The Frankenstein Theory (2013) User Reviews

Nothing to watch for 2/3 of the film.

[frankblack-79961 · 4/10 · 16 September 2020]

This was decent when they decided to get the the meat of the story. For some reason the writers or whoever thought you want to see an hour of build up and 15 min of anything of interest on screen. It felt like they purposely avoided getting to anything to with the subject matter. Idk what the deal was. Could have been good. Wasted time here.

Slow and inconsistent

[ramirezkevin1209 · 4/10 · 16 April 2013]

I think what bothered me the most about this movie is that it couldn't decide what kind of movie it would be. Is this a found footage documentary or is it a traditional movie? It's hard to suspend belief when things like this are inconsistent. For instance, there are 5 people in the group at one point. They are all in a tent. The camera holder is in a sleeping bag. So who is holding the camera? Also, if this is found footage, what is there music and sounds during the "boo" moments? It was questions like these that made it hard for me to get into. It was pretty slow, but I appreciate the slow burn kinda movie, so that didn't bug me too much. The acting was solid. Nothing great, but nothing laughable, either.

Last few minutes are slightly interesting

[ihearthorrorfilm · 3/10 · 16 March 2013]

The Frankenstein Theory is another horror film made in the style of a faux documentary. Basically, a film crew follows a Professor around while he tries to redeem himself after being fired from his job. I know I say this a lot, but this movie started out extremely slow. Probably one of the slowest found footage horrors I've ever seen all the way through. I can't even really critique what happened in the first hour because I'm pretty sure my brain shut off. It starts to finally pick up when they're out camping in the snow and even then, it's really the last 15 minutes or so that are interesting. The ending was a little creepy, but I don't know if it's worth watching an hour of film that's boring, just to get to a few minutes of entertainment. I would definitely wait till this movie is available on Redbox or streaming through Netflix. But I don't suggest renting it at full price on VOD or you will be majorly disappointed.

Please like me on Facebook! You can read more of my reviews and get info on the latest movies in horror: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Heart-Horror/338327476286206

Found footage finds no fan

[tellstar · 1/10 · 6 March 2013]

A film almost devoid of interest combining the worst aspects of the "found video" genre into something almost completely unwatchable. The film careens from an intriguing premise (that the Frankenstein monster is real) to an appalling sequence of events, each more predictable than the last. Full of dreadful acting, character stereotypes, inane character behavior and a litany of crying, screaming and heavy breathing as members of a documentary crew are popped off one by one by the "monster." ***SPOILER*** Mary Shelley's monster was an articulate fellow who might be able to shed some light on his condition. This brute just roars and clomps about in a big pair of winter boots and says nothing. Why waste the opportunity to do something interesting with such great source material? Bigfoot has a lot more character.

This is very BAD, It Should Have Stayed A Theory

[Sandy6019 · 7 March 2013]

I don't know if you can call this a "movie". It's not a horror movie for sure. It's more of a theory. It's a "Bad Movie" theory. Take and destroy a piece of literature like Frankenstein and insult it by not sticking to the book in basic details and by making the monster sound stupid with silly sound effects that are not scary. That's about all you get, because you barely even see the monster. You may see it a few seconds and you miss it, if you blink. That is ridiculous.

Then you take amateur actors and put them in fake found footage situation which is unbelievable. They are looking to see if Frankenstein was really in Alaska. Poor Mary Shelley. It's just really nonsense. The dialog is long and boring and irritating the viewer with no relevance to the story. You feel like it never stops. Some of the locations are okay if you like to see the arctic, but I can watch that on National Geographic. This was just a terrible waste of my time and bad.

Quite possibly the worst film I have seen.

[frylock69 · 1/10 · 6 March 2013]

I am by no means an experienced movie reviewer but I've seen enough films and have been an avid horror film buff for 30 years to know when I've seen a terrible movie. I've seen the lowest budget to the major studio releases and every film in between. This is my first review on IMDb which should speak volumes since I decided to take time to warn people not to waste your time with this movie. You'd be better off taking the hour and twenty minutes raking a cheese grater against your forehead! Even the lowest budget shlockers offer something for entertainment. Whether it be excessive gore or scantily clad girls...they do SOMETHING to try to catch your attention, even if it is the most low brow base function.

As I watched this I kept waiting for something to happen.....something PLEASE! It never delivers. A regurgitation of overly used clichés and zero originality is what you have in store for you. If you want something to bore you to sleep, I suppose renting this is cheaper than a bottle of sedatives. Or if you have an overpowering desire to become so irritated at the rubbish that you are witnessing on screen to the point of shoving your finger in your eye and swirling it around a bit, then by all means watch this film. Otherwise avoid it like the plague.

