n
n
n
n
nVictor Frankenstein (2015)
n
n
n
nDirector: Paul McGigan
n
n
n
nCast: James McAvoy, Daniel Radcliffe
n
n
n
nMary Shelley’s Frankenstein is one of those characters thatngets adapted on to film a lot. Like Dracula or James Bond, Frankenstein’snmonster keeps getting brought back to life again and again; Victor Frankensteinnis the latest attempt. The problem with popular characters such as Frankensteinnis that if the new take on the character doesn’t offer anything new, it’s goingnto get ignored as another “unnecessary film”. That’s the first thing that poppedninto my mind when you hear that their making a new Frankenstein film. Is it necessary?nWhat new angle does it attempt to impress us with? For example, Kenneth Branagh’snMary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) showed us an eloquent version of thenFrankenstein monster, an intelligent version of the monster was something we’dnonly read about in Mary Shelley’s book. On Roger Corman’s Frankenstein Unboundn(1990) we were presented with a time traveling storyline. Mel Brook’s YoungnFrankenstein (1974) was a parody of all the old Universal movies, and so on.nEach take on the character has to have an angle. Even the filmmakers know theynare walking on tired ground, the first words spoken on this new film are “You’venheard this story before” Yet onwards they went and made this film, and so nownwe have a new take on good old Frankenstein. Was it worth it?
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nOn this one we start to dive into Frankenstein’s world bynseeing everything from Igor’s point of view, which I found totally innovatingnbecause Igor is always relegated to slave status on these films, we’ve nevernreally seen his story. He’s always been the ugly, monstrous hunchback whonfollows Dr. Frankenstein’s every order by saying “Yes Master”, not so on thisnmovie. On this movie Igor is a circus performer, a clown act who gets treatednwith no respect despite the fact that he’s actually a pretty knowledgeablenperson who educates himself by reading a lot. While visiting the circus VictornFrankenstein realizes Igor is actually brilliant and decides to take him in asnhis partner. The thing with the Igor character on this movie is that they did ancomplete overhaul of the character. On this one Frankenstein straightens Igor’snback, eliminates his hump and gives him a name all within the span of fivenseconds. Bim, Boom, Bam! Suddenly we have a handsome, clean cut, well dressednIgor. This constitutes the biggest change in the whole story, the desire tontreat Igor with some respect, to give him some depth. He’s no longer an assistant,nhe’s a partner. He’s not an order receiving idiot, he’s actually part of the reasonnwhy the experiments flourish, because of Igor’s genius. Igor even falls in lovenand actually gets some, that’s right, Igor gets laid, this is not yourngrandfathers Igor that’s for sure. What’s most interesting is that Igor is ancharacter who doesn’t even appear in Mary Shelley’s book, I think this makes itneven more obvious where the inspiration for this movie came from; we’re talkingnabout movies feeding on movies and then becoming something else entirely.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nI enjoyed everythingnabout this movie, they way it looks, how well it was written, how characters grownand have a depth to them. These are intelligent characters we can root for. Inlove the dialog on this thing, it didn’t waste any time, it goes quick and tonthe point while not forgetting to be eloquent and well versed. I’m not sayingnit’s Shakespeare, because this is still very much a commercial film every stepnof the way, even going as far as setting up future movies, but it is wellnwritten. It’s dialog sounds appropriate to the era it takes place in. I readnsomewhere that the director behind this film, one Paul McGigan, said that henconsidered Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to be a boring book, which I have to admit,nis true. It’s not a story told in an exciting manner, the book is introspectivenand philosophical, and it’s not exactly concerned with action or adventure. SonI can see why the director would express himself that way about a belovednclassic. In fact, I don’t think the filmmaker’s where even concerned with thenbook at all, they seemed more inspired by the different cinematic adaptationsnof the character. Their influences are more cinematic than literary. They even referencenYoung Frankenstein (1974) at one point, keen listeners will hear it. One thingnis obvious, director Paul McGigan didn’t want to make a boring movie and if younask me, he succeeded.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nThematically speaking the movie goes everywhere anFrankenstein movie should, it doesn’t lose the essence of the books themes.nFrankenstein has always been about the difficulty of accepting death as a partnof life. About accepting that at one point we’re all going to bite it and thatnthere’s nothing we can do about it. The film goes into the whole religion vs.nscience issue. In the film, Victor Frankenstein is a realist, he doesn’tnbelieve in any sort of superstitions or the supernatural; he is very groundednon logic and reality. This mentality is pitted against the mentality of the policenofficer conducting the investigation on Igor’s disappearance, who’s all about Christianity,nwearing crucifixes and calling everything ‘sin’. Who will win this battle of wits?nReligion or science? I liked that edge; I loved the audacity with which VictornFrankenstein screams “There is no Satan! There is no God! There’s only me!” Sonyeah, I liked the fact that the film tackles philosophical issues, as itnshould, being an adaptation of Mary Shelley’s equally philosophical book, sonyeah, this film has some strong writing. This film was written by Max Landis,nson of film director John Landis, the guy behind such films as An AmericannWerewolf in London (1981) and The Blues Brothers (1980). So Max Landis grew upnin the world of filmmaking, which always helps make a good screenwriter, orndirector or both. Children whose parents are famous filmmakers usually follownin their parents footsteps and sometimes end up being good filmmakers. SofianCoppolla, Angelina Jolie, Roman Coppola come to mind. Max Landis is also a part of onenof these show biz families, he’s known movie making his whole life, whichnprobably explains why he’s such a good writer. Chronicle (2012) was fantastic,nand so is Victor Frankenstein (2015).
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nThe interesting thing about this movie is that it’s notnreally about the monster, in fact, you won’t see the monster until the filmsnthird act which speaks a lot about how well the film is made, it keeps you interestednall the way through even when the monster isn’t around. Bottom line is, this isn’t a worn out cliché filledntake on Frankenstein. It takes everything known about the character and pushesnit a bit further, faster, quicker, to the point. The film is a visual feast,nloaded with atmosphere, beautiful colors and a great set design! I loved thatnwhole sequence with the castle on top of the hill, next to the ocean, asnthunder and lightning crashed, cool stuff. Honestly, I’m saddened that this onenis bombing at the box office in my book; it doesn’t deserve to be a turkey. Sadly,nthis sometimes happens to good films. And it’s happening to this one; it stillnhasn’t even made its 40 million dollar budget back, and that’s a “small budget”nHollywood wise. It could that audiences are still suffering nightmarishnflashbacks of the god awful I, Frankenstein (2014). Or it could be that allnanybody cares about is Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015), and fanboys arensaving up their dough to see that one a few times. Maybe it has something to donwith the absolutely bland poster. Whatever the case, Victor Frankenstein is angood film that doesn’t deserve to die a quick death at the box office. Go seenthis refreshing take on the character in theaters now! Save a good movie!
n
n
n
nRating: 4 out of 5
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
