IMDb > Frankenstein Reborn (2005) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Frankenstein Reborn
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Frankenstein Reborn More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 20 reviews in total 

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Tries hard but fails to compensate for its amateurish roots

3/10
Author: mjgolden from Washington, DC
18 February 2006

The film was made in 9 days and it shows. In particular, the budget obviously wasn't large enough to cover a decent recording system. Through out the film in scenes of dialog (and for a horror film there are a LOT of scenes of dialog), the character in screen is recorded loud and clear and the off screen, second voice is inaudible.

Music video-style fast cuts and scene shifts that move backwards and forwards in time are not so much confusing as meant to try and downplay the lack of much plot or its illogic.

The cast is generally quite good and makes a good attempt to overcome the inadequacies of the script and production.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Frankenstein Reborn

3/10
Author: Scarecrow-88 from United States
29 October 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Nasty, gory, ultra-violent modern retelling of the Frankenstein story featuring a scientist, Victor Franks(Rhett Giles), relating how he got to be named a murder suspect of several missing associates who were working with him on a privately funded project concerning how nanotechnology *resurrects* dead cells in a quadriplegic patient with tragic results, to a psychiatric doctor, Walton(Thomas Downey)pressured by detectives in getting a confession. It seems that the nanobots surging through the subject, Bryce's(Joel Hebner) system have dangerous side-effects..Victor's homicidal fantasies, desires & rage, programmed into the computer that operates the nanobots are causing Bryce to act on them without control over his actions. All of Victor's associates are targets thanks to his feelings towards them in one way or another. Victor is confronted by Bryce who has become confused and disturbed by his doctor's fantasies desiring for them to end. Victor, knowing that the project would cease if everything was ended, shoots Bryce, claiming to his fellow surgeon, Hank(Jeff Denton)that it was suicide. Together Victor and Hank resurrect his body using their nanotechnology creating a monster after their experiments cause great physical damage, especially to Bryce's face. Bryce kills Hank and escapes from their lab, going on a killing spree acting out those very feelings Victor fantasized about leaving quite a death trail. When Victor's love, Elizabeth(Eliza Swenson)was one of the beast's victims, he will perform the same procedure on her, with another innocent being killed in the process. That innocent was a babysitter and the child she was looking after befriended the monster, helping the police semi-identify that what Victor was saying isn't just the insane ramblings of a very disturbed man.

I certainly wouldn't say that this THE ASYLUM release adds anything interesting or fresh to the oft-told story of Frankenstein and his mad creation, but it does feature plenty of cheap thrills for gore-hounds such as limbs plucked from victim's bodies, a gruesome decapitation, Victor and Hank's bloody surgical experiments on Bryce's dead body, and a face is shot by the victim's own gun. We get a look into Victor and Liz's kinky sexual activity. But, the film basically is a slasher movie with the monster killing Victor's friends/associates in various ways. Nothing really original or exciting here unless you want to see some of the same gory violence one sees a lot in the slasher genre. I personally didn't think the characters were that interesting or the actors/actresses that portrayed them. Pretty cheap-looking as well. I'd say look elsewhere for better films based on Frankenstein.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

How Not To Make A Monster...or a movie for that matter.

Author: todbrowning2000 from United States
11 May 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I bought FRANKENSTEIN REBORN based on how much I liked THE BEAST OF BRAY ROAD. Yikes. Was I snowed...! While the same people were involved with both movies, we end up with very different results. I knew I was in trouble when two of Dr. Franky's nurses get into some heavy lesbian action while he works on a little freebasing. The kinky take on the Frankenstein mythos worked for ROCKY HORROR, but that was an over-the-top send up. Here, it's just a tired and way-too-obvious tacked-on bit of raunch. Overall, I was seriously disappointed, but then again, I usually am with most releases from The Asylum.

