The Frankenstein Theory Reviews

Page 1 of 4
Shawn M
Super Reviewer
April 13, 2014
a total blair witch remake done with frankenstein, almost the entire plot is identical, all tho it was done decent, it wasn't as spooky and crazy as I was hoping it would be. Honestly wouldn't have given this movie a chance if Lemche wasnt in the cast, but yeah, cool. cool cool.
Dann M
Super Reviewer
March 6, 2014
Shot in a documentary style, The Frankenstein Theory puts forth a fascinating idea about the truth behind the classic Frankenstein story. After being drummed out of the academic community, Dr. Jonathan Venkenhein hires a film crew to follow his expedition into the Canadian tundra in search of a creature that he believes to be the source of the Frankenstein legend. Unfortunately, the acting isn't particularly good and the story structure is weak. The Frankenstein Theory starts out rather promising, but before long it loses its momentum and falls into bad horror movie cliches.
Gaspar O ½ June 27, 2013
Another low budget horror flick, not great, but I thought it was somewhat suspenseful, delightfully creepy at times and even hair-raising here and there. I look like a gorilla in a man suit, so when my hair raises, I know it.
Al M ½ March 4, 2013
The Frankenstein Theory features an engaging premise: a young man in the modern world has discovered that Mary Shelly's Frankenstein is a fictionalized account of a real experiment that his ancestor conducted. He sets out to prove this theory and documents the adventure for posterity (and our found-footage enjoyment). Unfortunately, the film does not fully deliver on its premise. Beautifully shot, the film drags for way too long and doesn't deliver a final punch to justify the slow build-up.
Amar N ½ August 5, 2014
The story of this movie is promising, and it does keep you in until the end, but unfortunately the only reason you want to fish the movie is because you want to see something, ANYTHING, remotely interesting and scary. Sorry to say but this movie is a bore, the plot is predictable, and there is far to little frankenstein. The "genius" professer is shown as an idiot and there is virtually no horror or cool special effects involved. THe only reason i gave it two and a half stars is because the story is slightly interesting, but if you just want to see a movie with a bunch of people talking, you can find better.
Angelo Dean Angelo Dean July 6, 2014
1 Star for Frankenstein.
Robert R. Robert R. May 27, 2014
Good premise and choice of style (found-footage) for a low-budget horror flick. But ultimately it was very poorly executed. Trying to be as generous as I can be, the biggest failure was the monster himself. After Brian is killed, Venkenheim comments on how the footprints are spaced, suggesting a huge being. But in the finale, the monster walks through the door of the yurt just fine...and, sadly, as another reviewer noted: he really just looks like a big, shabbily dressed homeless person. So much of the file could have been forgiven if the monster was actually freakish and terrifying. And he had to make sense. More thought should have been put into that creature, his mindset, and how his actions would all fit together -- seriously, that would have given the audience something to really chew on. But that was really just the cherry of failure on top of the whole work. Here's the rest of my list of problems with the film: the movie took WAY too long to develop. If you're a scientist who has carefully developed a theory proving the existence of a monster, to the point where you're willing to travel to the middle of the arctic to find him, would you really need to visit a meth junkie to get the final vindication of your work? And why the random near-accident with the pedestrian? As a device to build tension, it was just way too far off the course of the story. The sounds -- why did every attack include sounds of wood splintering...it was as if every attack was accompanied by a tree being destroyed. When there was blood at a scene, it was a TINY amount -- if this monster is ripping people apart, show some blood! It's going to be on snow, so it didn't even have to be high-tech replica blood -- some coolaid could have made the scenes scarier! The monster was able to easily dispatch Karl, the seasoned, armed, woodsman; so what was with using Luke as a lure to ambush Brian, one of the clumsy, fish-in-a-barrel crew folks? And how did he kill Luke and leave him completely unmarred. Why take the time to put Luke's helmet on the seat of the snowmobile? And why leave a smashed, dismembered Karl, but drag away both Luke and Brian's bodies? And the blood problem again -- you hear Brian get killed in pretty severe fashion (including trees being