Frankenstein: Day of the Beast (2011) User Reviews

Frankenstein Day of the Beast: A twist on the old tale

[Platypuschow · 4/10 · 22 December 2017]

I like the concept of Frankenstein's monster but movies using the story very rarely manage to entertain me. The last one that came close was The Frankenstein Theory (2013) and even that failed to live up to my expectations.

Day Of The Beast see's Victor Frankenstein enjoying his wedding day right up until the moment that his monster crashes the party and goes on a killing spree.

I see what they were doing here but for over 1 million dollars this should have looked a great deal better.

Marred by a dire cast including an outstandingly beautiful lead who still couldn't act to save her life.

Questionable sfx (The fire was laughable) pitiful acting, some weak moments in the script and an odd looking monster ruined what should have by all rights been better.

The Pet Cemetery (1989) inspired ending did nothing to change my opinion either.

The Good:

Some nice ideas

Leading lady was very distracting

The Bad:

Dreadful acting

Weak sfx

All looks so very cheap

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

I found myself wondering why they gave the monster a penis when building him, is that wrong?

Horatio Sanz has a freakishly similiar down to his man mannerisms twin this film

The indie Frankenstein

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 6 May 2017]

FRANKENSTEIN: DAY OF THE BEAST is an indie reworking of the Mary Shelley tale, shot in Chicago. About the most interesting about it is the Creature make up, which copies the Karloff extended forehead look from the Universal FRANKENSTEIN. Still, the staging in this cheapie is better than you might expect, with well lit outdoor photography throughout and that's not always something that's easy to achieve. However, the story itself is quite dull and the indoor scenes smack of amateurishness.

Disappontinting

[jacobjohntaylor1 · 4/10 · 25 April 2015]

I have seen some great horror movie that were best on the book Frankenstein. Unfortunately this is not one of them. Frankenstein is one of the greatest horror stories ever told. And it was ruined by bad acting. And bad writing. This movie is very d.i.s.a.p.p.o.n.t.i.n.t.i.n.g. It has an awful ending. See one from 1931 it's great. Or the one from 1994 that one is also great. This one as an awful ending. It is pooh pooh. I can believe a Frankenstein movie could such pooh pooh. Most of the time Frankenstein movies are great. They are the best in horror most of time. The book is great. But this is stinky pooh.

Horrible

[rickbre · 1/10 · 28 April 2017]

I don't know what is considered a "spoiler" so I guess I'll warn you just in case since IMDb will blacklist anyone not warning of spoilers. I don't think this spoils anything about the movie. Nothing could spoil junk like this.

I've seen virtually every Frankenstein related movie there is. This is the worst ever. The acting is just horrific. The dialogue is stilted and stupid. A kid in his basement with a video camera could do no worse. It is an absolute insult to the real story, which isn't even really a horror story, let alone a ridiculous slasher tale. Be ashamed Ricardo Islas and all actors in it, be very ashamed.

"Perhaps it's the devil himself that keeps it alive!"

[classicsoncall · 4/10 · 10 October 2021]

I've watched so many terrible movies that this one didn't seem all that bad to me. At least it was watchable, although some of the ideas presented about the creature didn't make sense and in some cases, were just laughable. Like the crawling hand that scrambled along when the monster got blown up with an excess of gunpowder. After it happened, it's creator, Victor Frankenstein (Adam Stephenson), stated that the thing couldn't be killed, even if exploded into a million pieces. Well, how could he make a claim like that, since he was genuinely astonished that the creature came alive in the first place? He had no basis on which to make a statement like that.

The monster itself combined the classic look from the 1931 original featuring Boris Karloff, and updated with a post-modern appearance that made him look almost fashionable. There seemed to be an over-emphasis on the idea that the monster wanted newlywed bride Elizabeth (Michelle Shields) to be his means of procreating other little monsters. Though the idea seemed abhorrent at first, she apparently had a change of heart at the finale when she was brought back to life by her husband, after she killed herself over the thought of it.

Understatement of the picture, when in a flashback, Victor Frankenstein and his assistant Henry (Jay Disney) measure the creature on a lab table and find that he's grown since he was animated - "...he is not a normal human being". I couldn't imagine how they figured that out.