Don't judge a movie by its cover

[tanyaberlinsianipar · 1/10 · 13 March 2013]

I watched this movie because the cover is so terrifying. I expected more appearance of this big terrifying monster, but the movie didn't meet my my expectation.

The story itself is promising, but it could be developed to a much more thriller. But I think the premise is not too selling. A loser professor lead a non respectful team of amateur movie crew? Who wants to watch a bunch of loser fighting for their life - and lose? And the only fighter in this movie died first. Perfect.

Now I know to not judge the movie by its cover. Oh yeah, and do not judge a movie by a good review from too small amount of reviewers here on IMDb. Probably they're just a part of the movie's marketing team.

Really bad

[geeza20061 · 1/10 · 11 March 2013]

This movie if you can call it that is bad really bad how some reviews are higher than a 1 is beyond me. There's no horror no creepy moments and you don't see nothing at all its about a man that believes that Frankenstein actually exists out in the poles, so he takes a film crew too the poles with him and 1 by 1 they start getting picked off (original) NOT!!. I mean at this point you would think lets get out of here. not this man he wants too stay and try an reason with so called Franky , story is terrible no plot at all and actors are not believable.

OK the idea was good and could be made into a good movie if directed by the right person, but sorry folks this is not the one.

If your a fan of found footage movies like me then avoid this at all costs, be warned.

Theory of a stinker

[pcurrey69 · 1/10 · 15 March 2013]

Honestly never got the "story" to this movie. I almost turned it off in the beginning during a drawn out 'interview' stage, but decided to give it a little while longer... reached to turn it off again due to irritation at a relationship based on a woman who apparently despises her boyfriend, only around to yell at him in front of others, then talk behind his back and berate him... yet, upon heading out to get a drink, I returned, it was still on and watched some more. It turned out to be the worst thing I have watched this year, for sure. Possible the worst I have watched in the past couple years (nothing comes to mind that can out-rank it in crappiness). Seriously thinking the 10 * ratings that go into music and other details (I do not even remember music other than one song toward the end; and I will admit it was not bad... only reason I did not balk at being made to give 1 star and no 0 stars available) are made by people associated with the film, especially when there is only ONE review made by them on the accounts. lol

Not deserving of the hate

[sleeping_gorilla · 7/10 · 5 April 2014]

The Frankenstein Theory is a sequel to the book and not any of the movie adaptations. Jonathan, an obsessed scholar who mirrors the original Antagonist Victor Frankenstein, leads an exposition into northern Canada in search of The Creature.

There have probably been a hundred Frankenstein movies, but this one is a love letter to the original story. If you've read the book (and you should, it's probably the best Science Fiction book ever written.) you will see that they've done their homework. That said there is some simple exposition in the beginning to explain what is at stake, and more about halfway through to raise the stakes.

Technically the movie is much more watchable than other found footage movies, I'm looking at you Paranormal Activity. There is very little shaky cam, and you aren't going to get sick halfway through. The acting is mostly fair with a stand out in Timothy V. Murphy as their guide Carl.

I liked how the story unfolded, good build up to the ending. By no means is this "art" but it's a good, entertaining effort.

Junk

[William_Henry_Pratt · 1/10 · 18 April 2013]

Some brain farts should just waft away in the wind.

An hour and a half of pointless yammering. The writers ripped off Blair Witch but didn't have any idea of how plot points work or how to create any kind of atmosphere. The script is so poorly written and phlegmatically directed I wonder if the director ever made it past the craft service table. The lame excuse of being low budget is wearing out its welcome. If you don't have enough money to film what you're written - don't. The film isn't good, it's really terrible and to present this to an audience as entertainment is criminal. This is not a case of subjectivity. Some films are just terrible. Hardly any of the people in the making of this presentation knew what they were doing. Learn your damn craft or find something else to do!

It's so boring! This film is perfect for those who suffer from Attention Surplus Disorder. I was expecting bad, but this went light years beyond awful.

Plus you never get a nice view of the tundra!

I can't honestly recommend this film as it's not scary and quite boring. To have characters talk so much about nothing or mapping out the narrative is ludicrous and wears on an audience.

How do these films ever get released? It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

Much Better Than Expected!

