"You know this story," Daniel Radcliffe's Igor repeatedly states in voiceover narration, as if trying to excuse the movie's being in a field of numerous Frankenstein films. I wonder, however, did the filmmakers know this story and which story exactly are they referring to? It can't be Mary Shelley's novel. I've read that, and this is not that. I suppose the story they meant are those in the classic Universal monster movies, mainly "Son of Frankenstein" (1939), which is where the characters of Igor and an inspector with an artificial arm originate.
Igor, the protagonist and narrator in this iteration, is entirely different than Bela Lugosi's version, though, as is Andrew Scott's religious-zealot Inspector compared to that of Lionel Atwill's. Igor's hunched back is fixed by Victor Frankenstein after he is rescued from the circus, whereupon he becomes a romantic figure for the new character of Lorelei, a trapeze performer who in turn had her life saved by Igor. Meanwhile, Victor is another atheist mad scientist adulteration of Shelley's character. He had an older brother named Henry--the name of the Frankenstein in the 1931 and 1935 films and the first name of Victor's friend in the book. His death is the impetus for Victor's efforts to create life, a role in the novel better occupied by his mother, but the brother angle suits this movie's purposes for the parallel brotherly friendship between Victor and Igor, for whatever that's worth. One other Frankenstein film that this one imitates, intentionally or not, is "Young Frankenstein" (1974) when Lorelei mispronounces Frankenstein's name--reminds me of better times watching Gene Wilder explain the proper pronunciation of his name in that film's parodying of the Universal series.
I wonder why they didn't make Lorelei into Mary Shelley, who then could've become the author of the story, which would explain why Igor keeps saying we know this story, which makes no sense within the film's world otherwise--in fact, Victor contradicts that very statement in the end. The circus stuff should probably be changed, then, perhaps to drowning, which played an important part in the real Shelley's life and which would work as well as Lorelei's fall from the trapeze act to parallel Victor's later reanimation experiments. As it is, this only female character in the movie is utterly unnecessary. I mean, is she only there so that we don't think the guys are gay?
The only appropriate addition this movie makes to the story is Finnegan, who bankrolls Frankenstein's experiments. This is how Victor goes from creating an ugly hybrid chimp to a giant monstrosity in a lab staffed with lackeys and corporate oversight. It's an apt analogy for a mainstream Hollywood movie that was never a good idea to begin with. Its re-imagining of the familiar story boiling down to a sophomoric morality tale of the dangers of playing God, as an excuse for a few action scenes, characters jumping off things to throw punches included, and a couple friendships whose lack of interest is entirely undeserving of the concluding slow-mo melodrama.
Igor, the protagonist and narrator in this iteration, is entirely different than Bela Lugosi's version, though, as is Andrew Scott's religious-zealot Inspector compared to that of Lionel Atwill's. Igor's hunched back is fixed by Victor Frankenstein after he is rescued from the circus, whereupon he becomes a romantic figure for the new character of Lorelei, a trapeze performer who in turn had her life saved by Igor. Meanwhile, Victor is another atheist mad scientist adulteration of Shelley's character. He had an older brother named Henry--the name of the Frankenstein in the 1931 and 1935 films and the first name of Victor's friend in the book. His death is the impetus for Victor's efforts to create life, a role in the novel better occupied by his mother, but the brother angle suits this movie's purposes for the parallel brotherly friendship between Victor and Igor, for whatever that's worth. One other Frankenstein film that this one imitates, intentionally or not, is "Young Frankenstein" (1974) when Lorelei mispronounces Frankenstein's name--reminds me of better times watching Gene Wilder explain the proper pronunciation of his name in that film's parodying of the Universal series.
I wonder why they didn't make Lorelei into Mary Shelley, who then could've become the author of the story, which would explain why Igor keeps saying we know this story, which makes no sense within the film's world otherwise--in fact, Victor contradicts that very statement in the end. The circus stuff should probably be changed, then, perhaps to drowning, which played an important part in the real Shelley's life and which would work as well as Lorelei's fall from the trapeze act to parallel Victor's later reanimation experiments. As it is, this only female character in the movie is utterly unnecessary. I mean, is she only there so that we don't think the guys are gay?
The only appropriate addition this movie makes to the story is Finnegan, who bankrolls Frankenstein's experiments. This is how Victor goes from creating an ugly hybrid chimp to a giant monstrosity in a lab staffed with lackeys and corporate oversight. It's an apt analogy for a mainstream Hollywood movie that was never a good idea to begin with. Its re-imagining of the familiar story boiling down to a sophomoric morality tale of the dangers of playing God, as an excuse for a few action scenes, characters jumping off things to throw punches included, and a couple friendships whose lack of interest is entirely undeserving of the concluding slow-mo melodrama.