The Frankenstein Theory (2013)
User ReviewsAdd a Review
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.