The Frankenstein Theory - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Frankenstein Theory Reviews

Page 1 of 4
June 13, 2017
This movie is not getting great reviews and I really don't understand why. It's certainly not a big budget movie but for fans of horror films this is certainly not bad. It's very similar in style to the Blair Witch Project. I would definitely recommend giving this a watch.
Super Reviewer
½ May 21, 2017
Creating the air of mystery around what exactly is responsible for the attacks, and leaving the creature off focus for the whole movie for a shocking final reveal in the last sequence might have been more effective if the damn thing wasn't ALREADY ON THE BLOODY DVD COVER.
Super Reviewer
October 9, 2016
Another day, another found footage movie. Kinda surprised that this is the first found footage in the horror fest. Though, of course, it's obvious, as evidenced by the score for this, that I didn't think that this was a very good movie. I know that I've been defending the concept and the style that this movie employs, but the movies I've seen lately have certainly made me look very foolish about defending it. Though, if I am being honest, this wasn't close to being the worst example of the genre. Alien Abduction is considerably worse than this what with all the glitches that felt more like a hollow way to get around the fact that the film was just really cheaply made. At the very least, to me anyway, this movie doesn't have the same amount of infuriating glitches. I'm not saying that they're completely absent from this, but there as many that drove me up the wall like the ones in Alien Abduction did. Conceptually speaking, it's not like the movie had such a great idea that you can see that there was potential that the movie just didn't live up to, but it's at the least somewhat intriguing in that you want to see where the film heads, but are slightly disappointed when you finally do get to the end result. The problem with this is that they take an idea that, realistically speaking, would have made for a good episode of an anthology series, like Masters of Horror or a modern Twilight Zone. The film just has, maybe, less than 40 minutes of actually interesting material. They throw in some comedy there to make it seem like stuff is actually going on, but there's really not much. Thankfully the movie isn't that long, but when you are stretching out things twice past what their normal length should be, it ends up making this feel longer than it actually should. I'm not saying that what the film does is bad or anything close to that, it's just a little boring to be honest. You do wanna see the 'real' Frankenstein in question, but that's about it. There's nothing else to the movie past that. And when you DO get to see Frankenstein, talk about disappointing as fuck. The fact of the matter is that, really, the only thing that could have helped this movie was if it ended up being super gory, and I mean like Evil Dead remake type of gory. They didn't have the budget for that, so the gore is really very minimal. So you have a boring movie with nothing really going on until the last 15 minutes or so and no gore. What are you gonna get? This, a below average movie and another real poor example of the found footage genre. I can't really recommend this movie in the slightest. Even if you have watched every horror movie in the face of the earth minus this one. It's just not very good. Not the worst, but just a below average movie that offers very little in redeemable qualities.
October 8, 2016
A found-footage movie that doesn't stand out, tho the concept of finding the Frankenstein monster is a interesting one- but the movie doesn't do anything remarkable with it. A monster that growls for most of the movie, only to pop up at the end (where everyone is dead). The characters aren't interesting, and the pacing is poor. It felt mostly like a waste of time.
July 1, 2016
Rather dull film based on a theory that Frankenstein is alive and well.
June 28, 2016
The premise is not too bad, but this really is just another found footage movie with lots of snow.
½ August 22, 2015
Nope...Doesn't Work On Any Level What-So-Ever...Even The Found-Footage Genre Has Been Done Far, FAAAARR Better Elsewhere...This Is Just Low-Budget Crud.
January 29, 2015
I'm a fan of movies that are better than they have a right to be. This one certainly fits the bill. The low-budget feel of it is ever-present, but it still plays out as a sufficiently creepy movie.
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.
July 6, 2014
1 Star for Frankenstein.
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 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.
Super Reviewer
April 14, 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.
April 12, 2014
It's like they watched The Blair Witch Project and went "we could do that but better" and they did. I liked it.
April 2, 2014
Why do awful movies always kill off the best character first?
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.
½ January 28, 2014
The worst Frankenstein film ever made. Period. People keep bashing I, Frankenstein but this one is the actual insult to Mary Shelley.
½ 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.
January 5, 2014
pretty good, but somewhat predictable. would have rated higher if the monster had more than a caveman mentality,,
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?


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).
Page 1 of 4