Frankenstein (TV Movie 2004) Poster

(2004 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
46 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Bear In Mind It IS A Made For TV Movie
Daelock12 October 2004
I don't think these kinds of movies should be judged by the same standards as others. Compared to a full budgeted, generally more free, Hollywood movie, this movie lacks somewhat. Compared to something like The Langoliers, it's spectacular. Judge it on its own merits and it's certainly not a waste of time, the performances all around are excellent, stand-outs from Adam Goldberg and Micheal Madsen in my opinion, and it's got a plot that doesn't suck as well as some genuine twists. I'd say the production values are the best drawing points though, as this has the appearance of a big-budget, cinematic blockbuster, while most come off as cheesy and campy. There are worse ways to spend a couple of hours.
28 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
It was horrible.....
lnicolen17 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I must admit, I bought the movie because I knew it was based off Dean Koontz version of Frankenstein (cant wait for the last book!!). The names are the same and the storyline follows the first book (somewhat)of the series Koontz is putting out. BUT, it ends right in the middle! One of the most horrible endings I have seen on a movie to date. There is so much more to the story. I didn't know why Koontz pulled out until after I saw the movie. No wonder he didn't want his name on it. If they would have followed / completed the story with what Koontz has written I think it could have been one of the best Frankenstein movies ever made. I am really hoping they plan on making a sequel, even though it was made for TV. Left entirely too much hanging. Disappointed I wasted money purchasing this movie.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Telefilm with mysterious and sinister atmosphere and with intense sequences of terror and violence
ma-cortes7 November 2007
The film deals about the Detectives O'Conner(Parker Posey, Superman returns) and Sloan(Adam Goldberg, The Salton sea)are investigating grisly killings by a macabre serial-killer mutilating the victims. Also, a tough policeman(Michael Madsen, Free Willy)named Harker(homage to Jonathan Harker-Dracula) does inquiry on the horrific events. Meantime, she finds a mysterious man named Deucalion(Vincent Perez,Fanfan LaTulipe) who warns her about a megalomaniac Doctor(Thomas Kretschman, The pianist)named Victor Helios. Doctor Helios is actually Dr. Frankestein(originally created by Mary Shelley) still alive along with his sweetheart(Ivana Milicevic).

This television movie displays tension, mystery, thriller and eerie scenes when the murders and tortures take place. The film takes accent as the suspense as the terror. The plot for this TV picture was initially adapted by famous terror novelist Dean Koontz(Demon seed, Watchers, Phantoms) and attempted as a television series. Koontz was hired as writing credits and executive producer along with Martin Scorsese, but economic and plot disputes among Cable Network and Koontz, made both left the project, for that reason the screenplay gets flaws and gaps , furthermore,the movie final conclusion is ¨deja vu¨. The picture contains a creepy musical score fitting to the horror film by Norman Corbeil and Angelo Baladamenti, plus , a gloomy and sinister cinematography with frightening atmosphere by Daniel Pearl. The motion picture is professionally directed by Marcus Nispel, director of the much better ¨The Texas chainsaw massacre¨ and usually video-clips filmmaker and occasionally director, being his last film, ¨The pathfinder¨, also with dark and shady scenarios, as habitual in all his movies.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good Pilot for the Spot of X-Files
claudio_carvalho15 November 2005
Detective Carson O'Conner (Parker Poisey) and her partner Detective Michael Sloane (Adam Goldberg) are investigating murders of a serial-killer that mutilates and removes the internal organs of the victims. When they meet the mysterious and macabre Deucalion (Vincent Perez), they are informed that Dr. Frankenstein is alive with a legion of followers, using the name of Dr. Victor Helios (Thomas Kretschmann).

I liked this contemporary version of the character of Frankenstein. The story recalls "X-Files", having the same style of cinematography and music score. It seems to be a pilot of a TV series, inclusive there is no ending of the story but a great hook for the sequel. Anyway, it is a good entertainment, very underrated in IMDb. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Frankenstein"
16 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Lamentable update of the classic story
Leofwine_draca10 March 2012
Let me get this straight to begin with: FRANKENSTEIN is a horrible reinterpretation of the classic Mary Shelley novel, which attempts to modernise the story in a pre-flooding New Orleans. Everything about this production screams cliché: there's a murky, depressing visual style that constantly uses David Fincher's SE7EN as its source material (isn't that so late '90s?) and a storyline that ends up going absolutely nowhere. The reason? This was the ill-conceived pilot of a television series that was never made, so don't go in expecting any kind of plot resolution or tying up of loose ends.