disintegrated, apparently), but the blood was minimal (and no visible tree damage). Why would the monster steal one snowmobile and smash the other, and leave one completely intact? Why is the monster's doll in the yurt, when he's clearly got a different place that he carries things off to. Why is he raging around in the yurt at all? He's killed people every where he goes, for ages -- why would anyone bother him enough to go on a pointless raging session in a shack? And why not just destroy the thing completely? It was clearly a rickity bunch of planks and he's a behemoth of a monster -- and he doesn't smash a wall or two?? And Venkenheim's plan was to lure him away from the yurt so they could sneak back in...and then what? Hide in the building he went to when he was raging?? And the ending did have the ominious suggestion that the girl was taken alive (if unconscious) -- but there was so little setup for it, and there were plenty of opportunities to lay that groundwork (e.g. when they're searching for Luke, she was isolated from the group, which would have made for an easy monster-girl encounter). But he also dragged off Brian and Luke's bodies, and that dilutes the impact of Vicky being carried off (the monster often carries off the victims, so there's nothing unusual about the act in the end). Why is Venkenheim so unprepared for encountering the monster when he's been preparing for this moment for years. And why, in the final moment, does he decide he has to touch the monster...and why does that set the monster off...and why is this climactic moment handled completely off-screen? This scene was just terrible -- the dialog could have been better, it SHOULD have been handled more patiently, it could have been done with some angle where you could see Venkenheim's back, or the monster lumbering across a half-open shutter, etc. If Vicky and Venkenheim had the presence of mind to put the camera on a tripod, you could make the easy case that Venkenheim was still committed to getting the monster on film, so would quickly put it up with an angle to see him confront the monster...everything else is flimsy, but this would have been flimsy AND rational. I'm just glad at least one other reviewer caught the Ghostbusters reference (Venkenheim - Peter Venkman; both thrown out of their universities for their controversial theories). I think Troll Hunter makes for a very good comparison and shows how a lore-and-found-footage-horror-film can be done, and despite campiness, be very entertaining.
Shawn M
Super Reviewer
April 13, 2014
a total blair witch remake done with frankenstein, almost the entire plot is identical, all tho it was done decent, it wasn't as spooky and crazy as I was hoping it would be. Honestly wouldn't have given this movie a chance if Lemche wasnt in the cast, but yeah, cool. cool cool.
Nukleopatra Nukleopatra April 2, 2014
Why do awful movies always kill off the best character first?
Dann M
Super Reviewer
March 6, 2014
Shot in a documentary style, The Frankenstein Theory puts forth a fascinating idea about the truth behind the classic Frankenstein story. After being drummed out of the academic community, Dr. Jonathan Venkenhein hires a film crew to follow his expedition into the Canadian tundra in search of a creature that he believes to be the source of the Frankenstein legend. Unfortunately, the acting isn't particularly good and the story structure is weak. The Frankenstein Theory starts out rather promising, but before long it loses its momentum and falls into bad horror movie cliches.
Amanda P November 10, 2013
The worst Frankenstein film ever made. Period. People keep bashing I, Frankenstein but this one is the actual insult to Mary Shelley.
Nicolas O. Nicolas O. January 13, 2014
Maybe one of the worst found footage movies I've ever seen and that's saying quite a bit. The worst part about it is how boring it is, there really are only a couple of tense moments and looking back at the run time shocked me because this movie feels like it's hours long. The actors aren't the worst when it comes to these kinds of movies but the characters are just completely flat and really unidentifiable. I can't really think of a way to describe any of them without just saying what part they played and even then it really boils down to "The scientist" "The woman" and "The rest." It's really not even a concept that sounds like an hour and a half long movie and comes to a close with one of the worst endings that I can currently think of.
Michael B January 5, 2014
pretty good, but somewhat predictable. would have rated higher if the monster had more than a caveman mentality,,
Ed C December 13, 2013
One line summary: Fantasy of finding the original Frankenstein's monster alive today.

