Simply A Masterpiece

hyped garbage

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

First of all, let me say straight away that I was compelled to write this review after reading a few long 10 star reviews for this movie. Sorry, but I can't explain the existence of these reviews in any way other than the filmmakers' friends and other interested parties singing praise without any substance. I was not profoundly disgusted by this movie, but there is simply no way on earth that anyone would objectively give it 10 stars. Praising this plot because it apparently connects to where the novel leaves it? Are you even serious?The good sides of this movie is the actors being reasonably professional (not to be confused with a very limited effort at character development), the video quality and the scenery. "B" for the effort to go all the way to some cabin in the coldness. You can see that the filmmakers had the money to spend on stuff such as good clothes, renting the snowmobiles, and as I said, the camera-work was professional (no shaky "hidden footage" bs). On the other hand, there are absolutely no special effects. The entire volume of "blood" in the movie probably was recreated with one tiny package of sriracha sauce with a highly questionable result. I sighed when they find "blood traces" that looked like someone had a paper cut.There was so much to do potentially in terms of the plot. Just a few ideas that crossed my mind while watching: 1) discover that it was actually a real bear, while building the tension around the guy's obsession with the Frankenstein theory; 2) discover that it is a Frankenstein monster with an objective, say, to pull body parts from the victims in order to "replenish" his constitution; 3) have the monster actually respond in some fashion to the guy's efforts to connect to him. But hey, let's just leave it with a big guy who apparently feels the need to dress like a human, but will avoid the humanity at any cost and kill any person who encounters him. And btw, would also have a completely irrational idea to first mess up with the people in the cabin by stealing their snowmobiles. What. Why. I didn't give this movie one star because the scenery was nice, the actors gave it a good try, so it's not "awful" per se, but two stars fit it nicely.Also, what the hell? I watched it because it was recommended as similar to the "Dyatlov Pass Incident". DPI is quite an interesting movie, but I found no similarities. Again, gotta be the filmmakers' friends desperately trying to spread the word to get people to watch this rather sad effort.What lesson do we learn? I don't regret the time I spent watching, but I regret the money filmmakers wasted on this without having a good story to tell, when the money could be spent on so many useful causes.

Watched this hoping it could possibly be a hidden gem but after 30 minutes in I was bored despite this I watched anyway You see the creature for about 30-45 secs in total throughout the film if anything I wouldn't recommend this to my worst enemy and it is that bad it almost feels like a p**s take of the Frankenstein legend. No one in this film recognisable and poor storyline and acting I feel sorry for anyone that has actually paid for this The creature itself that you do eventually get a glimpse of looks more like Bigfoot than the Frankenstein monster we know in today's legend Frankenstein himself would wish for death seeing this

The Frankenstein Theory is a sequel to the book and not any of the movie adaptations. Jonathan, an obsessed scholar who mirrors the original Antagonist Victor Frankenstein, leads an exposition into northern Canada in search of The Creature.There have probably been a hundred Frankenstein movies, but this one is a love letter to the original story. If you've read the book (and you should, it's probably the best Science Fiction book ever written.) you will see that they've done their homework. That said there is some simple exposition in the beginning to explain what is at stake, and more about halfway through to raise the stakes.Technically the movie is much more watchable than other found footage movies, I'm looking at you Paranormal Activity. There is very little shaky cam, and you aren't going to get sick halfway through. The acting is mostly fair with a stand out in Timothy V. Murphy as their guide Carl.I liked how the story unfolded, good build up to the ending. By no means is this "art" but it's a good, entertaining effort.

The film starts within an interview of a documentary team of Dr Venkenhein (Ghost Busters joke?), who has various degrees in history and in chemistry. Jonathan's primary thesis was that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was not fiction. He's putting together an expedition to Canada to attempt to prove his thesis.In the next segment, the film crew talks about how stupid they think the project is, but that Jonathan is paying for the whole project. Officially, they will be respectful. Sure they will. Throw in a bit of distracted driving (caused by the found film approach), with a near vehicular homicide, and the viewer is setup to watch a home movie where the camera crew thinks the subject is a fool. Great start in a mere seven minutes.Jonathan thinks his 5 x great grandfather was the model for Dr Frankenstein, and also the founder of modern genetics, 50 years ahead of Mendel. Since the monster was not well-received at the time, most of the artifacts and papers related to the monster's creation were destroyed. Jonathan aims to prove his hypothesis by finding the monster in current times still alive, and to bring back proof of its condition.Jonathan's girlfriend thinks this theory is bovine scatology, as does Jonathan's university, from which he is suspended, much to his great embarrassment. The girlfriend thinks the expedition is a grand waste of money that will not end well.The first part of the trip starts in the dark one morning. After two airplane flights, the crew (Vicky, Eric, Luke, Brian) and Jonathan land in Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. They hire a local SUV to continue from Whitehorse. It's brutally cold. From Whitehorse they will drive to Deline in the Northwest Territories. Before they leave the Yukon, they meet with Clarence Malusky, who claims to have had an encounter with the Frankenstein monster. Clarence apparently did encounter the monster, and does identify a sketch from 1802. However, Clarence is a meth head who clearly has some personality issues. They make it out alive at least.They make it to Deline uneventfully. Jonathan arranges for provisions, such as food and snowmobiles. Further into the Northwest Territories, Jonathan discusses his ancestor Johann using recombinant DNA methods to incorporate the longevity of certain species into the monster.By Day 4, they reach a yurt (hunter's lodge, quite small), deep in NWT. Jonathan has tracked unexplained homicides in the area where they are to months of the year. He figures the monster committed these killings. He concludes the killings follow a migratory pattern. That night, one of their snowmobiles is stolen by someone. The next day, Karl tracks the snowmobile on foot to avoid alerting the thief. After four hours, Luke and Eric follow on the remaining snowmobile. Looks likes a bad choice. They find blood, then Karl's rifle, then Karl. They return, and the panic level rises.Will the remaining party find the Frankenstein monster? Will any of them return to their homes? ------Scores------Cinematography: 4/10 Found film approach.Sound: 8/10 Mostly good.Acting: 8/10 Timothy V. Murphy was rather good. Kris Lemche and Heather Stephens are also veterans and gave competent performances.Screenplay: 5/10 Too many clichés. The self-destructive scientist. Insufficient preparation for a difficult expedition. Thinking the wild creature will respond to kind words in the wrong language. Getting killed one by one. Found film. Discover the search object, but cannot prove it (like the entire X-files series).