Customer Reviews

Frankenstein Reborn

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

To be perfectly honest I only got this movie because it has Rhett Giles in it. That's usually the only reason I get most of his movies. Mmm.. Anyway, while not the greatest movie in the world I've seen worse. The story line wasn't that bad. It was about what one could expect from a b-horror movies. And Lord knows I've seen my share and then some. So if you're looking for the next best adaptation of Frankenstein... look elsewhere. But if you're looking for a little corney, good ol' fashion b-movie fun for kicks and giggles, perhaps even a little drooling (he does get topless), then you have found your movie.

There is nothing inherently wrong with trying to do a modern version of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein." Such things have been attempted before (e.g., the 2004 television movie based on a concept by Dean R. Koontz), and when it comes to attempting to be like God such stories go all the way back to the Tower of Babel and the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So you can do the mad scientist bit before there was any real science involved and extend it all the way until today and beyond. But despite some initial pretensions towards something of milk interest, "Frankenstein Reborn," written and directed by Leigh Slawner ("Art House"), ends up being a blood and gore splatter flick with a bit of name dropping and some blatant homages along the way.

Like the original novel the film involves a framing device for telling the story. Dr. Victor Frank (Rhett Giles) is being interviewed by psychiatrist Robert Walton (Thomas Downey) at a mental institution to determine if the scientist is competent to stand trial for murder. Franks has been working at a privately funded research lab with a pair of young surgeons, Elizabeth (Eliza Swenson) and Hank (Jeff Denton), to reanimate dead tissue. As a 21st century equivalent of lightning, they are using nanotechnology (but electricity will come into play, so be patient). Their guinea pig is Bryce (Joel Hebner), a young man confined to a wheelchair after a traffic accident. However, you know what happens when human beings try to usurp the power of God, and while his body heals there is the unfortunately side effect that he is going crazy. When Bryce flies the coop, Franks and Hank trade in their nice clean lab for a basement location where they can indulge in the retro-mad scientist look

However, as we watch this 2005 film it becomes clear that what Franks says happens and what we see in the flashbacks does not exactly jive. Franks talks about Elizabeth as if she was a good old fashioned gal, but what we see is basically an S&M queen. Does this mean something? Yes, it does, just nothing really interesting. Perhaps I am wrong, and what I see as a set up for something potentially intriguing that did not pan out was really just something to give the actors to do before the creature starts killing people. There is a point where you really wonder why this has to be a Frankenstein movie, because once you get past the names the story is closer to "Re-animator" than "Frankenstein." "Why bother?" you ask, and a satisfactory ending is not forthcoming. I round up for this one on the blood and gore simply because the film does deliver on that score, for what that is worth (not much to me, but I doubt those who like such things will be disappointed on this score).

If you watch "Frankenstein Reborn" expecting to see the classic conflict between creator and creature played out in a modern setting, then you are ultimately going to be bitterly disappointed. For every step in an interesting direction this 2005 film takes, there is at least an equal if not greater step in the opposite direction. There are a few scenes that smack of soft-core porn, but overall the sensibilities of this film are more towards that of a splatter flick, which is rather antithetical to the larger issues of Shelley's story. The opening sequence of the film promises lots of blood and gore, and such things tend to overwhelm the eternal debate as to which was Frankenstein's greatest sin: creating the "monster" or abandoning it (I think it is obviously the latter, but the point is debatable). So, instead of the question being whether or not Franks can reanimate dead tissue it becomes whether or not Franks can get away with it, at which point it really is covering the same ground as the 2004 television movie by director Marcus Nispel but not as well because that one at least had an actual detective on the case. Updating "Frankenstein" so you can make it a splatter flick is just not worth the effort, which is why this movie is literally a bloody mess.

You think you've seen it, Then they re-invent Mary Shelley's Monster Wheel. I should start with the cast: RHETT GILES as Victor Franks/The Doctor, He has this Alan Rickman-Snape from Harry Potter twist. JOEL HEBNER (Need to interview) plays the reborn creature,I can't exactly say as Bernie Wrightson would draw him---But, Close. The editing was challenging to watch at first, Kind of like "Memento". Alot of scenes will make you feel all squishy for tributes- There is the Babysitter scene from first "Halloween", The interrogation moment from "Silence Of The Lambs", I loved the "Kolchak" moment the shrink had with a microphone at end. This would have been a Great Ending, Not the teaser throwaway that smacks sequel.