The tired story sees a couple of lame detectives (Parker Posey and Adam Goldberg, possibly the most uninteresting cops I've seen in any movie) going after a killer leaving a string of bizarre deaths in his wake. Along the way, they come across Vincent Perez as a strangely scarred and hooded figure, and there are no prizes for guessing who he's supposed to be. There's also some pointless stuff involving ruthless scientist Victor Helios, played by Thomas Kretschmann. He's Frankenstein, but despite taking up a great deal of screen time he never actually gets involved in the main storyline.

Yeah, the film really is that muddled and disjointed: the detectives never catch up with Frankenstein, and we never even learn how he's still alive in the modern day. Talk about a con. Instead, the thrust of the plot eventually turns out to involve Michael Madsen, playing a fellow detective with a few secrets of his own. But there's really nothing to keep you watching: no interesting set-pieces, no special effects to speak of, no drama, no tension, not one bit of suspense. Director Marcus Nispel's work feels adrift and aimless outside of his preferred genre (remakes), and Dean Koontz wisely took his name off the thing. You can hardly blame him.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Didn't like it.
poolandrews24 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Frankenstein is set in New Orleans where detectives Carson O'Conner (Parker Posey) & her partner Michael Sloane (Adam Goldberg) are on the trail of a serial killer who likes to cut open his victims & take their organs, the latest victim is Bobby a security guard at a library who is missing a heart. The autopsy has surprising results as Bobby originally had two hearts, concrete like bones & various organs the pathologist hasn't seen before. The case turns even spookier when Conner gets a visit from a man (Vincent Perez) who claims he is a 200 year old creature stitched together from various body parts by Victor Helios (Thomas Kretschmann) who is now working in genetics & was responsible for Bobby, he claims the killer is one of Helios's creations & wants to be killed but can't commit suicide. Conner has to suspend her disbelief & set out in search of a killer the likes of which she has never faced before...

Produced & directed by Marcus Nispel I have to admit that I really didn't like this made-for-TV contemporary modern day set adaption of Frankenstein. The script by John Shiban was based on a concept by Dean R. Koontz who went uncredited & was originally slated to write it but dropped out of the production due to creative differences (or perhaps the fact that he knew it was going to be crap?) & I have to say this is a really dull & lifeless adaptation which is far too long, far too uneventful & leaves a lot of unresolved questions at the end which can be attributed to the fact that this was planned as a pilot for a proposed TV series which judging by this thankfully never materialised. The character's are so clichéd & dull with the usual cop's & bad guy's, the dialogue is forgettable & bland, there's next to no gore or exploitation & some of the directions the story goes in are bizarre like making Michael Madsen's character pregnant! Some of the story goes unexplained & again I think that's down to the possibility of their exploration in a potential TV series so details like how Victor Helios has survived for 200 years or what was inside of Michael Madsen's character go unanswered. The film felt like it went on forever, I got pretty bored pretty quickly & even though I only watched it several hours ago I can barely remember anything about it, it really was that dull & forgettable.

Director Nispel has filmed everything in very muted colours to such a degree this looks like it's black and white at times, now some may find that stylish & on occasion it is but the film is already so dull & lifeless that bleeding all of the colour out of every frame doesn't do it any favours overall. Nispel also sets all of his scenes in run down factories & apartments, even the police pathology lab looks like it need to be torn down & rebuilt! Again it just looks awful & it becomes a chore to sit through as there's no energy or life to it. Nispel admits in one of the documentary's featured on the 2003 remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre DVD that he doesn't like blood or gore & he proves it here as there's barely a drop of blood in it, someone is shot, someone is impaled on some metal pins & there are a few internal organs which really isn't good enough. This certainly isn't scary, there's no tension & it's utterly predictable when it's not being totally bizarre.