[malagutigrrl-103-578446 · 10/10 · 31 May 2013]

I found out about this movie in Fangoria Magazine and even though "The Video Eye of Dr. Cyclops" only gave this movie 1 1/2 "eyeballs" out of 5, I saw it on Netflix and decided to give it a try because it was a brand new take on the Frankenstein story. I figured it would be too "Blair Witch" for me but jumped in anyway and AM SO GLAD I DID. While it does have that "lets make a documentary" essence that made "Blair Witch" a blockbuster (spurning a whole lot of similar movies that sucked)and which now the "Paranormal Activity" movies have brought back to life, I was instantly captured from the first sentence. I was particularly taken by the intelligence of this film. The character of Dr. Jonathan Venkenhein (which is very reminiscent of how "Frankenstein" sounds) starts right out by telling the camera that it was HIS family that created the monster and that he believes it is still alive and wants to go on an expedition to find it. This film is not for you if you're looking for lots of gore, but in this case I think less is more. Jonathan has researched his family archives and put together theories his entire life that convinced me in the first 5 minutes of the film that I was all in and would have gone with him in a second. While the info he gives in the beginning is rather abundant and (more importantly) believable, he continues to divulge more information as the expedition goes on keeping it interesting. I highly recommend it!

Better Than Most Low Budget

[indiemod-547-182007 · 6/10 · 14 July 2013]

I didn't have high hopes for this film when I was about to watch it. Most low budget horrors, as a given, lack any semblance of suspense or drama, but this film was different. What really carries this movie is the acting. The characters come across as real people who are in a bad situation. The parts are played with subtlety and finesse. There were some funny moments that worked, too, which eased the tension before it was ratcheted up again. Finally, I thought the premise was clever. I can't give it higher than a 6 because it is "found footage" style, and, frankly I'm getting sick of that type of film. There is no real spoiler in this review, but I don't know if disclosing it as "found footage" qualifies, so I ticked the box so as not to get blacklisted.

Running out of things to Find Found Footage For

[JoeB131 · 1/10 · 27 November 2015]

The Curse of the Blair Witch continues, with once again, an implausible concept of Found Footage of a horrifying event.

The plot is that a descendant of an 18th century scientist leads a badly equipped badly planned expedition to Northern Canada to find Frankenstein's monster, who he claims his ancestor created. Faster than you can say "Public Domain", the characters are picked off one by one in fits of bad acting.

The goofiness of these kinds of movies is that they would keep cameras rolling when all this horrific stuff is going on. "Hey, my friends are being killed all around me by an improbable supernatural force! I'd better keep filming. Oh, wait, I'm the only one left? I'd better set my camera up on a tripod so that it can capture my tragic yet entirely predictable demise!"

they do a good job of keeping the Monster out of frame so you can't see how cheap and generally unimpressive it is.

Oh, and for the reviewer who says you had to have read Mary Shelly's original work to truly appreciate it? Not really. I have, that really didn't add anything to it because Frankie just turns out to be another boring Found Footage Monster killing people for the sake of killing them. There's just nothing special about him.

Not a horror, not a thriller, just Dumb

[ysf-beeb · 12 March 2013]

I can't believe how stupid this is.

The whole thing feels like it takes long hours to get through. This is a huge bore. I didn't see any suspense or thriller in it. It is really really slow and there is almost NO entertainment at all. The only thing going for it are a few of the settings in the snow but who really cares at all. The filmmakers obviously thought they could try to use the name Frankenstein to keep its interest but it doesn't work. It might've worked maybe but the way this is made is too lame, boring and dumb. It's too bad this was made with no imagination. At the end I didn't even see the monster and I don't care if they died, which was lame too because they die off-screen. This so-called movie only makes you feel frustrated and betrayed. A disaster.

The Blair Witch Project 3 1/2

[viseu-miguel · 1/10 · 9 October 2013]

I'm actually disappointed with the fact that you can't vote zero or negative scores about a film. Because, truly, if I had the opportunity to choose the biggest waste of time in front of a screen, the minutes I spent watching this film, without even fast forwarding until the very end, would be my number one. I don't need to tick the spoiler alert box. Even if I wanted to, there's nothing actually surprising to add to what you already see when you grab the DVD box. The image that promotes the film is, indeed, powerful and, believe me, that cover is, by far, the best part of the entire "Frankestein Theory" experience. Without giving away any crucial information that you may consider a spoiler, although such a predictable storyline makes it hard for me to try and choose any possible spoiler to reveal, I may say that a very nice idea (Frankenstein story may have been based in true facts - which would be an extremely insteresting starting point) is murdered since the beginning of the film. All the actors, when you honestly look at them, seem already aware that this is going to be a huge flop. You look at the image that promotes the film, featuring a terrifying Frankestein (one of the best visual personifications of the monster that I've ever seen) and your expectations grow high. But that's it. You should stay there. The 20 seconds you may spend looking at that image will be - should you ignore my advice and actually watch the film - the most rewarding and exciting part of the next one and a half hour in which you'll see a bad copy of the Blair Witch Project, considering that 14 years have passed since that Witch surprised us all and several low budget (and high budget) followers completely dried out the milking tit of that awesome filming idea. The Frankestein Theory does not convince you, for a minute, that those events may actually have happened. The acting is so poor - and the actual story is so... empty - that the only positive thing I took from the afternoon when I've watched it was that heroic feeling that I took the poisoned bullet but, at least, I'll be able to warn any innocent soul considering to press play that he/she should be quiet, remove the DVD from the player asap and spend the rest of the afternoon watching something incomparably better, such as REC (it's Spanish and actually very good, with the same filming technique).