This movie is creepy and cool. One of the best Frankenstein adaptations yet! Actors are solid and the effects are really good. The story is told with flashbacks (like the book) and there are some interesting twists that I wasn't expecting. Definitely an above average horror flick.

Though I'm not huge on the classic monsters that started it all, I have been somewhat interested in the various takes modern-day filmakers have done with the material. So after seeing some interesting screenshots, I decided to give Asylum Entertainment's 2005 production of Frankenstein Reborn a try. While I'm not terribly disapointed with the take, there's just too many faults here and there that wear down what could have been a decent little B-Movie experience.

Pretty much following the story laid down by Mary Shelly (don't except reworks of the classic Universal or Hammer versions here), Dr Victor Franks (yup, didn't use the full name) is a modern-day doctor trying to cure an injured man with nano-technology (think like the Borg on ST:Voyager). When the treatment gives his patient not only his thoughts, but his evil visions, he takes it further by killing his patient and turn him into his very own monster. Pretty much like DeNiro's or Randy Quaid's version but set today, you probably can figure out how it turns out.

Concerning the gore factor, it probably has more than any version to date, but it doesn't really help. Strangely, they thought it would be artsy to use a freeze-frame flash at least once during these scenes which distract & irritate alot. And even though there's a great gutting of the former patient at one point, I wondered why they were doing that in the first place? There's also a subplot of two female co-workers that swerves into a medicore lesiban scene, but if they wanted to impress us with that, they should have pulled the camera back a bit. And yes, the monster does look a bit like a cross between DeNiro's and Christopher Lee's portrayals, but it doesn't really make sense when what little hair he has left now has now grown a foot longer. These aside though, the movie's look is better than most B-Movies of today, with honestly a great performance by Rhett Giles, who deserves better than this, it's just too bad it's audio couldn't be the same.

The audio? It goes from booming to impossible to hear constantly. While background FX is mixed well, the vocal tracks go from yelling to whisper all in the same sentence. And without subtitles on the disc, it's impossible to understand at least 30% of the dialogue. In other words, the film's audio engineer should have been shot. As for the video, appearently the master used to put this to disc is flawed with digital hits every so often (confirmed by other owners). It's not the disc itself, but I guess a small company like Asylum has no quality control. Which is sad because to me that drops a 7.5 film down a whole notch because this film wouldn't be bad in say Lionsgate's or Blue Underground's library. Nice menus, great extras, and good overall presentation marred by what really counts.

To sum up, worthy of watching, decent adaptation, bad pressing. I've seen worse Frankenstein films, but this one isn't the best either.
(RedSabbath Rating:6.5/10)

Do not rent or buy this horrible excuse for a film. This is my first experience with asylum entertainment 9as far as i know) and it will most certainly be my last.

What happened to horror movies?

This film, mostly the whole Asylum production, gives a fair illustration of how bland and unentertaining can such great movie characters be when played by average office workers. The guy makes a rather convincing monster once made up, but you shouldn't let him appear first in the movie as a common patient, because as a normal guy he looks more like an escaped member of the Village People, with all the acting talent that goes with...

The Beast of Bray Road was a good surprise to me and the first film I saw by this cast and crew, but I guess I should have stopped there. I also made the effort to try watching these 90 minutes advertising spots shot by TV commercial makers like the Saw or Dead End series, It Waits and a few of these movies casting no people older than 30... Dark or red haired unsympathetic and ugly young female models acting like I can speak English, flashes and head hurting photography, basic instincts, rivers of blood, low feelings and bad words are the components of what's enforced today to the young public these flicks are intended to. It's like we're preparing ourselves a generation of barbarous and murderous freaks...

The only great horror films from the 21th century that I could find until now, are Victor Salva's ones. This guy made a small handful of films proving that good stuff could still keep being done despite the overtechnology, degradation of the human feelings and cult for numb3rs that caracterize nowaday's reign of lie and lowness. Maybe are today's movies only the reflection of their times.