Technically the film looks nice in terms of photography & lighting but the lack of colour & constant run down depressing locations really drove me nuts! It's better made than the usual made-for-TV crap but that's about as positive I can be. The acting was poor, I didn't like anyone in it at all either actor's or character's.

Frankenstein is a bad contemporary take on Mary Shelley's often adapted novel, I'll take Peter Cushing in a full blooded Hammer horror Frankenstein over this modern day crap every time & I strongly suggest you do the same.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
definitely worth seeing
conan474210 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
If you stick to Kubrick's idea that tone is more important than plot or theme, Frankenstein is a great movie. It indulges itself in decadence and decay and manages to produce things that are both beautiful and profoundly disturbing.

There may be a few spoilers here.

The story follows two cops (Parker Posey and Adam Goldberg) hunting down a serial killer in New Orleans who dissects the corpses of those he kills and takes out various organs. As seen here, New Orleans is a tottering pile of rotting buildings and knick knacks, and one can definitely feel that the movie has gotten its bent from Se7en, particularly the scene in the Sloth murder house. Of course, the murders turn out to be more than they seem, and they become linked to a certain Doctor Victor Helios, who is, of course, the famed Frankenstein, who has survived the last two centuries by methods unknown. Dr. Helios is being hunted by a "man" named Deucalion, whom, as it is revealed through several impressively nightmarish flashbacks, is the original Frankenstein monster.

This is an interesting take on the monster. Here, he's no half-witted rag-tag pile of body parts, but is instead enigmatic, brooding, and intelligent. One of the most interesting scenes is when he tries to show Posey the truth of his origins. Deucalion is onto Helios's trail because he has discovered that Helios has not stopped his experimentations at all- rather, he has been perfecting them, and has produced numerous successful creations. Part of the fun of the movie is trying to guess who's "of God" and who isn't.

This story is actually two stories, and this can be troubling. On the one hand we have a detective story, but on the other hand we have an exploration of character with Helios and his wife, who is also a creation. Helios's hunt for perfection is essentially tearing her apart, and her wish for death becomes more and more evident as time goes on. But the two plots have almost nothing to do with one another, except perhaps thematically, and oftentimes the Helios plot takes away from the tension with the murder hunt.

It seems to be going somewhere, like they might intersect somewhere, but never does.

All in all, this movie is more about impressions than anything. Some scenes and performances stand out. For instance, there is a "birth" scene that may just match the original birthing scene from the first Frankenstein movie. Here the creation is covered in some sort of white fluid and looks exactly like a marble statue. It is a profoundly inhuman and disturbing effect, and as it awkwardly comes to life you can't help but be creeped out. Another good part about this movie is the performance by the killer (whom I won't reveal here), who manages to be deranged and childish at the same time. There's no real resolution to the movie, so don't expect one. Personally, I wish that we could be given a little more backstory to what exactly Frankenstein and his monster have been doing for the past 200 years, but I suppose they couldn't work that out in 2 hours. Eventually it tries to become a study about humanity and what it means to be really human, but I feel that it's better just to sit back and enjoy the macabre vision in front of you. 7/10
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
not bad as a pilot; pretty poor as a stand-alone movie
FieCrier16 October 2004
The cinematography, editing, art direction are all pretty good on this, especially for a TV movie. It is rather one-note, though. Subdued colors, rain, smoke, darkness, grungy sets. Take a bit of the idea of Frankenstein, set it in the modern day, and cross it with a bit of Se7en, and there it is.

The acting I didn't particularly care for. I've liked Posey, Goldberg, and Madsen in other things, but not here. Didn't care for Helios or the Monster either.

As a pilot, this isn't too bad. As a stand-alone movie (since the series was not greenlighted), it doesn't work very well. We don't learn very much about any of the characters. Parker Posey's character has a young autistic brother she has to take care of (or has to have a nanny take care of for her), who serves no purpose whatsoever.

