and the power of lightning? He's a pretty cool dude. But, his time on screen is too brief and lackluster.See this film if you love a good Frankenstein movie, but cover your eyes when Victor pulls out a giant needle in his apartment.Kid Factor: An adult moment between Igor and his love interest. Nothing but some kissing shown, but they talk about intimacy-- you might not want your child to see this. Probably age 12 and up is best. There is some violence in the film and some of the monster making is gross with breathing lungs and beating hearts in a lab. Best for 12 and up.

I would have to say this is the best movie based on the Frankenstein theme that I have seen, and I've seen a lot of them, beginning with James Whale's version in 1931 and onward.I wouldn't call this a "horror" movie, however, but more of a period piece action flick. It centers exclusively on the creator and not the creature--indeed in one scene, Victor himself is determined the monster--and is full of quips and snappy one-liners, all delivered with that wonderful British straightforwardness. James McAvoy is the best selection for Victor, egotistical, assured of his superior intellect, and determined to force ahead in the face of small-minded obstacles such as everyone else's opinion. Daniel Radcliffe gives a great performance as Igor, from his first shuffling moments as the nameless hunchback circus clown to the healed young man with a name, attempting to save his friend from himself. The costume, music, and manners make the period, these two performances make the movie. Indeed, the creation is almost incidental, appearing only in the final scenes of the movie.With a BIble-thumping Scotland Yard man (Andrew Scott, Sherlock Holmes' "Moriarty") on his trail, Victor decamps to a remote castle in Scotland in a scene climaxing in the creature's creation and an ending that is as welcome as it is unexpected...and surely opening the way for a sequel if a script can be found that will live up to this original.Charles Dance has what amounts to a cameo as Victor's father, who controls the purse strings, and Jessica Brown Findlay is unnecessary as the love interest, but truly beautiful to look at, only serving the purpose in the plot of bringing together the two opposites (the outcast hunchback and the near-demented genius).This movie won several awards in 2015, and anyone seeing it will understand why. It's a fun movie with enough fireworks, steampunk gimcracks, and action to suit, very little blood and gore, and an ending to please. The credits are artistic and interesting to watch, also.This movie was viewed from a DVD purchased through Amazon and no remuneration was involved in the writing of this review.

So...Movie Tags -Horror: 0 out of 5 skulls - Nope, so nope it's got no skulls.Drama: 3 out of 5 hearts - It doesn't push the feels, but if you're okay with not crying this is pretty good.Action: 2 out of 5 booms - There's pieces that have action, some story sections that belong in an action flick, but overall low score.Comedy: 1 out of 5 smirks - I'm not an LOL person even for live stand-up. If you've got morbid humor detector it might twitch.Story: 4 out of 10 coffee stains -Typical story, minimal originality, creative (but not over-used) cinematography. Would re-watch if a friend asked to see it, but not an engaging enough movie to watch alone. You might want to play it while washing dishes or something. Coming from Igor's accounts this story is much more human, less religious (though it still plays with a heavy hand). For all of the "Frankenstein" re-tellings, this one seemed to me to be on the top-5 for what I've seen/read/etc recently. Without blurting out details, I'd say this would be okay for a PG-13 family night flick. It won't make kids or most adults invested into the movie so nobody will be upset when the popcorn needs a refill. Hell, they might volunteer.

I am pleasantly surprised at how good I thought this movie was. When I consider all the horrible ways people try to reinvent the wheel these days it astounds me when I find anything worth seeing. This is such a case. I should not have waited as long as I did to see this film.I will say first, it does remind me tremendously of the cult classic Hammer films as well as some part of the book. I have to admit in both cases I do not remember them entirely so it's merely a reminiscence more than a whole hearted definition.The writing on this film is very clever and I have a lot of praise for it. From the construction of Igor's character, Frankenstein's build up, and the monster itself. I found this movie very well crafted and written. It's not perfect, and I'll get to that, but it was very clever and I enjoyed it immensely.The acting was top notch. it's probably the best acting I've seen from Daniel Radcliffe to date, and James McAvoy is as great as always. The performances are on point for me all around and I didn't find trouble with any of it.I have so many praises about the film, but I don't want to be to biased. There are a few problems with the film that I won't ignore. Some of the dialogue is anachronistic (I feel certain when I say that I don't think they said the word "technology" in the early 1800s and in any case it feels out of place among other words they use here and there- it's minor). Most of the time the dialogue was fine and doesn't take me out of the film, but here and there they would say words I just could not help but wonder why it was said that way. It is a minor complaint, though.Also I found the sub plot romance between Igor and the acrobat lady to be boring. Luckily it was used very little and only, it seemed, in service of the plot (at most times to remove Igor from Frankenstein in some way) and it doesn't take up very much of the film.Lastly, the motivation (in the film) for Frankenstein doing the things he does (being a mad scientist who wants to create life) is flimsy and feels thrown in at the end in order to justify it in some way. It felt almost like they forgot to mention it throughout the film and at one point they were in a meeting and were like "Oh, ya, we forgot to mention why Frankenstein is doing this- lets setup a short sequence quickly explaining that near the end to tie it up). It was very hamfisted and sloppy in an otherwise fantastic story.All in all I highly recommend this movie. I don't ever say this, as much as I like movies, but in this case in particular I would love to see a sequel. It would be great if they did what Hammer did and have several adventures with Dr. Frankenstein. If they are at all as good as this one I think they would be really fun.

My favorite version of this movie! Everyone did an excellent job working on this!

He's got a lot of work ahead of him, shedding "Harry Potter" and leaving that character behind, and he knows it. The good news is that Radcliffe is up to the task. I've seen him in a few things, now and I haven't once stopped the disc and said, "Hold on! This is just stupid! Why the hell is Harry Potter in this ridiculous scenario? Can't he just wave his wand and yell, 'Expelliarmus!', or something?" He's doing a fantastic job and so is McAvoy! My Goodness! I haven't seen a performance like the one he put on in "Split" since Ed Norton in "Primal Fear"! The story itself is very good at rehashing the same, tired story from a fresh point of view with a few new twists and finding its own way to create tension. At one point, its even admitted that "you know the story..." in the narration, but effects, which are very well done and never seem forced or gratuitous keep you watching and so does the cinematography. All-in-all, maybe the best since "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein".

Great film and actor lm very happy with the seller and product

Wow.. I got in this 100rs only.. OMG never before and never again deal...I got it thanks...Now waiting this movie.. I hope this movie also available in hindi language... i updated... Soon

Podría parecer un gasto inútil en estos tiempos seguir consumiendo formatos físicos ahora que estamos inundados con tantos contenidos digitales pero difícilmente estos te brindan sonido en mínimo 5.1 y mucho menos estarán disponible en día que no tengas internet.

tout est bien

Sonido muy bueno imagen también muy entretenida y diferente a todas las demás