--------------------------


The film starts within an interview of a documentary team of Dr Venkenhein (Ghost Busters joke?), who has various degrees in history and in chemistry. Jonathan's primary thesis was that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was not fiction. He's putting together an expedition to Canada to attempt to prove his thesis.

In the next segment, the film crew talks about how stupid they think the project is, but that Jonathan is paying for the whole project. Officially, they will be respectful. Sure they will. Throw in a bit of distracted driving (caused by the found film approach), with a near vehicular homicide, and the viewer is setup to watch a home movie where the camera crew thinks the subject is a fool. Great start in a mere seven minutes.

Jonathan thinks his 5 x great grandfather was the model for Dr Frankenstein, and also the founder of modern genetics, 50 years ahead of Mendel. Since the monster was not well-received at the time, most of the artifacts and papers related to the monster's creation were destroyed. Jonathan aims to prove his hypothesis by finding the monster in current times still alive, and to bring back proof of its condition.

Jonathan's girlfriend thinks this theory is bovine scatology, as does Jonathan's university, from which he is suspended, much to his great embarrassment. The girlfriend thinks the expedition is a grand waste of money that will not end well.

The first part of the trip starts in the dark one morning. After two airplane flights, the crew (Vicky, Eric, Luke, Brian) and Jonathan land in Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. They hire a local SUV to continue from Whitehorse. It's brutally cold. From Whitehorse they will drive to Deline in the Northwest Territories. Before they leave the Yukon, they meet with Clarence Malusky, who claims to have had an encounter with the Frankenstein monster. Clarence apparently did encounter the monster, and does identify a sketch from 1802. However, Clarence is a meth head who clearly has some personality issues. They make it out alive at least.

They make it to Deline uneventfully. Jonathan arranges for provisions, such as food and snowmobiles. Further into the Northwest Territories, Jonathan discusses his ancestor Johann using recombinant DNA methods to incorporate the longevity of certain species into the monster.

By Day 4, they reach a yurt (hunter's lodge, quite small), deep in NWT. Jonathan has tracked unexplained homicides in the area where they are to months of the year. He figures the monster committed these killings. He concludes the killings follow a migratory pattern. That night, one of their snowmobiles is stolen by someone. The next day, Karl tracks the snowmobile on foot to avoid alerting the thief. After four hours, Luke and Eric follow on the remaining snowmobile. Looks likes a bad choice. They find blood, then Karl's rifle, then Karl. They return, and the panic level rises.

Will the remaining party find the Frankenstein monster? Will any of them return to their homes?

----------Scores----------


Cinematography: 4/10 Found film approach.

Sound: 8/10 Mostly good.

Acting: 8/10 Timothy V. Murphy was rather good. Kris Lemche and Heather Stephens are also veterans and gave competent performances.

Screenplay: 5/10 Too many cliches. The self-destructive scientist. Insufficient preparation for a difficult expedition. Thinking the wild creature will respond to kind words in the wrong language. Getting killed one by one. Found film. Discover the search object, but cannot prove it (like the entire X-files series).
Brendan M November 15, 2013
The biggest flaw of so many found footage movies I've seen is that no one can seem to write a decent ending to any of them.
Miguel S October 6, 2013
A terrible blairwitch wannabe. the best of the film is the cover. that's it. horrible. boring. not scary, not gripping, not... nothing. the worst film I've seen this year. I only regret the time spent watching it. Such a good initial idea and this is what they do with it?? believe me, do NOT spend the time. Very, very, very bad.
Paul D October 4, 2013
Took a few too many pages out of The Blair Witch Project's book, but not many of the good ones. This movie is all set up and no pay off.
FilmGrinder S. FilmGrinder S. July 30, 2013
66%

-Frankenstein's Monster vs The Blair Witch-
I don't know about Frankenstein's monster, but I think I caught a glimps of Bigfoot. The Tweaker charicter was pretty good.
Ryley L ½ July 9, 2013
Interesting if unexciting found footage film with no monster in sight (that will turn a lot of people off given the great image on the DVD cover). Well photographed and tightly paced excursion into the alaskan hinterland in search of the Mary shelly Monster that is in fact "real". If it had a good payoff at the end, as in some meaty money shots of the beast I would have been satisfied. Instead we get some great photography of snowy landscapes and outhouse cabin structures. Not recommended...
Page 1 of 4