I guess the brother's role would have been fleshed out in the series, but since it wasn't to be, they could have cut him out. Madsen's character has something big going on, but it isn't wrapped up at the end at all. Helios' project(s?) are not wrapped up, and neither are the monster's. The only storyline that has any closure is that of The Surgeon. Perhaps if there is a DVD commentary it will shed some light on in what direction the series would have gone.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Cool stuff. Wish it was continued
NateWatchesCoolMovies8 March 2016
Dean Koontz's Frankenstein is an abandoned TV pilot that was deftly edited into a feature, and marketed thus. It absolutely kills me that the networks never picked it up, because it's a super imaginative, stylish beast of a story with an unbelievable ensemble of genre players and the direction of Marcus Nispel, a veteran of slick horror and fantasy. Oh well. If you can wrestle up a DVD like I did, or catch it on cable, it's good watching. It takes place nearly two hundred years after Mary Shelley's story, and we see that time has radically changed Dr. Frankenstein and his monster. The Dr., now called Victor Helios (the excellently moody Thomas Kretschmann) has preserved his youth through dark science, as well as that of his wife Erika (the stunning Ivana Milicivec), whom he has more twisted plans for, never giving his need for bizarre experimentation a rest. Meanwhile his creature, now a roaming Demi-human named Deucalion (Vincent Perez), hunts the good Doctor down, for revenge and possibly more. Their presence catches the attention of Detective Carson O'Connor (Parker Posey, demonstrating how well she fits into pretty much any genre), and her partner (Adam Goldberg). Meanwhile another, less idealistic detective named Harker (Michael Madsen oozes sinister malice) enters the fold with his own sick intentions. The plot takes care and attention or you will be lost; this isn't classic Frankenstein, it's dark and esoteric new spin with its own ideas, some of which are delightfully surreal and akin to artists like David Cronenberg and Guillermo Del Toro. It's got a distinct, ambient lighting scheme as well that sets the tone just south of conventional and gives it an eerie atmosphere almost like The Crow or Dark City. It's really a shame that no one saw the potential with this one to allow it to blossom into either a show or a franchise. At least this one got made though, and it's really worth checking out.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disappointing
Frankiiee3 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I had no idea what this was about when I started watching, obviously the main idea was based on Mary Shelley's book but I struggled to make the link. It was just...a bit of a mess really. Yes, I think that the idea itself was original and could have been brilliant but all the fade outs made it impossible to follow. I understand why they did it after reading that it was going to be a TV series but there were still way too many. It felt like they were cutting out half way through something important and then when they went back to it, something completely different was going on. There were too many branches coming out of this film that weren't explained, Helios' spine for example. What was that about? Did I imagine seeing it, because it was never mentioned again. And the ending was ridiculous. Okay so it was supposed to be a cliffhanger but it just...stopped. In the middle of a conversation! Overall, I was very underwhelmed and to be honest, this film doesn't deserve to name itself after such an amazing story.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Flat
HorrorFan7811 October 2004
Marcus Nispel makes pretty pictures, but I'm starting to think he knows nothing about telling a story. This whole film (like his appalling "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" remake) is all one-note. It's just mood, style, and camera work - nothing else seems to matter. And while the style is great, it's piled on HEAVY on EVERY SINGLE SCENE - they all look the same. They all feel the same. How can EVERY SINGLE LOCATION be sepia-toned and dimly lit, even a HOSPITAL? None of the actors look like they've bathed in weeks.

Add a convoluted script and phoned in performances and you have... well... this.

Go back to commercials, Marcus. You're much better there.
10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Mildly amusing retelling
fataloblivion10 October 2004
In a dark New Orleans atmosphere, witty detectives Parker Posey (Carson) and Adam Goldberg are hunting a killer who rips organs from the victims. Their investigation starts in the public library where a security guard has had his heart ripped out. The investigation leads Carson down a grim road where she learns that the victims are all abnormal creations of Dr. Victor Helios, an uber-creepy doctor with a penchant for "perfection."

Evidently, Helios improved on the physical stamina and endurance of humans (his creations can survive great falls, have bigger hearts, and more calcium in the bones making them "cement-like"). However, Helios fails to perfect the mental stability of these persons. It turns out, nearly half the people we meet are his "children."