If this IMDb search you did for the Frankestein Theory was good for anything, let it be because at least you found out about REC when you were looking for rubbish.

Best regards and keep on trying.

Not so much

[bill-larrabee · 3/10 · 8 March 2014]

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.

Not too bad

[miss_toucan · 5/10 · 27 June 2022]

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.

Blair Witch with Frankenstein

[davidribyrne-762-886213 · 2/10 · 23 November 2019]

The movie is not about Frankenstein's monster; it's just a McGuffin. The monster only grunts and is on screen less than 10 seconds. Timothy V. Murphy did a good job acting, but he couldn't save the movie.

Should be the Yawn-enstein theory...

[paul_haakonsen · 1/10 · 29 July 2013]

Welcome to the best way of wasting 87 minutes that you will surely never, ever get back in any possible way. This movie was horrible and just lacked any chance of ever being interesting.

The movie is sort of a pseudo-documentary, but the problem is that the movie never manages to take off, and just heads ahead in a speed that is not even a trot. The movie takes forever to get nowhere, and if you don't die from boredom along the ride, you might just die from the absolute sheer lack of purpose there is to the movie.

Essentially, this is just a bunch of people sitting around in various locations and discussing rather pointless and uninteresting things, in regards of Mary Shelley and the Frankenstein myth.

This is without a doubt one of the worst movies I have ever had to suffer through, and I wouldn't wish this upon anything. So a word of warning, you should have an excessive interesting in the Frankenstein myth or have some particular connection to any of the actors or actresses in the movie (or possibly even the director) to find any kind of enjoyment and amusement in this movie.

This was suffering to sit through, to say the least.

If you didn't read the novel, you're not qualified to review this movie

[slymold · 7/10 · 28 February 2014]

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.

Fell just a little short of being something good, thanks to Foley artists

[NeoMishMoo · 3/10 · 2 June 2013]

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??

A refreshingly unusual take on the found-footage genre

[Poltrgst · 9/10 · 20 February 2014]

I just watched The Frankenstein Theory on Netflix, and I was remarkably impressed. I would personally rank it amongst my top five found-footage films, alongside The Blair Witch Project, V/H/S, Grave Encounters, and Devil's Pass. I particularly loved the random interjection of quirky humor and personality flaws -- something which seems to be a rarity in this genre nowadays. It boosted the suspension of disbelief and the gave the movie some added smarts. I genuinely felt as if I was following ordinary people on an impromptu expedition rather than underpaid actors reading from a B-movie script. I also think the unusual choice of location was sufficiently compelling given the story's mythological basis (a la Devil's Pass and The Blair Witch Project). Although, the movie didn't pick up pace until the end, I enjoyed the character development. It added to the documentary's credibility and curiosity, rather than the typical detachment that I often experience with these types of films. My only disappointment was the final scene. It was almost too predictable. Maybe the director ran out of ideas? Still, that's a minor criticism given the overall production value. Highly recommended for anybody that is looking for a suspenseful late night sci-fi flick and is willing to tread off the beaten path of Paranormal Activity lookalikes.

Not as bad as people make it out to be

[fathersonholygore · 6/10 · 23 April 2013]

A quick review of The Frankenstein Theory:

The found footage genre is something I enjoy, and it's because I think there is great potential in it for amazing horror films, but more often than not they fall flat because of really poor acting. My best recommendation for this movie comes from the solid acting, and anybody who says different is just being overtly tough on the film; there are no points where I feel embarrassed for the actors, or laugh inappropriately. Of course there's a little humour tossed around because well, it's a film about a guy who believes Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was based on a real event that went terribly wrong, and he leads an expedition up around the Arctic Circle to try to locate the Frankenstein 'monster'. Naturally there are some fun bits. However, the dramatic portions are genuinely tense. Of course there are interview pieces, and things like that, but it makes sense- it's a mockumentary.

The only thing that wasn't so great was the monster itself. It could have been a little different, but I was still pretty gripped around the end when we finally get a real look at him, and the havoc breaks loose. It's not a great movie, but I enjoyed it. I especially liked the whole premise, as well as the main actor who played Venkenhein, and the always charismatic Timothy V. Murphy. 6 out of 10.

Not THAT bad

[b2tall · 5/10 · 5 September 2013]

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.