This movie seems to have it's champions, so I won't say not to see it, but proceed with caution. Watch it for free if you can.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

don't bother

1/10
Author: (pharris-15) from United States
16 July 2006

when i see a movie review with such polarized opinion, i want to give it a chance. i bought this as a previously viewed DVD from a national video rental chain and only paid $5. not worth the $5. all the bad has been said already.

the acting is about on the par of a softcore film on cinemax. bleh. the only thing i liked about it (maybe didn't dislike is more appropriate) is that the actresses in this movie are pleasing to look at.

i didn't think i would be getting a great movie here and biy was i right. the worst movie i have seen a quite sometime.

this one's going in the garage sale pile.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 33 people found the following review useful:

Bad , bad , bad (the first half anyway, then i gave up)

1/10
Author: javanaw from Sweden
6 September 2005

Very bad acting. This time i could not even laugh at the bad acting as it can be in other horrors sometimes , for some reason i felt sorry for the actors in this case. I also wish Rhett Giles (Victor) could speak more naturally , less drama in his nonstop half whispering voice maybe.

The characters was not interesting ,or believable in any way and i could not care less how the story will develop either . And what is it with the sound , that was really irritating. The sound is changing constantly between to quiet , so you can hardly hear it and very laud , so you can hardly manage to continue watch .

I did not.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

"It's a wondrous thing science... it can rob you of your humanity." I actually thought it was OK.

6/10
Author: Paul Andrews (poolandrews@hotmail.com) from UK
30 October 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Frankenstein Reborn starts with a woman named Jessica Halverson (Sarah Lieving) arranging to meet Victor Franks (Rhett Giles) at an old warehouse/factory which he uses as a makeshift laboratory, inside Jessica is attacked by something which chains her to a table & rips both of her legs off... A one Victor Franks has been arrested in connection with multiple murder & the disappearance of two people associated with him, since Victor keeps on rambling about his bizarre experiments & a hideous creature he has been institutionalised where Dr. Emily Hertz (Amanda Barton) & Dr. Robert Walton (Thomas Downey) are analysing his mental state to determine whether he can stand trial. In various lengthy interviews Victor begins to tell the terrible tales that will supposedly explain everything & prove his innocence. Victor says he was working on various experiments in the field of 'biological nanotechnology' in an attempt to cure spinal injuries & to ultimately re-animate the dead. He talks of being addicted to cocaine & having threesomes with his two female lab assistants Elizabeth Weatherly (Eliza Swenson) & Rebekkah Clarke (Christina Rosenberg), he recalls how the experiments with a patient named Bryce Daniels (Joel Hebner) took a turn for the worse & how he convinced his brain surgeon friend Dr. Hank Clerval (Jeff Denton) to help him continue them illegally & how they lead to betrayal, murder & the creation of a monster...

Co-edited, written & directed by Leigh Slawner who also has a role in the film as Dr. Cadaverella I personally thought Frankenstein Reborn was a decent film. The script plays more like a contemporary Re-Animator (1985) film rather than Mary Shelly's classic novel which is no bad thing as we get a modern day tale of a mad scientist dabbling with bizarre experiments with the hope of re-animating the dead & all the problems that would bring. His friendships suffer as nothing will stop him in pursuit of his ultimate goal, the woman he loves ends up dead & he will do just about anything to further his experiments. The way Frankenstein Reborn tells it's fairly entertaining story is both an asset & a disadvantage, just about the entire film is told in numerous flash-backs. The flash-backs are sometimes hard to follow as they show the same ones but from different angles or mix them up so their not in chronological order or repeat them but in a slightly extended version to reveal a bit more of the story that wasn't present before. While this approach gives the film a nice originality & it plays out like a mystery it can become a bit annoying & confusing as it jumps back & forth in both time & location without much regard for the viewer. The character's are better drawn & fleshed out than usual for these ultra low-budget independent films which makes a nice change with various affairs, rivalry & personal angst amongst the carnage. This particular version of Frankenstein offers up plenty of blood & gore with ripped of legs & arms, heads being sawed off, surgical scenes with bodies being sliced up with scalpels, a woman has her breast sliced open with a razor, someone is impaled on a huge shard of glass, hearts are ripped from chests, someone has their brains blown out plus there are lots of intestines, internal organs, body parts & blood splattered across the screen to keep most horror fans quiet for it's duration. There is also a pleasing amount of nudity, sex, swearing & drug usage. According to the IMDb Frankenstein Reborn was shot between 22nd April & 2nd May (less than 2 weeks!?) 2005 on a minuscule budget of about $500,000 & when you take that into consideration this is a surprisingly good & competent film. The cinematography is actually quite good, the special effects are very good with the Frankenstein monster itself looking very impressive & pretty gross as well, music, the sets & overall production design give the impression of a better funded film & it is generally well made throughout with director Slawner obviously using his budget with good effect & he luckily resists the temptation to use annoying fast editing techniques & keeps the gimmicky tricks down to a minimum. The acting was also quite strong for a film with these low budget origins. Don't get me wrong as Frankenstein Reborn is far from the best horror film ever made, far from it in fact, but as a way to pass 84 minutes I found it a surprisingly enjoyable & well made little film. Persoanally I think it's well worth a watch especially if your a horror fan but then that's just my opinion.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