As we learn just how crazy everyone is and as one particularly charitable Helios-man throws Carson clue after clue, we find out who the killer is and spend 30 minutes chasing him around. In the meanwhile, Helios drowns the wife he created (an inexplicable method for a physician - one can only presume demonstrating the depth of his insanity) -- only to reinvigorate her with new life and a new personality. The big climax of the film is when the Helios-man-serial-killer faces off with the Helios-man-clue-giver. Of course, the latter wins.

The film scores well on visuals, displaying much of the sculpture, old mansions, and architecture for which New Orleans is known for. It also has the usual good performances by Goldberg and Posey. Unfortunately, everyone else simply acts overtly spooky with little personality beyond general creepiness. For horror movie fans, this will disappoint. Even more damning, the film has a cliff-hanger ending leaving huge room for a sequel - but why?

5/10
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"In the old days, a face like yours was worth gold in the freak shows."
classicsoncall9 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
For me, this picture turned out a lot better than I thought it would be. It uses the familiar Frankenstein concept of patching bodies together from the remnants of deceased degenerates by an evil doctor who's pursuit in life is the creation of perfection. In that regard, I thought the method Victor Helios (Thomas Kretschmann) used to reinvent his own wife was kind of unique. And good old Deucalion gave new meaning to the term 'I sing the body electric'.

There are other elements that made the film a unique experience as well. Adam Goldberg got to deliver a bunch of zany lines as Detective Michael Sloane opposite partner Carson O'Conner (Parker Posey). Their back and forth banter was rather amusing amid unusually grim circumstances, particularly with a room full of hanging razor blades and a box with a 'sacred heart' in it. The best though was the reference to Detective Harker's (Michael Madsen) 'go nuts' room. I just never expected to see Zip-loc bags used in product placement for a movie.

Depending on your disposition though, the ending didn't seem very satisfying. It left things wide open for a follow up sequel, but who in their right mind is going to follow this thing with another flick. Maybe I shouldn't say that, Martin Scorsese wound up on this one as executive producer.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great new take on it
RemiFasolati-881-77188231 December 2013
Frankenstein (2004)

This was made for TV on the USA network and had fine production values.

A twist on the classic Frankenstein story. This one takes place in modern-day New Orleans where a detective investigates a series of murders.

But the 'Frankenstein monster' is an intelligent 200 year old looking for his "maker" (a Victor Helios, also 200 years old, keeping himself alive with genetic experiments) who is creating synthetic humans from stolen body parts to eventually replace mankind.

It had a bit of an unusual ending and I see it was originally designed to be the pilot of a series... which explains the ending. Turns out it was based on the book "Frankenstein: the Prodical Son" by Dean Koontz and Kevin Anderson. Which I now want to read. Two Thumbs Up from me. I enjoyed it!

I can't reveal any spoilers but there were twists in the characters as well as a massive rewrite of the plot. And all I'll say is... role-reversal.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
non redeemable
jfarms19565 April 2013
This movie is for the over 8 but under 25 crowd. It works for sleepovers and slumber parties. The acting for this SciFi thriller/horror is okay, but not memorable. It has a poor storyline and is grossly predictable from the start. It is also supposed to be a horror flick, but I was not at all scared. The lighting is too dark for most of the movie and turns me off. The plot is disjointed. There is too much scene jumping. It is hard to get into the plot with all the scene jumping. The movie is slow. It is work to follow the progress of the movie and understand the significance of the scenery and progression within the flick. OK for the die hard SciFi fan to watch once. Otherwise, almost a waste of time to see.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Great movie but.....
waterfox2107 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
OK So the movie was great. Great storyline And good acting the only thing that totally blows about this movie is there is no second movie i wish that i have never watched it. It was so good that when i found out there's no more i was devastated got my hopes up and they came crashing down so if you love to watch movies with no ending in sight and to be cut off once you are totally into it then watch it . if they do make another one witch they most likely wont I will be the fist to yet you know this movie is so great its a bummer to watch it go no where. so thats all i have to say about it if you hear any thing at all about another one being made please let me know thanks for reading goodnight.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
So so.
wendym-215 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Normally, I would not recommend reading a book before watching the movie. It just spoils what might be a great movie. With this one, however, it might help answer some questions.

