Memorable, crazy movie

Good concept, poorly executed.

As Good As It Gets

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Possibly one of the best films I have watched in the last 15-20 years. Beautifully filmed this is a master class on how to film and direct a movie.The film constantly draws and entertains your eye with thoughtful positioning and movement of the camera. The attention to detail of the sets throughout was impressive. The script was spot on with just the right amount of humour which kept pace with the action.The acting from James McAvoy was first rate. Supported by Daniel Radcliffe who raised his game from his harry potter roles for this movie. A great performance from Andrew Scott as the over zealous inspector. All the cast played their parts well.Need to watch it at least twice to really appreciate the amount of work that must have gone into putting this together.Well done all

Because it did so poorly in the movie theaters (maybe it was released along side some blockbusters . . I don't know), I didn't expect much. That being said I'm always interested in a twist on a familiar story. THIS DELIVERED! Igor's perspective.I've never liked Daniel Radcliffe in anything (especially Swiss Army Man) but I have always been a fan of James MacAvoy. They both deliver! The only reason I didn't give it a better rating was because I had hoped for a better ending. Who knows, maybe they were holding out for a sequel . . . ?Enjoy this one.

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.

if the start point is the novel of Marry Shalley, nothing. if the start point are the adaptations of the little , splendid novel, not more than "decent". because nothing new is discovered by the viewer. except, many, the religious dimension who is used not in the most inspired manner and the poor Andrew Scott, who could be a decent Javert, gives, against his noble effort, sketch of a character. sure, the intentions of director are is real good.and technically, the film is a good job.but the story seems be a sentimental improvisation, at the limit of soap opera. so, what to say ?