Victor Frankenstein

Movie Information

The Story: A new take on the Frankenstein story. The Lowdown: Against all odds — and against the tide of critical disapproval — Victor Frankenstein turns out to be a worthy addition to the Frankenstein mythology. It is both fresh and conscious of its history, and anchored to great performances from its stars.
Score:

Genre: Horror
Director: Paul McGuigan (Lucky Number Slevin)
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, James McAvoy, Jessica Brown Findlay, Andrew Scott, Freddie Fox, Charles Dance
Rated: PG-13

frankenstein-featured-1200x630-e1439916962470

 

I’m in the minority on Paul McGuigan’s Victor Frankenstein — the movies’ latest addition to the cinematic legacy that dates back 105 years. That’s to say that I think it’s really pretty good, and that is not something I expected to find myself saying. Oh, it had nothing to do with the negative reviews (I never trust reviews of horror pictures) and even less to do with the fact that it had been tagged as a box-office failure before Thursday’s turkey was carved. No, it’s just that — Ken Russell’s Gothic (1986) aside, which isn’t a Frankenstein picture as such — I haven’t seen a Frankenstein movie I much liked since Hammer’s Revenge of Frankenstein (1958), and even it’s on shaky ground with me. As a result, history wasn’t in its favor, nor, for that matter, was its Igor-point-of-view approach — especially since Igor (or Ygor actually) never had a damn thing to do with the creation of the Monster (no matter what Mel Brooks thought).

 

Victor-Frankenstein-Movie

 

Imagine my delighted surprise when I actually enjoyed this latest attempt to jolt the old story back to life. I’m not claiming this is a great movie. So far as I’m concerned, the only great movies Mary Shelley’s novel has (loosely) spawned were the two that James Whale made, Frankenstein (1931) and Bride of Frankenstein (1935). Everything other than those — in that specific series, in its embryonic ancestors, and in all that followed — were either solidly crafted horror pictures, phony literary imitations, oddities, tantalizing junk or just plain junk. Victor Frankenstein strikes me as both a solidly crafted horror picture and something of an oddity — and I say that as a compliment. Even more, it’s a film that feels like it was made by and for adults — not the comic book crowd its PG-13 rating might suggest was the target.

 

90

 

The idea that the story is told from Igor’s (Daniel Radcliffe) viewpoint isn’t terribly important (nor is it very played up). It’s more the fact that Igor isn’t the usual henchman character, but a fully functioning human being. Rescued by Frankenstein (James McAvoy) from the circus that held him prisoner, Igor quickly becomes — after all the filth is washed off and the giant abcess that gives him the appearance of a hunchback is drained — more partner and friend to Frankenstein than servant. For that matter, Igor is a better surgeon (self-taught) with a more pronounced knowledge (also self-taught) of anatomy than his amusingly loopy mentor. Their relationship — a kind of balancing act of intellect and conscience, of enthusiasm and caution — is the most interesting aspect of the film, and one that trades heavily on the natural chemistry of Radcliffe and McAvoy. The only downside to this is that they’re so good together that Igor’s relationship with the romantic interest (Jessica Findlay Brown) falls flat. (It doesn’t help that she’s something of a wet-blanket moralizer.)

 

victor-frankenstein-gallery-02-gallery-image

 

Oh, yes, monsters will be built — two in fact, and neither will work out well, naturally. There will be tut-tutting about “things that man must leave alone,” and all the expected elements of the Frankenstein saga. There are also frequent (often witty) nods to the film’s cinematic ancestry — ranging from a terrific non-answer to why the Monster’s head is flat (originating in Whale’s first film) to a variation on the policeman with the prosthetic arm from 1939’s Son of Frankenstein (and, yes, Mel Brooks’ 1974 Young Frankenstein, which gets a reference all its own). We get intimations of the Hammer Frankensteins, and even a dash of Paul Morrissey’s Flesh for Frankenstein (1974).

 

victor-frankenstein-gallery-03-gallery-image

 

At the same time, there are intriguing elements that are unique to Victor Frankenstein — even beyond the Igor-Frankenstein relationship. Making their arch-nemesis Inspector Turpin (Andrew Scott) an over-the-top religious zealot — who is prone to railing about Satan, affronts to God and abominations — is a new twist, and it’s one that dovetails neatly with the film’s not very coded homo-eroticism. Then there’s the presence of the fabulously wealthy — and very Aryan — Finnegan (Freddie Fox) who opts to fund Frankenstein’s experiments, with an eye toward creating a kind of master-race army. That’s another new wrinkle — even if does recall John Carradine creating zombies for Hitler in Revenge of the Zombies (1943), and owes something Ken Russell’s Lisztomania (1975) in the bargain. There’s enough here that is both fresh and keyed in to the heritage of Frankenstein legacy to make Victor Frankenstein very worthwhile. That it also has something on its mind is even better. Yes, it’s been largely reviled and written off as a flop, but it’s not the first time that’s happened to a good film. Rated PG-13 for macabre images, violence and a sequence of destruction.

 

SHARE
About Ken Hanke
Head film critic for Mountain Xpress from December 2000 until his death in June 2016. Author of books "Ken Russell's Films," "Charlie Chan at the Movies," "A Critical Guide to Horror Film Series," "Tim Burton: An Unauthorized Biography of the Filmmaker."

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

6 thoughts on “Victor Frankenstein

  1. Dino

    Interesting. Wondering what your take is on TERROR OF FRANKENSTEIN? Some find it a boring version of the novel. I like it quite a bit, and see it as the truest adaptation of Shelley’s work…which many find it boring in its own right.

    • Ken Hanke

      To be honest this is the first I’ve heard of it, and I’m in the camp that finds Ms. Shelley’s novel pretty tough slogging.

  2. T.rex

    Based on the cast and your review maybe I will see it after all. I was going to skip it because of the horrible ads. This might be a perfect “brew movie”.
    What was your opinion on the Brannaugh/Copola version?

    • Ken Hanke

      Except for the fact that the trailer tends to confuse people into thinking that an early experiment is the Monster, I’m not clear on these “horrible ads.”

      The Branagh film is pretty funny…but that wasn’t the intent.

  3. yandoodan

    Okay, I gotta ask. Of all the “solidly crafted horror pictures, phony literary imitations, oddities, tantalizing junk or just plain junk”, where does Young Frankenstein fall?

    • Ken Hanke

      Oddities, I guess. Maybe the 41 years since I first saw it have dimmed its charms for me.

Leave a Reply to yandoodan ×

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.