This film had great potential as the pilot for a series. If it had continued, I think it would have been much better and made more sense. The theme and feel was right up there with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and other horror-genre series. Having read Dean Koontz's book, I knew what was going on, but if I had gone in cold, I would have said, "Huh?" at the end.

This is not a stand-alone story. It's just the beginning of a much more complicated one. I saw no indication anywhere, except here and in Mr. Koontz's book, that once he had pulled out of the project, this was ever intended to be more than a movie. With that in mind, they should have given it another half-hour and wrapped up all the loose ends.

Two characters were in the book but left out of the movie, and I wonder if this is why Mr. Koontz pulled out of the project. They provided a lot of information about autism and some nice red herrings about the identity of The Surgeon, and they explained the necessity for some other characters. Anyone who has watched enough horror TV shows would have little trouble figuring out whodunit in this one. Without the other missing character, one has to wonder why they left Vicki and Carson's little brother in the story at all.

If you see the movie, read the book and get the questions answered. It will answer all of them except Victor's rib-thing, which was cool but totally out of the blue and not explained.

Now for the good part: Though the story left me flat, I enjoyed the acting. Adam Goldberg and Parker Posey have great chemistry together, and Michael Masden is an awesome bad guy. I really enjoyed Vincent Perez as Deucalion, but as a fan of Gerard Butler, I couldn't help thinking he'd have been perfect for the role. I had pictured someone older for Victor, but I was really won over by Thomas Kretschmann's performance. He delivers a Ralph Fienees-esquire performance that really makes you say, "Oh, yeah. He needs to die." The role of Erika 4 and 5 unfortunately didn't develop well enough to like or dislike. I thought Ivana Milicevic did well with what she had to work with; it just wasn't much.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Who is truly the monster? The Creature, or the man who made him?
Hypnotica28 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
We all know the basic story of Frankenstein. Mad scientist, obsessed with using science to cheat death who ends up creating something he cannot truly understand or control. A monster. This version poses the true question; Who is really the monster? Deucalion, the mass of body parts stitched together and brought to life? Or the man who dared to create and give life to such a being? In this case, it certainly seems as though Frankenstien's first creation has become more human than Frankenstein will ever be and the mad doctor the true monster.

Ducallion, known as "The Monster," has wandered the world for two centuries. He is the first of many creatures created by Dr. Frankenstein, who is now known to the world as Dr. Victor Helios. Deucalion, however, has a trait that Frankenstein never intended for him to have; immortality. Helios is bound and determined to create a perfect race. To improve humanity. Only his twisted ideas of perfection are costing many lives. And now, in modern day New Orleans, one of his creations has gone on a killing spree, risking the exposure of their kind and Helios' experiments to the world. And putting two very determined detectives on his trail, as well as Deucalion, who is determined to stop Helios' plan to replace humanity with his, as it turns out, not-so-perfect creations.

Vincent Perez is a great actor and gives a wonderful performance as Deucalion. He tends to underplay the part, projecting Deucalion's quiet intensity more than his physical strength, although the role does call for some physical acting. But... Frankenstein's monster ended up far better-looking than one would have expected him to, which I admit can be a little weird.

Some might say Parker Posey is miscast as Detective O'Connor, but she handles the role well, slipping between playing the tough detective and the sister trying hard to give her autistic little brother a good life and a safe world to live in.

Adam Goldberg is the sometimes squeamish Detective Sloane, O'Connor's partner and would-be love interest. As usual, he often provides the comic relief to an otherwise serious storyline.

Thomas Kretschmann is appropriately creepy, cold and calculating as the mad scientist who has been using his science and experiments on himself to stay alive for all this time.

It's a whole new twist on an old story, ladies and gentlemen. Despite being a fairly low budget production, it is an enjoyable movie. Except for the purposely unresolved ending, which leaves room wide open for a sequel. Now, in all honesty, the book was much better (as is the case 9 times out of 10) and gives much more information. Although, it is a trilogy, so if you plan to read the books, it's going to take a while.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
a shortcut to vacuity
atrolleynatrain11 January 2006
okay. so it isn't that bad. it has all a lover of Gothic sightseeing can long for: the colours, the indie-looking actress, the support act is not exceedingly hilarious and milicevic is stunning. but it's bad. bad in a sense you can't ever get any sort of genuine like for any of the characters, not even harker. madsen's voice is state-of-the-art and ever creepy but you can't put a film together based on some good pretty details. vincent perez is worse than the overall movie. he couldn't be phonier and more inappropriate in the incarnation of "his first". all the missing bits aren't a justification for some considerably wrong choices of clichés: the hooded perez, the sick librarian (it could be any other middle-aged female for that matter) throwing up while some nasty lines are jerked unskillfully and the yucky matchmaker nanny. despite what's read before, i need to point out the best thing in this movies lies beneath the intriguing character of the priest. i only hope the sequel keeps track of that sort of exquisite type of idea.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Frankenstein 2004
katrinaceleste5622 October 2005
I thought the movie was very well done, but my first thought was this must be a pilot or something. It ended with quite a cliffhanger. As I read about the movie I found that yes in fact, it was meant to be a pilot for an original series.

I am disappointed that Dean Koontz left the project and I hope that they get it back together. The movie isn't worth much without the rest of the series. It looked like a lot of work went into it.

I liked the actors that played the two detectives, mostly because they are ordinary people and not your typical glam stars. I am sure the leading actress can glam out easily enough, but the look she has in this roll is good for a normal working class woman. And I like the character of the younger brother. They could really develop some stuff from that. I can see this going far as a series if somebody takes off with it.

Victor Perez played his role real well. I love his mystique and the tragedy of his plight. He seems to be caught between the two worlds and really wants to do something about Helio. Mrs Helio seems at a crossroads and could easily be torn with her loyalties. She is devoted to her husband, is distressed about her origin and can not do enough to please her husband. He is obviously just using her, as he has others.

As far as the spine thing.......wow that is creepy. The good Dr has done a number on himself.

What in the world was that thing that got out of the bad cop's stomach? Oh my goodness. Is that a baby of some sort and is it going to wreak havoc? Obviously these things are supposed to become more clear.

Don't give up on this project it has real potential.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
autism
zamwes18 October 2005
My mom handed me the book last spring to read because there are characters with autism in it and I have twins with autism. I read the back of the book and realized it was the same movie I had seen in Oct of 2004. I was pretty excited! I had NEVER read a Dean Koontz book, but was familiar w/ Kevin Anderson doing SW novels and his collaboration with Brian Herbert in Dune prequels.

After reading the book I was anxious to see the movie again. Finally bought it last week, must have just came out the last couple of months. I enjoyed it, but again a lot of things left hanging for the anticipated TV series, which is too bad. I remember last year after seeing the ending being pretty stoked for it! I'm a big Parker Posey fan, so I loved her casualness and she played the character perfect! I haven't had time to read the second book yet, but it's too bad there won't be a film to put with it.

I'm anxious to see how Deucalion and the brother's relationship becomes important. Also about the creepy autistic boy hiding under the porch. (End of BK 1) I had on of those once, but it turned out to be my son.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Just saw it on Netflix, pretty good
boudicea19675 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I agree with another review that it should not be based or compared to a movie or motion picture because it was made for television. Some did not care for the ending, but I think it was similar to a pilot in that it was interesting and slowly leads you into the mystery of it and when you think there is an ending in sight, it takes a turn to where you see the detective and the "Monster" together figuring out what to do next.

The characters were good for a possible sequel because let's face it, we do not know everything about a character from one "episode" and people are generally more multi-layered with concerns, cares, problems of their own that cannot be summed up in one TV movie. I think the director and producer were hoping that people would like it enough to want a sequel or a series and today it could have been done given all the 10 episode series that there are now instead of the full series with the 22+ episodes. It would have fit in nicely, however, in 2004 there were not any and the one's that were came from the UK because their series are done that way for most things.

