The Frankenstein Theory (2013) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
60 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Found footage finds no fan
tellstar6 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
A film almost devoid of interest combining the worst aspects of the "found video" genre into something almost completely unwatchable. The film careens from an intriguing premise (that the Frankenstein monster is real) to an appalling sequence of events, each more predictable than the last. Full of dreadful acting, character stereotypes, inane character behavior and a litany of crying, screaming and heavy breathing as members of a documentary crew are popped off one by one by the "monster." ***SPOILER*** Mary Shelley's monster was an articulate fellow who might be able to shed some light on his condition. This brute just roars and clomps about in a big pair of winter boots and says nothing. Why waste the opportunity to do something interesting with such great source material? Bigfoot has a lot more character.
93 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Quite possibly the worst film I have seen.
frylock696 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I am by no means an experienced movie reviewer but I've seen enough films and have been an avid horror film buff for 30 years to know when I've seen a terrible movie. I've seen the lowest budget to the major studio releases and every film in between. This is my first review on IMDb which should speak volumes since I decided to take time to warn people not to waste your time with this movie. You'd be better off taking the hour and twenty minutes raking a cheese grater against your forehead! Even the lowest budget shlockers offer something for entertainment. Whether it be excessive gore or scantily clad girls...they do SOMETHING to try to catch your attention, even if it is the most low brow base function.

As I watched this I kept waiting for something to happen.....something PLEASE! It never delivers. A regurgitation of overly used clichés and zero originality is what you have in store for you. If you want something to bore you to sleep, I suppose renting this is cheaper than a bottle of sedatives. Or if you have an overpowering desire to become so irritated at the rubbish that you are witnessing on screen to the point of shoving your finger in your eye and swirling it around a bit, then by all means watch this film. Otherwise avoid it like the plague.
73 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This is very BAD, It Should Have Stayed A Theory
Sandy60197 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know if you can call this a "movie". It's not a horror movie for sure. It's more of a theory. It's a "Bad Movie" theory. Take and destroy a piece of literature like Frankenstein and insult it by not sticking to the book in basic details and by making the monster sound stupid with silly sound effects that are not scary. That's about all you get, because you barely even see the monster. You may see it a few seconds and you miss it, if you blink. That is ridiculous.

Then you take amateur actors and put them in fake found footage situation which is unbelievable. They are looking to see if Frankenstein was really in Alaska. Poor Mary Shelley. It's just really nonsense. The dialog is long and boring and irritating the viewer with no relevance to the story. You feel like it never stops. Some of the locations are okay if you like to see the arctic, but I can watch that on National Geographic. This was just a terrible waste of my time and bad.
56 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't judge a movie by its cover
Berlin Sianipar13 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie because the cover is so terrifying. I expected more appearance of this big terrifying monster, but the movie didn't meet my my expectation.

The story itself is promising, but it could be developed to a much more thriller. But I think the premise is not too selling. A loser professor lead a non respectful team of amateur movie crew? Who wants to watch a bunch of loser fighting for their life - and lose? And the only fighter in this movie died first. Perfect.

Now I know to not judge the movie by its cover. Oh yeah, and do not judge a movie by a good review from too small amount of reviewers here on IMDb. Probably they're just a part of the movie's marketing team.
41 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not a horror, not a thriller, just Dumb
YSF12 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I can't believe how stupid this is.

The whole thing feels like it takes long hours to get through. This is a huge bore. I didn't see any suspense or thriller in it. It is really really slow and there is almost NO entertainment at all. The only thing going for it are a few of the settings in the snow but who really cares at all. The filmmakers obviously thought they could try to use the name Frankenstein to keep its interest but it doesn't work. It might've worked maybe but the way this is made is too lame, boring and dumb. It's too bad this was made with no imagination. At the end I didn't even see the monster and I don't care if they died, which was lame too because they die off-screen. This so-called movie only makes you feel frustrated and betrayed. A disaster.
32 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Really bad
geeza2006111 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This movie if you can call it that is bad really bad how some reviews are higher than a 1 is beyond me. There's no horror no creepy moments and you don't see nothing at all its about a man that believes that Frankenstein actually exists out in the poles, so he takes a film crew too the poles with him and 1 by 1 they start getting picked off (original) NOT!!. I mean at this point you would think lets get out of here. not this man he wants too stay and try an reason with so called Franky , story is terrible no plot at all and actors are not believable.

OK the idea was good and could be made into a good movie if directed by the right person, but sorry folks this is not the one.

