Frankenstein (TV Movie 2007) Poster

(2007 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Add a Review
7 Reviews
Sort by:
Solid and effective version that was better than I expected despite a couple of flaws
bob the moo22 March 2008
Dr Victoria Frankenstein is the head of science project UX which is using stem-cell research to engineer a human heart. The project has reached this point without approval and understandably the heads of the funding to be nervous. Victoria presses on regardless, changing the project to start the development of an entire organ chain. Nobody mentions the extreme conflict of interest that exists in Victoria's young son currently dying and indeed of an entire new organ chain. When her son dies, Victoria agrees to let the project be terminated but by then the funders want it to continue on the QT. A freak lightening strike and rampant cell growth sees the experiment explode anyway, with tissue everywhere. However it soon transpires that not all organic matter has been accounted for and "something" has made it out of the system.

This film sat on my harddrive for almost six month before I got round to watching it. It wasn't that I was busy for all this time but more than the idea of an ITV drama being any good was foreign to me and I decided to watch other things instead. When I finally watched it I must admit it was almost because I felt I "had" to and did not expect much. On the contrary though the film is an effective version of the famous story that is strong in several areas. The direction avoids the usual "TV" feel that many of these one-off ITV dramas seem to have and instead is very atmospheric and dark.

It is not as smart as I would have liked and some aspects of the material seems very rushed due to the time constraints, while others are all a bit too convenient in the name of keeping things moving and limiting development time required. However these are forgivable and the film does move along well, with plenty of dramatic moments and, surprisingly dark content. A brutal child murder caught me off-guard, as did some other moments, making it feel more than an attempt to make me watch adverts (which lets be honest, some ITV one-off dramas are all about). Although they are rushed the characters are quite good, particularly the monster. What it looks like is clear but, while the film controls direct vision of it, it isn't a big deal and there is no big reveal. This helps the viewer feel like it is the story not the effects that the makers are interested in.

The cast are pretty good. McCrory leads the cast well with a solid and pained performance. I would have liked to see her given a harder character and more time to work with but regardless she still does a good job. Purefoy is not as good and he feels quite unnecessary and I think you can see this in his performance. Support is solid enough and has a few recognisable faces in there in the form of Benedict Wong and Fraser James. Bleach's Monster is well played as it has enough to be afraid of but also enough to make you believe that it is just frightened.

Overall then a quite effective version of the famous story. It has its faults in the speed it does things and the odd "convenient" narrative device but mostly it is atmospheric, dark and interesting.
20 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
I think this is my new favourite Frankenstein version....
Manuel-Hoerth5 August 2013
I always thought it would make sense to set the story in modern times, since now we truly have the technology to do stuff like that. But more importantly (like Frankenstein) we are too obsessed with science and lack the moral and ethical restraint that would prevent us from doing such things.

So I think it fits great into modern times... but I always imagined a modern Dr. Frankenstein to look somewhat like Gunther von Hagens... (-; But I also like their take on it and the way they told the story it made sense to have a "Victoria Frankenstein" instead of a "Victor". And also the film of course by it's very nature of putting it in a present day setting naturally can't stay 100% true to the book. But still, I think it wasn't any less true to the book than the bulk of the other film adaptations and the ending was better and more realistic than in most other film adaptations.

And I love that even though every Frankenstein movie is always very different, they still always have little references to the previous movies. Like in this one it's the tank, which is very similar to the 1994 as well as the 1910 version. And let's not forget the infamous "It's alive!" line as well as the lightning, the electrical surge, the bolts and the cap. (those things are all references to the other movies, as they are not present in the book)

Anyway, go give this version a chance... you won't regret it.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Could have been so good but was a big let down
annemackie25 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
When creating a version of a classic like Frankenstein it is quite acceptable to alter some aspects, however there are certain things which cannot be tampered with and I am not referring to the laws of nature but the laws of drama. I can only assume that writer director Jed Mercurio was unexpectedly restrained either by budget or time slot and was therefore forced to make some serious editorial decisions. Unfortunately he made all the wrong ones. Frankenstein, like King Kong or The Elephant Man only works if there is an emotional connection between the characters and with the audience. Such a connection can only be made through eye contact (the eyes are the key to the soul). Consider how much emphasis Peter Jackson gave to the facial expressions of Kong and its startlingly human nature or John Hurt's eyes of John Merrick. In this version of Frankenstein the eyes of the 'monster' are hardly seen at all and this accounts directly to the failure of the drama. The key scenes are the meeting with the child, mother and son, and on the beach. All these scenes are rushed and thus create no emotion because we only see the eyes of one of the characters. When the 'monster' kills the little girl, (actually shown in full detail, there's a dubious first for British TV and indeed Film drama) the scene is shocking but not as effective as it would have been if the two characters involved had interacted like two children for a little longer. When mother was teaching son, there was no bonding at all, no emotion, no close ups of the 'monster's eyes showing any feeling. Just a cold grey lump of special effect. The final scene on the beach works at all because finally we see a more human side to the 'monster' and the most powerful scene was when we see the 'monster's' face albeit at a distance. Updating the Frankenstein story is all well and good, but abandoning the core theme of the original was a terrible mistake resulting in a disjointed and ultimately very disappointing drama.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
"It's alive..." I quite liked it actually.
Paul Andrews27 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Frankenstein is set in London where genetic scientist Victoria (Helen McCrory) is working on pioneering stem-cell research, however her young son William is dying & will die unless he gets a multiple organ transplant. Wishing to help her son Victoria uses his DNA in her stem-cell research, she sets up an experiment to genetically create the organs he needs. William dies & Victoria decides to abandon the research but her boss Professor Andrew Waldman (Neil Pearson) feels her work is too important to destroy & carries it on. Unfortunately the DNA starts to mutate, it starts to mutate into some humanoid shaped mutant creature. When a power surge cuts the electric in the laboratory the genetically created mutant creature manages to escape into the night...

