The Frankenstein Theory

The Frankenstein Theory is far from a masterpiece but I didn't find it nearly as bad as some have made it out to be.

It IS a total copy of "Blair Witch Project" with just the ___location changed, but that being said it's a reasonable recreation. I was never on the edge of my seat but the movie accomplished an important goal - it kept me interested enough to make me watch until the end.

The Frankenstein Theory also does a decent job (albeit slowly) of ramping up the tension until it climaxes in the last 10 minutes or so of the film.

There's nothing original here but as basic entertainment it's really not that bad. 5 out of 10.

I found this to be a bit more interesting than some of the other documentary style found footage films I've seen. The story is basically about a descendant of the real Dr Frankenstein trying to prove that there really is a monster, and that the novel was not really a work of fiction as everyone believes it to be. He has made it his life's work and is obsessed with proving his theory. No one really believes him and think he's nuts (including his wife), but a documentary crew led by a personal friend of his follow him to Canada where he is convinced he will find the monster.

I've seen some really negative reviews about this film, but I don't think it's too bad.

I have researched the novel and taught Frankenstein at the university level for a number of years. I have also read the novel at least fifteen times, so I regard this film as an intertextual work rather than a stand-alone work, and that probably makes a huge difference. As far as I know, no successful film adaptations of the novel exists. Kenneth Branagh's "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" is interesting, but ultimately it is a howler of a B movie thanks largely to Branagh's decision to make Victor Frankenstein a wholly admirable character. "The Frankenstein Theory" illuminates the novel just as much, or more, than Branagh's film.

The film is a sequel to the novel. At the end of the novel, the "creature" jumps off a ship near the North Pole and bounds over the ice, having promised that he will build a funeral pyre and kill himself in the Arctic wastes. But does he? That's the question that drives the story of the film.

The writer/director obviously knew the novel as well as its biographical background. Jonathan reflects the monomaniacal determination of Victor Frankenstein. His backstory--expulsion from Oxford--also refers to the biography of Mary Shelley's husband, Percy. References to Percy Shelley's "Ode to the West Wind" and to Mozart's Requiem--a commissioned work that ultimately became the composer's own requiem--create some clever textual layering. Percy Shelley presaged his own death, as does Jonathan and his crew in the act of documenting their pursuit of their own killer. Some of the tension of the frame story of the novel is captured, too: Victor Frankenstein has been rescued by Robert Walton, a captain with a hired crew bound for the North Pole (which had not yet been discovered). The film crew in "The Frankestein Theory" are analogous to Walton's nearly mutinous crew.

The premise of documentation is also meaningful in relation to the novel. Like many works of Gothic fiction, the novel is presented as an epistolary narrative--a documentation of "true" events. It is composed of some letters by Walton and a transcript of the story that Victor Frankenstein tells to Walton. At least one previous IMDb reviewer claimed that this entire film is a rip-off of "The Blair Witch Project," and, while I see the similarity, I think this misses the point. "The Blair Witch Project" and many other contemporary horror films (e.g., "The Ring" and "Paranormal Activity") foreground the act of documentation--a conceit they owe to Gothic literature. This film is the only one I know that actually acknowledges and plays knowingly with that debt.

Let's not stop there. "The Frankenstein Theory" plays with a couple other visual genres as well--the mockumentary (especially "The Incident at Loch Ness") and reality television shows based on wilderness survival. It also offers a delightful homage to "Jaws." The guide, Carl, played by an uncanny double for Viggo Mortensen, delivers a comic drunken story that parallels the terrific sailor's tale spun by Anthony Quinn in Spielberg's film.

Finally, let's face it...the Frankenstein story has never been truly terrifying in any of its manifestations. The novel is certainly creepy, but it's mainly a novel of ideas. This film should be credited for combining brainy intertextuality, comedy, and at least a few mild thrills. It's certainly not the scariest movie I've ever seen, but that's not the point. It IS the scariest media representation of the Frankenstein myth I've seen, with the possible exception of Blade Runner--another brainy, intertextual film.

I've seen worse much worse. Nearly everything bad about this movie was redeemable except for the sound effects.

The plot is somewhat original. There are many movies/stories built on the premise of some fiction actually being sourced from some fantastical actuality in history.

I thought the acting was quite good considering the quality and budget of the film. A few recognizable faces. The acting and premise actually were the saving graces of this film.

The pace was very slow, but that is to be expected from this type of film.

The special effects were non-existent which was great. I've seen too many straight to netflix movies that try to make something happen graphically that is simply not in the budget.

Now for me the Foley artists really killed the film experience for me. As soon as I hear a monster scream/roar regurgitated from some of my favorite Saturday morning cartoons and commercials the entire effect of horror is ruined. Especially when its a mockumentary. Why not just make up some sounds instead of using stock Foley sounds that everyone recognizes??

OK right from the get go I have to say I was biased by an issue that plagues a lot of media nowadays - the worship of youth, and the unreal way in which it is portrayed so often. In this movie we have a bunch of twenty-something kids masquerading as adults, one of whom we are supposed to believe is a college professor with a PhD. We really need to stop pandering to 'young adults' who wanna pretend they're actually adults, but that's an entirely different rant. Problem is, this pseudo- real world of the kids who made this flick runs thru the fabric of the whole movie. But I soldiered on, and did my best to suspend my "this is really stupid" reflex. I probably should have listened to that first reflex, because the movie never really took off. It's a pseudo- documentary style, but the script is pretty weak and formulaic, and there are no solid actors in the bunch; no one with on screen charisma to draw you in. The scares are few, and not very scary, honestly. I'm not sure how I keep getting drawn into these independent, handi-cam shot, "found footage" films that all end up looking like a college art project (and maybe are.) I guess I keep hoping to stumble across some gem that will be original, not stupid, and genuinely spooky, like "The Blair Witch Project" or "Paranormal Activity," but I guess I'll have to keep looking, because this wasn't it.