If your a fan of found footage movies like me then avoid this at all costs, be warned.
39 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Theory of a stinker
Mega Paul15 March 2013
Honestly never got the "story" to this movie. I almost turned it off in the beginning during a drawn out 'interview' stage, but decided to give it a little while longer... reached to turn it off again due to irritation at a relationship based on a woman who apparently despises her boyfriend, only around to yell at him in front of others, then talk behind his back and berate him... yet, upon heading out to get a drink, I returned, it was still on and watched some more. It turned out to be the worst thing I have watched this year, for sure. Possible the worst I have watched in the past couple years (nothing comes to mind that can out-rank it in crappiness). Seriously thinking the 10 * ratings that go into music and other details (I do not even remember music other than one song toward the end; and I will admit it was not bad... only reason I did not balk at being made to give 1 star and no 0 stars available) are made by people associated with the film, especially when there is only ONE review made by them on the accounts. lol
26 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A refreshingly unusual take on the found-footage genre
Randall Krause20 February 2014
I just watched The Frankenstein Theory on Netflix, and I was remarkably impressed. I would personally rank it amongst my top five found-footage films, alongside The Blair Witch Project, V/H/S, Grave Encounters, and Devil's Pass. I particularly loved the random interjection of quirky humor and personality flaws -- something which seems to be a rarity in this genre nowadays. It boosted the suspension of disbelief and the gave the movie some added smarts. I genuinely felt as if I was following ordinary people on an impromptu expedition rather than underpaid actors reading from a B-movie script. I also think the unusual choice of location was sufficiently compelling given the story's mythological basis (a la Devil's Pass and The Blair Witch Project). Although, the movie didn't pick up pace until the end, I enjoyed the character development. It added to the documentary's credibility and curiosity, rather than the typical detachment that I often experience with these types of films. My only disappointment was the final scene. It was almost too predictable. Maybe the director ran out of ideas? Still, that's a minor criticism given the overall production value. Highly recommended for anybody that is looking for a suspenseful late night sci-fi flick and is willing to tread off the beaten path of Paranormal Activity lookalikes.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Better Than Most Low Budget
indiemod-547-18200714 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't have high hopes for this film when I was about to watch it. Most low budget horrors, as a given, lack any semblance of suspense or drama, but this film was different. What really carries this movie is the acting. The characters come across as real people who are in a bad situation. The parts are played with subtlety and finesse. There were some funny moments that worked, too, which eased the tension before it was ratcheted up again. Finally, I thought the premise was clever. I can't give it higher than a 6 because it is "found footage" style, and, frankly I'm getting sick of that type of film. There is no real spoiler in this review, but I don't know if disclosing it as "found footage" qualifies, so I ticked the box so as not to get blacklisted.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If you didn't read the novel, you're not qualified to review this movie
slymold28 February 2014
I have researched the novel and taught Frankenstein at the university level for a number of years. I have also read the novel at least fifteen times, so I regard this film as an intertextual work rather than a stand-alone work, and that probably makes a huge difference. As far as I know, no successful film adaptations of the novel exists. Kenneth Branagh's "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" is interesting, but ultimately it is a howler of a B movie thanks largely to Branagh's decision to make Victor Frankenstein a wholly admirable character. "The Frankenstein Theory" illuminates the novel just as much, or more, than Branagh's film.

The film is a sequel to the novel. At the end of the novel, the "creature" jumps off a ship near the North Pole and bounds over the ice, having promised that he will build a funeral pyre and kill himself in the Arctic wastes. But does he? That's the question that drives the story of the film.

The writer/director obviously knew the novel as well as its biographical background. Jonathan reflects the monomaniacal determination of Victor Frankenstein. His backstory--expulsion from Oxford--also refers to the biography of Mary Shelley's husband, Percy. References to Percy Shelley's "Ode to the West Wind" and to Mozart's Requiem--a commissioned work that ultimately became the composer's own requiem--create some clever textual layering. Percy Shelley presaged his own death, as does Jonathan and his crew in the act of documenting their pursuit of their own killer. Some of the tension of the frame story of the novel is captured, too: Victor Frankenstein has been rescued by Robert Walton, a captain with a hired crew bound for the North Pole (which had not yet been discovered). The film crew in "The Frankestein Theory" are analogous to Walton's nearly mutinous crew.

The premise of documentation is also meaningful in relation to the novel. Like many works of Gothic fiction, the novel is presented as an epistolary narrative--a documentation of "true" events. It is composed of some letters by Walton and a transcript of the story that Victor Frankenstein tells to Walton. At least one previous IMDb reviewer claimed that this entire film is a rip-off of "The Blair Witch Project," and, while I see the similarity, I think this misses the point. "The Blair Witch Project" and many other contemporary horror films (e.g., "The Ring" and "Paranormal Activity") foreground the act of documentation--a conceit they owe to Gothic literature. This film is the only one I know that actually acknowledges and plays knowingly with that debt.

Let's not stop there. "The Frankenstein Theory" plays with a couple other visual genres as well--the mockumentary (especially "The Incident at Loch Ness") and reality television shows based on wilderness survival. It also offers a delightful homage to "Jaws." The guide, Carl, played by an uncanny double for Viggo Mortensen, delivers a comic drunken story that parallels the terrific sailor's tale spun by Anthony Quinn in Spielberg's film.

Finally, let's face it...the Frankenstein story has never been truly terrifying in any of its manifestations. The novel is certainly creepy, but it's mainly a novel of ideas. This film should be credited for combining brainy intertextuality, comedy, and at least a few mild thrills. It's certainly not the scariest movie I've ever seen, but that's not the point. It IS the scariest media representation of the Frankenstein myth I've seen, with the possible exception of Blade Runner--another brainy, intertextual film.
18 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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