Fantastic!

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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

I do not see how even a horror/thriller fanatic will enjoy this movie. I would give it a miss.

I'll start this review by praising the film: it is, aesthetically, an awesome movie. All the elements are in the right place, the gothic victorian circuses, hospitals, city, universities, the production design for this film is astonishingly detailed, as is the makeup, costume design and the locations they chose. The acting is excellent at some extent, let's say, from the beginning to the middle of the film. I wouldn't blame the actors though, even with Daniel Radcliffe going a little bit Potteresque - as in an useless protagonist - from the middle onwards. But i believe that's more a fault of the script and maybe the director, than the actor. Editing, music, mixing, photography, special effects, all ok. Direction: could be better. The experience is a lot worse when you've seen Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994), and start comparing the two movies. Instead of taking in and widening the more humanistic, polemical view on morality, or on an illuminated argument of science versus faith, which the script actually points to be going to when the inspector - in the only acting highlight on the whole film - challenges the mad scientist who at this point is not so mad, this fine line turns into dust we see it wreck into common drama (the tragic loss of someone dear) and some quite corny action (?) scenes. As most people, I really didn't like the ending. It's very segregated, too quick and lacks argument and acting. It has just one scene that could be better played and a lot of production show off. One other way to bring it would be to go deeper on Dr. Frankestein's madness. The title character only shows conflict barely, never taking a reflection on what could easily build a good monologue. James McAvoy is such a talented artist, it would be nice to watch him develop on this character, to give it a more "you would do it if you were in my place" kind of moment, to let the viewers savor their inner mad scientists a little. The love romance is absolutely dispensable. The female character is very much reduced to absolutely nothing, to irrelevance, wasting such a good actress. Wouldn't be missed if it was edited out. The female presence could be better used, it is a shame it wasn't. As is the family drama, which spawned just one, completely frivolous, little scene. Could be better used, maybe not concurring with the main argument as it actually is (sanity, morality). It could be a better movie if the writer took the opportunity to write a better script (or if the executive producers didn't meddle, I really don't know what happened). I'm sure the actors could play whatever twist nicely. But here the director had also an opportunity to right some wrongs, and I'm sure he did a little. But it feels like at some point he got tired of going against the stream and just let the script show itself. As the credits rolled up, I couldn't help thinking that a budget of 40 million dollars could be better used to pay the debts of some really poor countries. Instead of that we have a not so awesome movie with no soul whatsoever that will entertain very few people.

I did not care for this movie, but that could be because it just wasn't my type of story. It is the tale of Victor Frankenstein and Igor creating the monster, and it focuses primarily on the events leading up to the creation of the monster, with only the last few minutes dealing with the monster itself. If you like Daniel Radcliff you may like this movie. Personally, I saw him as Harry Potter through the whole film. The movie was heavy on story, but I personally felt the story was "meh"... That could be biased, however, since I like comedy and/or action mixed in with the story quite a lot, and this was lacking in both. In any case, this movie was not for me, but it could be good for someone who likes the time period, likes stories rooted in inter- personal relationships, or Daniel Radcliff.

We all know the story of Frankenstein. Or at least we think that we do. I've read the novel, and seen a number of movie versions (some faithful to the novel, some not). Paul McGuigan's "Victor Frankenstein" branches the story out, telling it from Igor's point of view. It's odd, since there was no assistant in Mary Shelley's original novel, least of all a hunchbacked one. But here we get Igor's backstory and how he came to know the doctor whose name is synonymous with bad science, and how they set about animating a dead body.Unfortunately, much of the movie is sort of silly. Although I liked how the depicted the police inspector as a hardcore Christian fanatic who considers science a form of witchcraft - sounds like a lot of Christians today, doesn't it?* - the movie goes too far on CGI. This isn't something of which Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy should be proud. It's not a bad movie, but it shouldn't be your first choice. "Young Frankenstein" is the best adaptation ever.*A strange irony is that so many of the religious people who denounce science as witchcraft or something similar have no problem using all of life's modern conveniences, all of them based on science.