If you don't mind awful acting then watch this film

1/10
Author: Janice Davies from United Kingdom
30 August 2005

I have seen this film and was expecting something quite good, but its the worst film I have seen in a long time, the acting is atrocious and wooden.

It seems as if the film was made just for showing gore and forgetting the acting bit.

Basically the storyline would have been good if they had picked decent actors and actresses, bringing it as an up to date story of Frankenstein.

The blood and gore were over emphasised and didn't look real. Just a complete waste of time and money.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Shouldn't have invoked "Frankenstein".

5/10
Author: Poe-17 from usa
25 July 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This isn't a bad film, just (probably) shouldn't have called upon the Frankenstein mythology in it's title. Various and numerous films and tales have approached the "bring the dead back to life" idea. "Frankenstein" doesn't own the franchise on this. Call the work ... oh, I don't know, ... Re-Animator or something. It isn't a great film, possibly earning "good" by the grace of the "we-love-horror" crowd. Some nice "re-animating" scenes. It never aspired to "mind shattering" and shouldn't be faulted for not achieving that. Dropping the name-dropping "Frankenstein" and just calling it "Reborn" would have worked just fine. And would have been more honest. Still, with all its faults, and bows to some killer scenes (and some forced ones), it isn't a horrible movie. It just doesn't belong in the Frankenstein lineage. Nice watch.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

i wasted 84 minutes of my time

3/10
Author: redhead9898 from United States
6 October 2007

Where to begin? First off, most of the film is flashbacks. Second, the beginning was stupid, and third, a lot of boring dialog and bad actors. The monster is quite disturbing and so is his roar. They had small parts like when a woman is shown for 2 minutes and is killed. There was parts when i felt like turning it off but I had nothing else to do. After the credits end, there is a minute of the screen pitch black and the music still going. I bet it was to make the movie a minute longer. I gave it a 3, because I like b-horror films,i like Frankenstein movies and you have to give Leigh some credit. My recommendation: if you see it at the video store, tell a person working there that it is a waste of money for you to rent that. So stay away as far as possible. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Was the above review useful to you?

People hate just to hate...

7/10
Author: Freshslatepictures from United States
26 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let me start by saying this: If you get the chance, check out the movie.

The writer/Director, Leigh Scott, seems to catch a lot of flack, particularly here on IMDb, and after seeing a good portion of his work now, it's unwarranted.

It struck me about half way through that there are a LOT less cuts in it, than you normally see in a movie, but here's the thing, I'm not sure this is bad Directing/lack of planning. I think it's got more to do with the turn-around time that Asylum sets, rather than "poor Directing".

The acting was above average, I'm a BIG Rhett Giles fan, after this. The man has charisma. You have gorgeous women, the majority of which are good/great actresses, too. And can any red-blooded man REALLY complain about decent amounts of nudity? It's a bonus.

I liked the monster make-up, and the sfx blood/gore was about on par with movies of this budget.

My one complaint was that it was nearly impossible to hear Rhett in the interrogation scenes, due to audio. I had to turn the TV up all the way. Still wasn't enough to take me out of it, though.

That's mostly due to an excellent script, and a lead actor that could carry it. As I said, watch the movie if you get the chance. Don't assume it's terrible based on peoples' unwarranted Leigh Scott hate, or Asylum mockbuster tales. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than a LOT of other low-budget horror flicks? Absolutely.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history