Written & directed by Jeb Mercurio I quite liked this despite having little in common with Mary Shelley's novel from which it takes it's title. Made for & recently aired on British TV I suppose this got the go ahead after a recent spate of classic horror adaptation including Sweeney Todd (2006) with Ray Winstone, the six part series Jekyll (2007) with James Nesbitt & a feature length Dracula (2006) with David Suchet, however Frankenstein doesn't have any 'names' in it & has little connection with it's literally source. For a start no-one is called Frankenstein & for that matter the word Frankenstein is never mentioned once. Then there's the one basic aspect of the novel which the makers of this have seen fit to disregard, the fact that Frankenstein is a man & not a woman. Now, I'm all for equal opportunities for both sexes but Frankenstein is a bloke, he always has been & always will be. Then there's the fact modern genetic techniques are used to create the monster rather than stitching various body parts together which is fine in itself since this is meant to be a contemporary adaptation. At 75 odd minutes it doesn't last too long, it moves along at a reasonable pace, it's pretty entertaining for what it is but it stalls & falters once the Frankenstein monster is captured, there are too many mysterious Government secret service officials dressed in black & I didn't like the abrupt ending either.

This looks alright, it's well made but nothing spectacular. The Frankenstein monster is kept hidden for the most part, which once it is actually shown you'll see why. I suppose the look of the monster is supposed to incite sympathy for it but for most it will probably incite laughter, the actual special effect on it is OK. There's a brief nod to the original Frankenstein as the monster here has a paralysing device stuck into his neck which resembles the look of a large bolt! This is also one of the few films I've seen which actually kills a child on screen, not only does the monster kill a young girl who he tries to befriend after she rejects him (another homage or maybe rip-off to the original Frankenstein (1931)?) but it actually show's the monster breaking her neck in a sequence which just leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Otherwise there isn't much gore or violence, a few burnt corpses is as graphic as it gets.

Frankenstein is an OK way to 75 minutes but don't expect a faithful adaptation because this is anything but, taken in it's own right it's decent enough but nothing overly special.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Fantastic 10/10 ITV
dikhn28 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This Frankenstein was fantastic !!!

I was captivated all the way through.It was immensely poignant the moment on the beach with the parents and the monster.10/10 ITV and keep up the good work. Far better than all the BBC drivel!!

The bit with the little girl in the forest was quite terrifying but true to the Boris Karlof original. I thought Helen Mccrory was excellent as Victoria and I hope that they do a second part now. I especially liked the bit where they used Victoia's son's DNA so that they had a deep real connection with the monster.

All in all a superb modern version of an age old classic.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Almost good
Granger17 January 2018
This movie presents an interesting twist on the old story... but without the genius of Shelly's tale. It simply presents the original question: are there areas in which science should not venture? However it fails to answer that question, or even present it in a viable format. The name Frankenstein doesn't even apply here. Rather than a creation of intent this is an incident of accident. Lacking someone to blame then, the viewer is left with the question of what point the film maker is trying to make, besides the obvious. The answer at the end of the film is: none.

I do believe it's rather well-done as it stands on its own. The story is somewhat riveting once it gets started. There are some areas near the beginning of excessive slowness (how many scenes do we need of someone walking slowly toward an oddly unlocked-door?), but once they get past that stage it keeps the viewer wondering what is going to happen next.

What happens next though is that the story goes nowhere. Without spoiling the film, it comes down to the end with just a great big question mark... but no reason to ask the question. In the book there was no doubt: the doctor was the real monster (after all, Frankenstein is the name of the doctor, not the creature). In this presentation there is no monster to speak of. The doctor had no intent of creation, the creature has the mentality of a cornered wild animal, and the government (normally the real monster in such films) is put in a situation that it can only deal with things one way, and it does the best it can under that situation (in typically slimy covert government manner, of course).

In short while the film is interesting it doesn't come close to having any real impact, nor does it really make a point. As such it falls into the realm of "mediocre" in all areas of production and barely eeks out a 5 from me. The current average rating is even lower than that, which tells me I'm being somewhat generous in giving it 5 stars. The writers and director tried to make a point, but missed the mark and barely skates by on the name of the film... which has nothing to do with the plot or characters. They could have named this "Monster Among Us" and probably done as well... without raising expectations and lowering potential ratings.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
A Frankenstein entry that will satisfy die-hard Franky fans, if few else
Mike E Monster12 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
**SPOILERS** This modern-day Frankenstein re-envisioning makes for an average horror, with too many elements conveniently thrown together, too quickly, with an ending that seemingly sets up a non-existent sequel. The monster looks more alien than experiment, as well. Still, solid performances throughout make this a passable Frankenstein entry with some genuine tense moments. The nods to past versions - the windmill, the death of little girl, the name of one of the characters - at least show its heart was in the right place.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews