Frankenstein Reborn (2005) User Reviews

Frankenstein Reborn: Ever so slightly above The Asylum par

[Platypuschow · 3/10 · 10 December 2018]

This modern retelling of Mary Shelleys classic Frankenstein is brought to you by The Asylum, do I really need to continue?

Asylum is infamous for making bad movies and "Mockbusters" and here we have one of three connected movies by them where it appears they were trying to create a monster universe. First came this then Beast of Bray Road (2005) and then Dracula's Curse (2006) so we have Frankenstein, Dracula and the Wolfman on display.

For some reason they have much of the same cast yet playing different characters which seems like a poor choice. Then again it's The Asylum so I shouldn't be surprised.

Again it's a very loose modern adaptation, certain elements will look familiar but ultimately it forges it's own identity and that's more than slightly a bad thing. Frankenstein Reborn ticks all the usual Asylum boxes, yet is actually a bit better than usual somehow.

The creature looks better than you'd imagine, and the plot is passable. Sadly that's where it ends, the acting is appalling, the pacing is bizarre and the whole thing just doesn't flow.

Passable for an Asylum film, still bad compared to everything else.

The Good:

The monster looks okay

The Bad:

Victor "Frank", really?

A few plot holes

Poorly constructed

Sarah Lieving is wasted

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

It's like the Asylum is making one of every movie just so they can prove they can't make anything successfully

Australian-American-Italian-Swiss Victor Frank who graduated from Harvard just didn't sit right with me

Tries hard but fails to compensate for its amateurish roots

[mjgolden · 3/10 · 18 February 2006]

The film was made in 9 days and it shows. In particular, the budget obviously wasn't large enough to cover a decent recording system. Through out the film in scenes of dialog (and for a horror film there are a LOT of scenes of dialog), the character in screen is recorded loud and clear and the off screen, second voice is inaudible.

Music video-style fast cuts and scene shifts that move backwards and forwards in time are not so much confusing as meant to try and downplay the lack of much plot or its illogic.

The cast is generally quite good and makes a good attempt to overcome the inadequacies of the script and production.

Frankenstein Reborn

[Scarecrow-88 · 3/10 · 29 October 2008]

Nasty, gory, ultra-violent modern retelling of the Frankenstein story featuring a scientist, Victor Franks(Rhett Giles), relating how he got to be named a murder suspect of several missing associates who were working with him on a privately funded project concerning how nanotechnology *resurrects* dead cells in a quadriplegic patient with tragic results, to a psychiatric doctor, Walton(Thomas Downey)pressured by detectives in getting a confession. It seems that the nanobots surging through the subject, Bryce's(Joel Hebner) system have dangerous side-effects..Victor's homicidal fantasies, desires & rage, programmed into the computer that operates the nanobots are causing Bryce to act on them without control over his actions. All of Victor's associates are targets thanks to his feelings towards them in one way or another. Victor is confronted by Bryce who has become confused and disturbed by his doctor's fantasies desiring for them to end. Victor, knowing that the project would cease if everything was ended, shoots Bryce, claiming to his fellow surgeon, Hank(Jeff Denton)that it was suicide. Together Victor and Hank resurrect his body using their nanotechnology creating a monster after their experiments cause great physical damage, especially to Bryce's face. Bryce kills Hank and escapes from their lab, going on a killing spree acting out those very feelings Victor fantasized about leaving quite a death trail. When Victor's love, Elizabeth(Eliza Swenson)was one of the beast's victims, he will perform the same procedure on her, with another innocent being killed in the process. That innocent was a babysitter and the child she was looking after befriended the monster, helping the police semi-identify that what Victor was saying isn't just the insane ramblings of a very disturbed man.

I certainly wouldn't say that this THE ASYLUM release adds anything interesting or fresh to the oft-told story of Frankenstein and his mad creation, but it does feature plenty of cheap thrills for gore-hounds such as limbs plucked from victim's bodies, a gruesome decapitation, Victor and Hank's bloody surgical experiments on Bryce's dead body, and a face is shot by the victim's own gun. We get a look into Victor and Liz's kinky sexual activity. But, the film basically is a slasher movie with the monster killing Victor's friends/associates in various ways. Nothing really original or exciting here unless you want to see some of the same gory violence one sees a lot in the slasher genre. I personally didn't think the characters were that interesting or the actors/actresses that portrayed them. Pretty cheap-looking as well. I'd say look elsewhere for better films based on Frankenstein.

How Not To Make A Monster...or a movie for that matter.

[todbrowning2000 · 1/10 · 11 May 2007]

I bought FRANKENSTEIN REBORN based on how much I liked THE BEAST OF BRAY ROAD. Yikes. Was I snowed...! While the same people were involved with both movies, we end up with very different results. I knew I was in trouble when two of Dr. Franky's nurses get into some heavy lesbian action while he works on a little freebasing. The kinky take on the Frankenstein mythos worked for ROCKY HORROR, but that was an over-the-top send up. Here, it's just a tired and way-too-obvious tacked-on bit of raunch. Overall, I was seriously disappointed, but then again, I usually am with most releases from The Asylum.

This movie seems to have it's champions, so I won't say not to see it, but proceed with caution. Watch it for free if you can.

Bad , bad , bad (the first half anyway, then i gave up)

[javanaw · 1/10 · 6 September 2005]

Very bad acting. This time i could not even laugh at the bad acting as it can be in other horrors sometimes , for some reason i felt sorry for the actors in this case. I also wish Rhett Giles (Victor) could speak more naturally , less drama in his nonstop half whispering voice maybe.

The characters was not interesting ,or believable in any way and i could not care less how the story will develop either . And what is it with the sound , that was really irritating. The sound is changing constantly between to quiet , so you can hardly hear it and very laud , so you can hardly manage to continue watch .

I did not.

If you don't mind awful acting then watch this film

[auxil765071470 · 1/10 · 30 August 2005]

I have seen this film and was expecting something quite good, but its the worst film I have seen in a long time, the acting is atrocious and wooden.

It seems as if the film was made just for showing gore and forgetting the acting bit.

Basically the storyline would have been good if they had picked decent actors and actresses, bringing it as an up to date story of Frankenstein.

The blood and gore were over emphasised and didn't look real. Just a complete waste of time and money.

don't bother

[pharris-15 · 1/10 · 16 July 2006]

when i see a movie review with such polarized opinion, i want to give it a chance. i bought this as a previously viewed DVD from a national video rental chain and only paid $5. not worth the $5. all the bad has been said already.

the acting is about on the par of a softcore film on cinemax. bleh. the only thing i liked about it (maybe didn't dislike is more appropriate) is that the actresses in this movie are pleasing to look at.

i didn't think i would be getting a great movie here and biy was i right. the worst movie i have seen a quite sometime.

this one's going in the garage sale pile.

i wasted 84 minutes of my time

[redhead9898 · 3/10 · 6 October 2007]

Where to begin? First off, most of the film is flashbacks. Second, the beginning was stupid, and third, a lot of boring dialog and bad actors. The monster is quite disturbing and so is his roar. They had small parts like when a woman is shown for 2 minutes and is killed. There was parts when i felt like turning it off but I had nothing else to do. After the credits end, there is a minute of the screen pitch black and the music still going. I bet it was to make the movie a minute longer. I gave it a 3, because I like b-horror films,i like Frankenstein movies and you have to give Leigh some credit. My recommendation: if you see it at the video store, tell a person working there that it is a waste of money for you to rent that. So stay away as far as possible. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Why???

[norm_mahmoud · 1/10 · 3 September 2005]

This Movie is a BiG Mistake .

U Make all The Story about a Freak Doctor all What he Doing is just SeX & Drug ...

WHAT all about the sex .. what was the meaning of that ?? what was the purpose???

U Must See Frankenstein(1994)To How To Make a Movie... This film is quite simply spectacular!De Niro gives the foul beast a soul of his own.

But what are this Creature they had present to us .. its nothing..

The blood and gore didn't look real. Just a complete waste of time and money.

If you have read the book,see this movie. You will HATE what they have retained, And U Will Know what they've changed. this is not a Movie..

Shouldn't have invoked "Frankenstein".

[Poe-17 · 5/10 · 25 July 2008]

This isn't a bad film, just (probably) shouldn't have called upon the Frankenstein mythology in it's title. Various and numerous films and tales have approached the "bring the dead back to life" idea. "Frankenstein" doesn't own the franchise on this. Call the work ... oh, I don't know, ... Re-Animator or something. It isn't a great film, possibly earning "good" by the grace of the "we-love-horror" crowd. Some nice "re-animating" scenes. It never aspired to "mind shattering" and shouldn't be faulted for not achieving that. Dropping the name-dropping "Frankenstein" and just calling it "Reborn" would have worked just fine. And would have been more honest. Still, with all its faults, and bows to some killer scenes (and some forced ones), it isn't a horrible movie. It just doesn't belong in the Frankenstein lineage. Nice watch.

Quite impressive adaptation

[slayrrr666 · 8/10 · 10 August 2006]

"Frankenstein Reborn" isn't that bad of a film.

**SPOILERS**

Victor Franks, (Rhett Giles) is in an insane asylum and is quickly tagged as a sociopath by his doctor, Emily Hertz, (Amanda Barton) and relates to Dr. Walton, (Thomas Downey) about his recent project, restoring limb functions to Bryce, (Joel Hebner) a paraplegic. At first, the operation is a success, but soon after Bryce begins to experience severe side effects. Trying to save the work, Victor and his assistant Hank, (Jeff Denton) end up making Bryce into a monster. He goes crazy when Victor refuses to help him change back and goes on a rampage, killing women to help him in his experiments. He is eventually taken into police custody for protection against the creature.

The Good News: Another adaptation on the Frankenstein legend, this one isn't all that bad. Instead of doing a straight-up re-visioning, the new twist here is that the doctor is trying to perform valid scientific experiments unrelated to building a creature, which just by coincidence it happens that way. The change is most welcome, as is the quite graphic and brutal killings. We get legs ripped off, ice shards pierced in the stomach, a very messy scalpel slicing and a dissection scene where a body is torn completely open and exposed. There's more in here as well, making this the bloodiest version of the book. The dark and serious tone it has also works wonders for the film, as a light and campy atmosphere would've easily undermined the whole film. It's concept and execution requires the film to not have a constant joke thrown in to keep the viewers attention. It was done the smart way and making the film a little more unsettling. The design of the creature is quite impressive and scary on first look, with exposed bones, frayed skin and tall figure make it a great villain. The rampage scenes are quite well handled and make for some tense stalking moments, especially the sequence with the babysitter in the living room. A quite unexpected surprise.

The Bad News: The decision to tell the story as a series of flashbacks is the main problem with the film. It's told in a rather convoluted manner that doesn't make too much sense. Rather than tell it in a linear frame, and it decides to cut back and forth between events and times, making for some convoluted telling. This doesn't seem to serve any narrative or artistic purpose and only succeeds in slowing down the progression of the story. It also fractures the narrative so much that many of the relationships between the characters become disjointed, this especially hurts the relationship and it's evolution between Franks and the monster which becomes extremely murky as we are never able to see it grow along a linear time-frame. This is the main problem, and it lowers the film slightly.

The Final Verdict: With a slightly annoying approach to the story, this shouldn't be a wrongly maligned film. It's a well made film that will nicely please true horror fans as well as those looking for a little more mean-spirited film than what else is out.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Nudity, a short sex scene and mild drug use

"It's a wondrous thing science... it can rob you of your humanity." I actually thought it was OK.

[poolandrews · 6/10 · 30 October 2005]

Frankenstein Reborn starts with a woman named Jessica Halverson (Sarah Lieving) arranging to meet Victor Franks (Rhett Giles) at an old warehouse/factory which he uses as a makeshift laboratory, inside Jessica is attacked by something which chains her to a table & rips both of her legs off... A one Victor Franks has been arrested in connection with multiple murder & the disappearance of two people associated with him, since Victor keeps on rambling about his bizarre experiments & a hideous creature he has been institutionalised where Dr. Emily Hertz (Amanda Barton) & Dr. Robert Walton (Thomas Downey) are analysing his mental state to determine whether he can stand trial. In various lengthy interviews Victor begins to tell the terrible tales that will supposedly explain everything & prove his innocence. Victor says he was working on various experiments in the field of 'biological nanotechnology' in an attempt to cure spinal injuries & to ultimately re-animate the dead. He talks of being addicted to cocaine & having threesomes with his two female lab assistants Elizabeth Weatherly (Eliza Swenson) & Rebekkah Clarke (Christina Rosenberg), he recalls how the experiments with a patient named Bryce Daniels (Joel Hebner) took a turn for the worse & how he convinced his brain surgeon friend Dr. Hank Clerval (Jeff Denton) to help him continue them illegally & how they lead to betrayal, murder & the creation of a monster...

Co-edited, written & directed by Leigh Slawner who also has a role in the film as Dr. Cadaverella I personally thought Frankenstein Reborn was a decent film. The script plays more like a contemporary Re-Animator (1985) film rather than Mary Shelly's classic novel which is no bad thing as we get a modern day tale of a mad scientist dabbling with bizarre experiments with the hope of re-animating the dead & all the problems that would bring. His friendships suffer as nothing will stop him in pursuit of his ultimate goal, the woman he loves ends up dead & he will do just about anything to further his experiments. The way Frankenstein Reborn tells it's fairly entertaining story is both an asset & a disadvantage, just about the entire film is told in numerous flash-backs. The flash-backs are sometimes hard to follow as they show the same ones but from different angles or mix them up so their not in chronological order or repeat them but in a slightly extended version to reveal a bit more of the story that wasn't present before. While this approach gives the film a nice originality & it plays out like a mystery it can become a bit annoying & confusing as it jumps back & forth in both time & location without much regard for the viewer. The character's are better drawn & fleshed out than usual for these ultra low-budget independent films which makes a nice change with various affairs, rivalry & personal angst amongst the carnage. This particular version of Frankenstein offers up plenty of blood & gore with ripped of legs & arms, heads being sawed off, surgical scenes with bodies being sliced up with scalpels, a woman has her breast sliced open with a razor, someone is impaled on a huge shard of glass, hearts are ripped from chests, someone has their brains blown out plus there are lots of intestines, internal organs, body parts & blood splattered across the screen to keep most horror fans quiet for it's duration. There is also a pleasing amount of nudity, sex, swearing & drug usage. According to the IMDb Frankenstein Reborn was shot between 22nd April & 2nd May (less than 2 weeks!?) 2005 on a minuscule budget of about $500,000 & when you take that into consideration this is a surprisingly good & competent film. The cinematography is actually quite good, the special effects are very good with the Frankenstein monster itself looking very impressive & pretty gross as well, music, the sets & overall production design give the impression of a better funded film & it is generally well made throughout with director Slawner obviously using his budget with good effect & he luckily resists the temptation to use annoying fast editing techniques & keeps the gimmicky tricks down to a minimum. The acting was also quite strong for a film with these low budget origins. Don't get me wrong as Frankenstein Reborn is far from the best horror film ever made, far from it in fact, but as a way to pass 84 minutes I found it a surprisingly enjoyable & well made little film. Persoanally I think it's well worth a watch especially if your a horror fan but then that's just my opinion.

Wow,Has The Monster aged ---Well ?

[guestar57 · 27 October 2005]

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". A lot 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

Lots of things left wanting, but actually one of the Asylum's more tolerable movies

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 1 November 2012]

I was expecting little from Frankenstein Reborn, considering The Asylum's reputation. But while it is far from a good movie, as far as Asylum movies go it is not that bad. The monster is actually very menacing in disturbing in look, the opening scene is gory and really promises much and Thomas Downey, Joel Hebner and especially Rhett Giles, finally in a role that gives him something worthwhile to do, are remarkably good in their roles. Sadly, what the opening scene promises is not matched with the rest of the movie. Visually, Frankenstein Reborn is very amateurish, the settings look as though they are somebody's basement, the camera work is rushed-looking and tries to do too much that you don't feel any connection with anything you see and the effects are very cheaply rendered. The music is overbearing, poorly utilised and is not fitting with the rest of the film at all. As a consequence, the scares and tension are further severely diluted. The script has very little of interest, it is very talky and a lot of it reads of aimless exposition. It is cringe-worthy in a cheesy sense also. I knew that Frankenstein Reborn was not going to be faithful to Mary Shelley's story, Asylum movie adaptations never have been, so that wasn't an issue. However, the predictable way the story is told, the many sluggish and needless scenes and the unoriginal and non-scary killings really let the side down. The gore is not so bad visuals-wise, but does little to enhance the atmosphere, which generally just wasn't there. The characters are ones I found myself indifferent to, other than the monster, Victor and Robert they are annoying. The rest of the acting is very bland and passionless. Overall, not a good movie but not a really bad one either, it promised much and does try hard but with largely disappointing results. 4/10 Bethany Cox

An extremely uninspired and forgettable re-telling of the classic story.

[The_Depressed_Star_Wars_fan · 1/10 · 27 June 2011]

This is a f**king terrible film. Let's start with the story. The story of Frankenstein is re-told in modern times. An idea that the writer or director though was original when in fact there were already a few other movies that already utilized that idea. In fact nothing about this film that's original. It doesn't do any thing new with the story. A lot of the elements are taken from better Frankenstein films, and other times the movie feels like it's trying to be some cliché slasher movie. Actually the slasher movie elements seem to be an attempt to make the film stand out from all the other Frankenstein re-tellings, but it only makes it more forgettable. The acting in this movie is nothing special, and unfortunately there is nothing more to say about it other than that. It's the same story with the special effects, there really nothing special. In the end this is a very forgettable film that is probably best left forgotten in the minds of movie viewers.

Those who can't do, whine.

[tfxd · 10/10 · 7 September 2005]

I know the time frame and budget constrictions of this project on a personal level. I am proud of the film and it's cast and crew for the effort that went into FRAKKENSTEIN REBORN. You folks who are so carelessly slamming the film should know that it is harsh to do business at the "direct to" level. You are lucky to get any one person on set with passion, drive and selflessness. The cast and crew believed in the project and stand by it, even going so far as to tear the film and each other apart, rather hilariously so, during the audio commentary. If you can do better I would love to see it. Thanks for your heckling from your dark lonely corner of the rental arena, and thanks for renting. Hey, we in the biz don't really care what you say about us as long as we affect you in some way. As for me, I can't wait to see what The ASYLUM did by way of a WEREWOLF picture with THE BEAST OF BRAY ROAD. As for spoilers, nope, none here just wanted your attention, thanks again.

A refreshing take on "Frankenstein"

[Count Graf Orlok · 7/10 · 4 August 2006]

While of course a low budget movie, I think, if judged by these standards, "Frankenstein Reborn" is a decent film. Naturally, it follows the story of old Frankenstein, however the modernization of circumstances surrounding the characters puts this film a notch above many retellings of Frankenstein. I love how Walton, the ship captain, is replaced with Walton, the head doctor of a psych ward. Little changes like this prevent the film from having the appearance of trying to be something it cannot; much like Coppolla's 1994 version. The acting is pretty amazing for a B flick like this, and the story is surprisingly accurate. This film is probably the book that Mary Shelley would've written were she alive today.

Ultimately, "Frankenstein Reborn" is among the highest of films of it's kind, I would recommend it to anyone seeking out good bad-movies, of which this film almost transcends.

This is an underrated nugget!

[akamatsu-1 · 8/10 · 18 December 2008]

I have read other reviews on this film, and entirely disagree! OK, first things first, yes this is a low budget film, yes these are not Class A actors, however this is a well written, constructed and edited film. The director has obviously much skill in squeezing every penny out of his budget, and I believe possibly got the best performance from his cast that they are ever likely to give.

Anyone familiar with the Frankenstein story and its various adaptations should appreciate the originality and freshness of this one. Also, this film has many moments that truly return 'Frankenstein' into the horror genre, where it belongs! (Including a Monster that fits the description of MONSTER)

Basically, the director Leigh Scott, has created an above average re-invention of the Frankenstein legend, and I wish him luck with any future projects.

I could have enjoyed this movie if it weren't for the sound.

[ghost-9 · 6/10 · 9 September 2005]

This would have been a nice low-budget horror movie. I enjoyed Rhett Giles rendition of the good doctor. Only thing that bothered me was during the dialog, the score would annoyingly drown it out. I kept having to turn the sound up and down and I still couldn't catch all of what was said. Movie makers take note, please add English subtitles so we can read the dialog if we can't hear it over the crappy score. Whoever did the sound for that movie should never be allowed to mix again! Other than the lousy sound, the actors did fine and were believable enough (except for that part with the little girl not being scared!) for a horror movie. The violence and gore were over the top, the way I like it and the monster looked just great! I wish more of the Frankensteins looked as good as he did. Please, if you otherwise have an OK movie, don't ruin it with bad sound and do add subtitles.

scary scary movie

[jacobjohntaylor1 · 10/10 · 26 July 2021]

This is one of the scariest movies I have seen. I have no idea how any one could not like it. It is a great horror movie.

People hate just to hate...

[Freshslatepictures · 7/10 · 26 September 2013]

Let me start by saying this: If you get the chance, check out the movie.

The writer/Director, Leigh Scott, seems to catch a lot of flack, particularly here on IMDb, and after seeing a good portion of his work now, it's unwarranted.

It struck me about half way through that there are a LOT less cuts in it, than you normally see in a movie, but here's the thing, I'm not sure this is bad Directing/lack of planning. I think it's got more to do with the turn-around time that Asylum sets, rather than "poor Directing".

The acting was above average, I'm a BIG Rhett Giles fan, after this. The man has charisma. You have gorgeous women, the majority of which are good/great actresses, too. And can any red-blooded man REALLY complain about decent amounts of nudity? It's a bonus.

I liked the monster make-up, and the sfx blood/gore was about on par with movies of this budget.

My one complaint was that it was nearly impossible to hear Rhett in the interrogation scenes, due to audio. I had to turn the TV up all the way. Still wasn't enough to take me out of it, though.

That's mostly due to an excellent script, and a lead actor that could carry it. As I said, watch the movie if you get the chance. Don't assume it's terrible based on peoples' unwarranted Leigh Scott hate, or Asylum mockbuster tales. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than a LOT of other low-budget horror flicks? Absolutely.