I've seen a lot worse, this has a passion to it

[j_walking1516 · 6/10 · 19 September 2019]

This movie isnt great but it's better than the ratings. Yeah, I'll put it on a rating curve, it doesn't have a Conjuring sized budget but damn if it doesn't have heart and soul. Honestly this concept is cool as hell. I love this story idea. Just a ragtag suicide squad trying to hold off an unstoppable, regenerating Frankenstein monster during Victor's wedding night. Even with a low budget if theyd just have polished the audio it would have been really good. The kills are brutal and well executed, the gore factor is actually pretty impressive. The tension is decent but decreased by the novice acting. Though our lead is very acceptable. The monster is intimidating but is flawed by a weird sound design, their audio is very easily mistaken for dog growling lol So this movie has several flaws and really needed a good once over. But I was genuinely entertained and interested the entire time. I've seen MUCH worse from companies with far larger budgets and much more resources. This is the horror genre at it's raw core

Spoilers follow ...

[parry_na · 9/10 · 3 September 2016]

Rearranging events from Mary Shelley's original novel, this film manages to be true to the book while at the same time making something new.

Very much an independent production, Ricardo Islas has directed a very atmospheric horror variation on the familiar theme, of an animalistic monster who seems to delight in killing. You may not blame him, because most of the supporting characters want to kill him too. More than bloodlust, a sense of mating drives him along.

Newly married Victor Frankenstein (Adam Stephenson) and his new wife Elizabeth (Michelle Shields) are, at the time of the story's commencement, being heavily guarded by a group of guards only too aware there is a monster afoot. Frankenstein here is a rather fey character, who is afraid of what he has created, but is not prepared to take the responsibility. What transpires is a game of cat and mouse between the motley selection of guards and the creature, with the latter displaying an almost impossible inability to succumb to death. Some of these effects stretch the budget and the realism.

This is low-key and highly enjoyable, muddy and grimy, with a fast-moving story and willingness to go gory when the plot demands it. Also, the ending is delightfully oblique, allowing us to imagine that somewhere out there ... evil lurks.

Call Me a Sap...

[tmccull52 · 6/10 · 15 November 2019]

I am a huge fan of two things that this film has; the Frankenstein Monster, and it's a low budget indie production.

The Monster has been my favorite movie monster ever since I was a little kid. I preferred the version as depicted in the original gothic novel, but I had come to accept the classic Universal Horror Boris Karuloff iteration.

Yes, some of the acting in this movie was atrocious, and the special effects weren't all that special, but for some reason, I liked the basic premise of the movie. Taking one segment of the original story and making a movie out of it wasn't a bad idea. I understand that a similar tack is being taken from Bram Stoker's "Dracula", a film that focuses specifically on the ill-fated ship, Demeter, upon which the legendary vampire journeys to England. This is going to be made by a major studio, with an appreciable budget. As I watched "Frankenstein: Day of the Beast", I kept wondering how good the film might have been in the hands of a major studio, with a decent budget.

I did not much care for the Monster essentially being portrayed as a man-eater, essentially a cannibal in this film. While the tragedy of the creature's existence was touched upon, the fact that the Monster is supposed to be highly intelligent and quite articulate is completely ignored in this movie.

The ending was both rather dumb, but still original; the Monster ends up with the girl, after an ill-advised experiment, performed in sheer desperation by the good doctor. If I wasn't such a huge fan of the Frankenstein Monster, I might have found the ending to be rather ridiculous.

I really liked this and you could too

[SpikesCreed · 8/10 · 3 August 2022]

This is a low budget horror, like shot-on-video kind of low budget. However, this does not mean it isn't well done. This film successfully revamps the Frankenstein story while keeping fairly faithful to the spirit (if not full scenes) from the novel. Partly a stalk-and-slash type killer film, partly a siege film (yup! You heard me!), this movie reinvents the Frankenstein story in inventive and entertaining ways.

But LOW budget it is. Bad acting. Questionable directing and editing choices. The monster is best when you cannot see him. The humor is (I hope) intended but sporadic. It isn't perfect.

I have seen many (most?) Frankenstein adaptations and this may be the most original take in years. Thoroughly entertaining to the open minded.

Also...connect this to The Last Matinee and...well you'll see!