I really liked it a lot. The actors were all good together and played off of each other very well. Vincent Perez and Parker Posey were very good together, the timing was good, the interactions were great and with Vincent Perez being the first of the creations it made me think of how Boris Karloff was about playing the Frankenstein creation. He told his daughter that his "friend" was unique in that only children understood him as not being a villain so much as being someone who did not know things and made big mistakes that were seen as horrible things and in this movie the creation is better than the creator in understanding what it is to be human and understanding the horror of creating something or somethings just because you can and the consequences involved that you can see and those you don't see. I really think this would have been even better if it would have continued on to other TV movies or a series.

Plus, I like a lot of things that Michael Madsen is in. I wonder if he is going to be the "Vincent Price" of this generation. If you do not understand what I mean by that, see biographies and a good one regarding a scandal he was involved with, then you will know.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disappointing and disjointed effort
When a New Orleans detective finds a series of strange mutilations and deaths to be the cause of the fanatical doctor and his creations trying to continue their work, she teams up with a sympathetic work to stop him before his rampage spreads throughout the city.

This was a pretty disappointing and not all that worthwhile effort that had a few potentially intriguing moments about it. One of the better elements here was the use of the novel to make the new story come around, as it manages to make a lot of the same elements together here in a modern-day take that feels like a true connection between the two, which is quite unique. As well, there's a lot more action to be found in the later half here with several different encounters with the creatures and the victims, a nice shoot-out in a dank factory and some actual energy that makes for an overall enjoyable time here. It's all too late, though, since the first half of this is all pretty much a lame police investigation that isn't in the slightest bit interesting as there's nothing that comes of it as all we do is stumble upon the bodies after- the-fact and there's nothing of interest there when it's not shown. Even then there's not a lot going on with the story until the revelation of the increased organ-count that brings about the experimental genetics angle that carries the story onward, and more so for the fact that, as it's a pilot for a never-filmed TV series there's just way too many hanging story lines that aren't explained the lack of excitement in this section is hammered home even further.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Language and a mild sex scene.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Visually Stunning, But Poorly Compacted
gavin69423 May 2007
A security guard turns up dead and an autopsy finds he has two hearts, bones like concrete and other abnormalities that would essentially make him live forever. More murders happen, and soon the police believe that not only do more men like the security guard exist but that they were, in fact, created by another man rather than born as such.

Director Marcus Nispel is good at one thing in particular: making his films look like rich oil paintings. His take on "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was beautiful (even if the film itself sputtered) and "Pathfinder" is more visual than cerebral in every respect. A great choice for the new film "Alice", I think Nispel honed his skills on "Frankenstein". It comes across as the more grim and artistic interpretation of "Seven", which I mean in every possible good way.

The movie's failings are something I cannot really place on the shoulders of the director or the cast. Because by far the biggest flaw was the truncation of what could have been a television series (and was supposed to be) into a movie. Questions are answered too quickly killing a good mystery, more questions are raised but never addressed (in fact, hundreds) and this comes together with an ending that begs for a few sequels or an ongoing series (but, of course, I cannot say what that ending is).

Adam Goldberg does a surprisingly decent job here. I am not a fan of his, and do not think he is strong outside the realm of comedy (his best film remains "The Hebrew Hammer"). Here, he comes across as a lovable and able detective who has the necessary failings of a man who falls in love with his partner (at work). He played it straight and I think this was one of his better performances.

Michael Madsen is an actor who cult film fans and horror fans just love (probably more because of "Reservoir Dogs" and less because of "Free Willy"). I, also, love this man. And I do not think his fans will be let down here... while his part is small at first, he becomes more prominent as the movie progresses and those things we love about Madsen begin to shine. This may rank as one of his better better roles, possibly his best outside of a Tarantino film.

If you see this movie, give it the benefit of the doubt. Some flaws exist, but as I said I think these are more on the part of the network and less due to the creative forces involved. The acting is good, the story is very original and highly interesting and I cannot stress enough just how beautiful the film comes across. Possibly the best interpretation of "Frankenstein" I have seen yet.

Recommendation: read Dean Koontz's novels. While I have not, on my second viewing I watched the film with someone who did, and it made a big difference. There is a lot going on behind the scenes and a good deal that had to be left out -- I really wish they had made a sequel or a series, but the novels will have to suffice.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed