+Taji Joseph - All reviewing is extremely subjective. Midnight Screenings (aka Brad, the Cinema Snob guy) had great fun with this, giving it high marks for being so over the top with two great lead actors.
I disagree I was really surprised by this movie. Acting was great. Suspense was on point. And action reads really good. I never felt like any of the characters were safe. Plus even if it's not much different from the original material there hasn't been a Frankenstein movie for a while. I know most people my age haven't seen a Frankenstein movie and have no interest in seeing an old one. But this movie took a cliche monster and actually made him terrifying
+EsEN101 I saw the movie today and it was a lot better then the I Frankenstein in 2014 all so we have heard the story of Victor Frankenstein but not point of view of Egor I my self enjoyed the movie a lot. I guess most people like the older Frankenstein movie more then the newer ones and hate on them not giving them a chance to see them.
You truly made my day after reading your comment this UA-camr doesn't do this movie Justice saying nothing but absolute negativity about it of course this dude is more narcissistic in his reviews anyway and over pampered in heavy action movies of today which is becoming more of a cultural poison for our youth
I thought this was the best Frankenstein story in a long time. The magnificent performances by the leads aside, the visual style perfectly evoked both the manic genius of the original mad scientist and to a certain extent Victorian London. The story holds up pretty well and is something both fans of the book and the Hollywood version can appreciate. It's not a horror movie much like the book which is mislabeled in my opinion as classic horror but instead is a deeply personal tale of a tormented genius and an outcast who finds love. It is not the best movie, sure, but for what it is, I really enjoyed it and would see it again for sure.
I'm the same way this UA-camr is either not old enough or has not even expanded on his pallet of movies and his taste as he said he's more of an action individual making it rather disappointing when I find UA-camrs like this didn't even attempt to make a real review comparison to the other UA-camrs I've seen who are generally on instantly because there are either old as me or older who have enough time to broaden their Horizon and taste and movies
@@darthxing7289 As a lifelong classic horror/hammer horror film fanatic (I'm 36)----I absolutely loved this film. Don't understand all of the hate that this movie gets. People are so finicky anymore. Personally, I think they're spoiled brats who are utterly over-stimulated. Therefore, they take things for granted and lack the ability to fully appreciate (and identify) good cinema *for what it is* (not what it *isn't* ).
I studied Mary Shelly's original Frankenstein and I will say that it isn't your classic monster tale. It's a story about what it means to be human, science vs nature and the duality of good and evil. I enjoyed it but I understand why anyone else would find it dull, since it isn't this action packed monster tale and it was written a really long time ago. That said, there's no excuse to make a crappy movie when you have such rich source material. The stage adaption of Frankenstein was very successful in part because the creators understood the issue at the heart of the story. This movie sounds like someone just wanted to make some easy money and didn't really try. The source material has so many different levels to it that if you wanted to go in a completely different direction to what has been done before you won't find it that hard.
To be fair, Max Landis only wrote the movie. He's said something before like directors rarely give the screenwriter any creative thoughts when it comes to actually filming the movie.
+Aaron VargasNV Landis at this point is infamous for never owning up for his own failures. Just like with Josh Trank, these two love to point fingers and never accept that they are just one trick ponies.
+samzilla567 No. Fant4stic was great. You will never know. Best comic book movie since The Dark Knight. American Ultra too. I bet you didn't see it? You don't even like original movies. Nah, you're right. Landis tried to cover his butt on RedLetterMedia, but I think he meant it how it came off. He was blaming the audience. He even mentioned Boyhood and Birdman, and then brings up how much money American Ultra made over it.
+kaatyblue I'll give you a jessica jones review, painfully long, dull and the over excitement created by the main heroes about the villain just blow out flat when you finally meet him. The only good thing about this series is the acting, all the actors are great if not awesome, they made a really good job. But the 13 episode is way too much, 6 or 7 would have been better.
I'm kind of sad to hear that; I thought it looked interesting. I know its supposed to be campy -- but I like campy stuff, so it still might be up my alley. It seems Chris gives anything that's not super serious a bad grade, so I'm not inclined to necessarily take his word for it; it might just be a matter of taste.
+Chad Hotelling apparently they changed a lot of his script, don't think he's very happy with how it turned out either, that's why he's not really been promoting it
I personally loved the movie and completely disagree . I felt the story to be fresh and original and i don't think you have read the book if you are making a statement that says it' s not.
Good review, but personally, I really enjoyed this movie. I thought the performances were terrific, especially from the two leads. I'm so impressed with Daniel Radcliffe and how much he's managed to come into his own as an actor without simply riding on the heels of Harry Potter. Of course, James McAvoy is always a lot of fun to watch as well. The effects looked great as well. They really used their production values smartly with a mix of practical and CGI. I wouldn't say that I ever felt bored as I thought that they actually did a lot to flesh things out, going into a lot more detail than the original. I suppose I could somewhat agree that it didn't really feel like the leads were genuinely in danger, save for maybe the climax, but otherwise I found this movie to be incredibly well put together in its own right.
+yugoxgc I don't agree with that person. He's picking very challenging and unique roles, and I respect that about Radcliffe. From stage plays like Equuis to the Woman in Black to Horns, this is a guy who genuinely enjoys acting.
+Hugh G Shame because he's done some good work, nothing amazing in my personal opinion but enough to enjoy. I liked him in Horns and The Woman in Black.
In my subscriptions Jeremy's reviews are almost always right next to yours, so I can choose weather I should see a movie just based on your thumbnails.
Great review, thank you. The trailer already looked very lame and you pointed out a big weakness of many modern action/fantasy-movies. It's a shame that they waste an actor like McAvoy on such a film.
The last good Frankenstein movie is "Young Frankenstein" starring Gene Wilder and Peter Boyle. But the best Frankenstein of all time is without a doubt Boris Karloff.
I verbally "UGGGGGGH"ed in disapproval when I heard the opinion on the original source material. Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is a MASTERPIECE and so ahead of its time! And seriously this friggin Egore character...FORGET HIM HE WAS NOT IN THE BOOK.
+evilgrunt123 stop hating him for nothing, just cause you don't like him as a person doesn't mean he's not a good writer, chronicle is great, american alien is great, frankenstein original script was actually good too.
+11kingsmash He's only have had 3 movies made. One was Chronicle, which was great. The second was American Ultra, which is really fun. The third being Victor Frankenstein, which according to most is disappointing. If you ask me, he's 2/3 at this point. And the script doesn't make the movie. It's about the director.
I watched your review before deciding to go and I thank you for that. You lowered my expectations so much that we actually enjoyed the movie. I thought you were a little harsh, I might have given in a C or C+. It really wasn't TERRIBLE! I'm sitting here looking at all the hate and not quite understanding why it did so horribly.
Hi Chris. I have this impression that your main complaint is that this movie is not "original" or "new", and that you feel like the crew do not have high regard to the lore of Frankenstein. As a movie lover who had never paid any attention to the story of Frankenstein, I find this move very good. Other than the acting and the chemistry (which you had acknowledged), I really like the story because in essence it is not about the animated dead, it is about a man with a passion to build something questionable and the world objects to. Try switch out "animating the dead" with "building an atomic bomb", and the drama among the mad scientist, his close friend and the police is still intact. The mad scientist believes he has a debt to pay and he is doing something good to humanity, the close friend wants to aid his friend but has his own moral dilemmas, and the police wants to stop the mad scientist because of the trail he left of illegal stealings and unholy (in his opinion) creations. My point is, while I respect your opinion and your grade to this movie that I really like, I don't see you forming legitimate criticisms to this movie without referencing the source material or previous work based on the source material. I hope you could elaborate on your views.
The character "Igor" is a 20th century pastiche, the result of people vaguely remembering things from that century's films and merging their memories into a single composite character. He certainly has nothing to do with Mary Shelley's novel. The first hunchbacked assistant to Dr. ("Henry") Frankenstein appeared in a 19th century play based on the book and his name was Fritz; that character was later inserted into the 1931 Boris Karloff classic, still named Fritz. There's a similar character in 1935's "Bride of Frankenstein" named Karl, but in 1939's "Son of Frankenstein" (the last film in the series to feature Karloff) they introduced an insane blacksmith named Ygor played by Bela Lugosi, who is not a hunchback, but does have a crooked neck because he survived being hanged for graverobbing. Except he's not the doctor's assistant, he's the film's MAIN VILLAIN. So I question the assertion that ANYONE INVOLVED IN THIS FILM EVER EVEN READ THE BOOK! XD
hey chris- I was wondering if you could PLEASE review White Bird in a Blizzard. It's truly a movie masterpiece and has such awesome originality and symbolism. I love your videos and would love to hear your take on it :)
I found McAvoy relatable in his awkwardness in public & obsessive focus on his passions, Radcliffe is always a treat to watch, the "villains" were entertaining, & the monsters, sets, & effects were visually impressive. I liked the film.
There is only a few people in UA-cam who does video reviews. Therefore I appreciate you doing all this for us. P.S. Since I've subscribed, every video you make makes me want to hit the subscribe button again and again.
Hey Chris, check out Bernard Rose's (aka the director of "Candyman", as you might know) modern and unique version of Frankenstein. It came out this year and is quiet original. There's a good chance that you might enjoy it. All the best from Austria!
Hey Chris, huge fan. But with this review I was wondering what your take was on Van Helsing with Hugh Jackman. (One of my favorite actors of all time.) I thought it was actually pretty good. Some of the CGI was noticeable but it's a relatively old movie too. 2004 and it's almost been 12 years. It would be great if you'd do it. I think other people and fans of monster movies would love it too.
The Brendan Frasier Mummy is my favorite "cable" movie. You know that movie you see on one of the cable channels on Saturday afternoon, turn it on and come in and out of it whenever.
Oh wow I loved James McAvoy way back in the 2003, where they did the next chapter of the Dune Saga "Children of Dune". You´re right, he is always such a passionate and driven actor, I love most of his characters.
Chris, can you please review Spotlight? I'm a longtime fan and think you should really see it. It should have hit wide release in Ohio by now and having seen it, it is not only well worth your time but also deserves research on the articles post-viewing. Keep the quality work, my friend, and next time on Movie Fights, just make up an answer. It's worked before (almost).
Chris, I'm trying out for a job as a film critic and I need to submit a written review. I've written and obviously read plenty of reviews, but never something that's been read by anyone else. Do you have any tips and what you think the ideal length is? Great review, let's just say I'll be sticking with Creed this weekend
i knew it! ever since " i frankestein" i lost interest in this story.. what is it about this story that keeps hollywood want to continue remaking it? is it the name that makes it feel secure instead of risking it with an original story.?. what is it? glad i made it to the first 500 views.. keep it up chris, i always watch your reviews and you save me of wasting money on bores!!
This movie was INSULTING! I LOVE Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and this film is just insulting! Why couldn't this film be told as an origin story for Igor and then end with him getting found by Victor.
I can understand people who didn’t care for this movie at all. The film lacked coherence and felt a tad rushed. It should have been longer honestly, it’s cut too short at an hour and 50 minutes. Should have been closer to two and half hours honestly with more build up. And Mary Shelley’s novel written in 1818 is not dull or drab in my opinion. I’ve read it twice from cover to cover and I think it’s a brilliant monster story. But of course the director has a right to his opinion just like everybody else does. Other than it being short and lacking some plot, it was actually a fairly good movie. The acting was awesome, the action to me was pretty decent, the setting was deported wonderfully and the reimagining of the story was pretty creative. All in all I give it a 7 out of 10.
Chris, i would be curious what you would think of ''By The Sea''. Angelina Jolie Pitt's new film. You should review it, it looks very underrated from what i am seeing and feeling during the trailer. I feel like mainstream audiences wouldn't approve well of the film because it is probably slow and very dramatic and people may have been mislead by watching the trailer. I really want you to review By The Sea, think about it.
I liked this movie but at first I judged the movie by the trailer I thought The monster Was gonna be the zombie monkey but I feel like it should've of been closer to the trailer besides the zombie monkey how cool would it be if the cops actually got evidence to get Frankenstein and they started chasing them so they had the monster kill the cops who were chasing them and the monster decides he doesn't want to do that and attacks Frankenstein
Kindly review The Man from Earth(2007), it's a forgotten masterpiece.. And maybe, do a similar reviews on minimal set movies like 12 Angry men & Dogville.
Hey Chris, can you please review the movie "Spotlight" it honestly deserves the 93% it has, it was such a really good movie, and it's choreography was so perfect. I really Recomend reviewing this movie.
Can I just ask where the fuck Igor came from? I've read the book and he doesn't even exist. Also lol @ the director saying the book is dull; it's not meant to be a horror film.
+Nevi1097 My thoughts exactly when I first read the book :) The original material has surprising depth to it (surprising because of the author's age), which I would love to see "reimagined" on the big screen instead of the constant horror angle.
Yuki Ame I know I can't believe Shelly was so young when she wrote it! I didn't enjoy the book /that/ much(due to Victors constant moaning, I loved the writing style though) but after reading it I just can't help but critique every Frankenstein movie adaptation.
Nevi1097 Victor is the single most annoying main character I have read about; the Monster is pretty cool though. I've always thought of the Monster as the innocent child she lost, and of Victor's neglect - as her guilt for letting that happen. Which makes the whole horror interpretation kind of surreal. Like the world of the book has been flipped completely around. I guess this is another "suspend your disbelieve" movie moment :)
Yuki Ame Same! He's definitely close to being one of the most self-pitying, irresponsible, inactive, and annoying characters I've read. I always thought the Monster was a bit of a dick though with Victor's shit and society being an asshole to him, he's not really to blame. And wow that's a great interpretation of it!
As someone who absolutely adores the book for its philosophical questions and it's interesting characters it absolutely breaks my heart that we haven't had a decent adaptation of the book. Don't get me wrong I like the old frankenstein movies and Young Frankenstein as much as anyone, but can anyone actual make the BOOK into a movie? At this point all the movies are bases on Fanon (what people think vs what it actually is). Yes, the Kenneth Branagh one was decent but I (and a lot of people) found it a poor adaptation. THEATER PERFORMANCES SEEM TO HAVE IT DOWN. I saw a great play with Benedict Cumberbatch playing the creature and it was outstanding. As an aspiring director that's one of the movies that's on my list to make.
I actually enjoyed this movie a lot! I felt it had a good sense of humor about itself which kept it interesting for me. The performances, like you said, were great and I was awed by the production design, the look and the music by Craig Armstrong. I thought the script was pretty clever how it wasn´t really a re-imagening of the book, but more so a call-back to the Hammer-style Horror-adventure-flicks from the 70's and 80's. As that, a pure hommage to that style of movie, it totally worked for me. Here in Germany, it just came out on DVD in 2016, so it´s actually gonna be on my Best-Of-List of 2016. But, hey, your opinion is your opinion. But I had a great time with it.
Haven't seen the movie (and don't intend to), but in response to what Chris said about the director not liking the book: I believe Tim Burton had some disdain about the Batman comics as well? But those movies are critically acclaimed. It's a bit weird admittedly, but just saying that the director not liking the source doesn't mean the result will be bad. Maybe he/she likes the plot/character/conceit, but not the execution of the actual work.
Does anyone have a link to the interview where the director said that the original Frankenstein was dull as dishwater? My science fiction teacher would love that.
I think you did a great job of presenting yourself and you're free to have your own opinion of course, but I really disagreed with you on this. I thought the movie, like the book, had strong themes and both had a lot of depth and had a deeper message that some people may not have picked up on, but this movie had great acting, great characters, a great story, and a great overall message. I hope to see more. yes, it's not identical to the book but it still has a strong and deep meaning to it and I don't understand how one could have been bored. I am hanging onto every moment of this film to take it all in. Also, I didn't see how it was flipped like a retelling of the same story but from a different characters perspective. Many people have complained that it's not identical to any other Frankenstein story[even though it never claimed to be] but it's certainly not 'the same story shown from anothers perspective'. Never have we seen this before and that's a good thing.
That's what puzzled me. The director is known for his awesome work with the Sherlock tv show. But his directing for feature films isn't up to par. Guess he should stick with tv.
I must say, as someone who recently read the original book by Mary Shelley, this film was most certainly a re-imagining. They fucked around with the original story so severely that it barely resembled the original at all. The themes were the same, and there was very much a gothic atmosphere, but since Igor doesn’t even exist in the book and it’s set primarily in Switzerland, it’s very different. Through this lens, it did seen original, though the Terminator-esque action at the end was tiring. Overall, in my opinion, a great film.
Great review as always, Chris! If it comes to a theater near you, you should review the movie Room starring Brie Larson. Saw it Wednesday and it is amazing. One of the best of the decade and best of the year thus far!
i always watch your reviews before i watch the movie, because then i kind of know what i can expect, but i'm sad that you think it's bad ( i haven't watched it, mind you), mainly because i love james mcavoy
not that i have seen this movie, but judging off what i read, you can barely call this a re-imagining of the original mary shelley novel. there is no assistant character in the book, that was purely created in future film "adaptations". i'd call this movie more a new version based off all the past film versions, very few of which bare much resemblance to the plot of the original novel.... doesn't make it suck less though, lol
What if you would think of the movie as a campy comedy? i watched one review of the movie saying that it was like the Hammer Production Frankensteins and had tons of references to other Frankenstein movies and even the Mel Brooks Young Frankenstein. Would the movie work with that mind set on? I am debating myself on whether to see this movie or not.
Why waste time reviewing this shit when there's been a perfect anime called Cory in the House just waiting in front of you for the past 8 years!
not anime
+coryinthehouse you're everywhere
+coryinthehouse go back to your vomit eating master
+Tom Van Renen I know
Super Someone papa franku disagrees
The thumbnail says it all.
Yup. You already know if a movie would be good or not by seeing the reaction on his face
+Taji Joseph - All reviewing is extremely subjective. Midnight Screenings (aka Brad, the Cinema Snob guy) had great fun with this, giving it high marks for being so over the top with two great lead actors.
jlovebirch
Yup. This is called having an opinion, thank you.
This is a funny comment. Im 7yrs late
I disagree I was really surprised by this movie. Acting was great. Suspense was on point. And action reads really good. I never felt like any of the characters were safe. Plus even if it's not much different from the original material there hasn't been a Frankenstein movie for a while. I know most people my age haven't seen a Frankenstein movie and have no interest in seeing an old one. But this movie took a cliche monster and actually made him terrifying
+EsEN101 I saw the movie today and it was a lot better then the I Frankenstein in 2014 all so we have heard the story of Victor Frankenstein but not point of view of Egor I my self enjoyed the movie a lot. I guess most people like the older Frankenstein movie more then the newer ones and hate on them not giving them a chance to see them.
You truly made my day after reading your comment this UA-camr doesn't do this movie Justice saying nothing but absolute negativity about it of course this dude is more narcissistic in his reviews anyway and over pampered in heavy action movies of today which is becoming more of a cultural poison for our youth
I thought this was the best Frankenstein story in a long time. The magnificent performances by the leads aside, the visual style perfectly evoked both the manic genius of the original mad scientist and to a certain extent Victorian London. The story holds up pretty well and is something both fans of the book and the Hollywood version can appreciate. It's not a horror movie much like the book which is mislabeled in my opinion as classic horror but instead is a deeply personal tale of a tormented genius and an outcast who finds love. It is not the best movie, sure, but for what it is, I really enjoyed it and would see it again for sure.
I'm the same way this UA-camr is either not old enough or has not even expanded on his pallet of movies and his taste as he said he's more of an action individual making it rather disappointing when I find UA-camrs like this didn't even attempt to make a real review comparison to the other UA-camrs I've seen who are generally on instantly because there are either old as me or older who have enough time to broaden their Horizon and taste and movies
@@darthxing7289 As a lifelong classic horror/hammer horror film fanatic (I'm 36)----I absolutely loved this film. Don't understand all of the hate that this movie gets. People are so finicky anymore. Personally, I think they're spoiled brats who are utterly over-stimulated. Therefore, they take things for granted and lack the ability to fully appreciate (and identify) good cinema *for what it is* (not what it *isn't* ).
The cinematography and color grading in this movie reminded me of harry potter
Ross Bauer agree...
@@chethansanjeev9595 watch this movie or download movie pls tell me
Best monster movie? The Mummy
Best guilty pleasure monster movie? Van Helsing
Van helsing is so underrated
+snoopi kinnaird Nooo. It's a guilty pleasure, not a good movie.
What mummy movie are you talking about? 1932? 1959? 1999?
+Nitromian 1999 would be my guess
1999 was pretty much a modern take on the 1939 version.
I studied Mary Shelly's original Frankenstein and I will say that it isn't your classic monster tale. It's a story about what it means to be human, science vs nature and the duality of good and evil. I enjoyed it but I understand why anyone else would find it dull, since it isn't this action packed monster tale and it was written a really long time ago.
That said, there's no excuse to make a crappy movie when you have such rich source material. The stage adaption of Frankenstein was very successful in part because the creators understood the issue at the heart of the story. This movie sounds like someone just wanted to make some easy money and didn't really try. The source material has so many different levels to it that if you wanted to go in a completely different direction to what has been done before you won't find it that hard.
Be interesting to have Stuckmann and Max Landis on Movie Fights after this
To be fair, Max Landis only wrote the movie. He's said something before like directors rarely give the screenwriter any creative thoughts when it comes to actually filming the movie.
+Aaron VargasNV I think Landis said that they changed a lot of his script.
+Aaron VargasNV Landis at this point is infamous for never owning up for his own failures. Just like with Josh Trank, these two love to point fingers and never accept that they are just one trick ponies.
Tom Cassidy I was referring to Trank and Landis' work on Chronicle. They made one good movie together and it's been downhill from there for them.
+samzilla567 No. Fant4stic was great. You will never know. Best comic book movie since The Dark Knight. American Ultra too. I bet you didn't see it? You don't even like original movies.
Nah, you're right. Landis tried to cover his butt on RedLetterMedia, but I think he meant it how it came off. He was blaming the audience. He even mentioned Boyhood and Birdman, and then brings up how much money American Ultra made over it.
Speaking of monster movies, it would be nice to see a good werewolf movie again... *sigh*...
Chris , can you please review Filth with james McAvoy? Its a briliant piece of art that needs more recognition....
+11kingsmash so? He has reviewed older films before.
+Biskota Galaktos I second that!
+Biskota Galaktos Yes great film
Yeah great movie man
that was an overlooked gem
Two uploads today?!! LLEEETTTTSSSS GOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
you should review masters of none!
Nice try, Aziz
haha
Ah that show is golden
He SHOULD review Game of Thrones. I cannot believe he has not seen it yet.
+Nils Engman na FALLOUT 4
JESSICA JONES REVIEW? YEEEEEESSSSS
In his next two videos it will be a Jessica Jones review!
+kaatyblue I'll give you a jessica jones review, painfully long, dull and the over excitement created by the main heroes about the villain just blow out flat when you finally meet him. The only good thing about this series is the acting, all the actors are great if not awesome, they made a really good job. But the 13 episode is way too much, 6 or 7 would have been better.
I'm kind of sad to hear that; I thought it looked interesting. I know its supposed to be campy -- but I like campy stuff, so it still might be up my alley. It seems Chris gives anything that's not super serious a bad grade, so I'm not inclined to necessarily take his word for it; it might just be a matter of taste.
I think I'll still go watch it, James mcavoy is my favorite actor and I'll try to just not think about it to much.
Great taste in actors! He's awesome!
Max Landis wrote this? Woo Boy...here we go...
He didn't like the movie either.
Hey, Chris, what are your thoughts on the Kenneth Branagh Frankenstein movie from 1994?
Max Landis, what are you doing?
He was never good
+evilgrunt123 Yep
+evilgrunt123 Chronicle?
+Chad Hotelling apparently they changed a lot of his script, don't think he's very happy with how it turned out either, that's why he's not really been promoting it
+Chad Hotelling I really have fun with American Ultra. He is decent screenwriter compares to many others in hollywood
I personally loved the movie and completely disagree . I felt the story to be fresh and original and i don't think you have read the book if you are making a statement that says it' s not.
Good review, but personally, I really enjoyed this movie. I thought the performances were terrific, especially from the two leads. I'm so impressed with Daniel Radcliffe and how much he's managed to come into his own as an actor without simply riding on the heels of Harry Potter. Of course, James McAvoy is always a lot of fun to watch as well. The effects looked great as well. They really used their production values smartly with a mix of practical and CGI. I wouldn't say that I ever felt bored as I thought that they actually did a lot to flesh things out, going into a lot more detail than the original. I suppose I could somewhat agree that it didn't really feel like the leads were genuinely in danger, save for maybe the climax, but otherwise I found this movie to be incredibly well put together in its own right.
Penny Dreadful does a great job with telling Victor Frankenstein's story and The Creature in my opinion.
I need to watch that show. How good is it on a scale from 1 to 10?
+Connor Morley Eva Green is 10/10.
What's that?
Thanks +Hank Hill
I cant see Daniel Radcliffe doing anything else because he will always remind of harry potter
It doesn't help that he keeps picking poor scripts since Harry Potter.
+Terry Silvester So was Horns that bad? I got interested in the book & heard he was playing the lead in the adaptation so wonder what to expect
+yugoxgc I don't agree with that person. He's picking very challenging and unique roles, and I respect that about Radcliffe. From stage plays like Equuis to the Woman in Black to Horns, this is a guy who genuinely enjoys acting.
I agree it is the same for me with elijah wood. I only see frodo.
+Hugh G Shame because he's done some good work, nothing amazing in my personal opinion but enough to enjoy. I liked him in Horns and The Woman in Black.
Love you Chris! You're the reason I'm gonna make it through this break up.
In my subscriptions Jeremy's reviews are almost always right next to yours, so I can choose weather I should see a movie just based on your thumbnails.
'Penny Dreadful' (the TV-show) had a great imagining of Frankenstein and the monster! :)
Great review, thank you. The trailer already looked very lame and you pointed out a big weakness of many modern action/fantasy-movies. It's a shame that they waste an actor like McAvoy on such a film.
I love that you gave an honest review instead of being afraid to say something bad about a Max Landis moie
The last good Frankenstein movie is "Young Frankenstein" starring Gene Wilder and Peter Boyle. But the best Frankenstein of all time is without a doubt Boris Karloff.
+Emperor Palpatine
Hey Palpatine, what did you do to get that Star Destroyer over here? I bet you.........
...........flew it.
I don't remember Boris karloff ever playing Dr Frankenstein
;)
+Emperor Palpatine Of course, your Majesty.
I verbally "UGGGGGGH"ed in disapproval when I heard the opinion on the original source material. Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is a MASTERPIECE and so ahead of its time! And seriously this friggin Egore character...FORGET HIM HE WAS NOT IN THE BOOK.
Igor.
Do you the full review in under 5 seconds?
Just look at Chris' face in the thumbnail.
You MUST review the Lobster,it is a goddman masterpiece.
Very disappointing, I was hoping that Max Landis would do better.
+Dwayne Brown stop defending him
+evilgrunt123 stop hating him for nothing, just cause you don't like him as a person doesn't mean he's not a good writer, chronicle is great, american alien is great, frankenstein original script was actually good too.
+11kingsmash He's only have had 3 movies made. One was Chronicle, which was great. The second was American Ultra, which is really fun. The third being Victor Frankenstein, which according to most is disappointing. If you ask me, he's 2/3 at this point. And the script doesn't make the movie. It's about the director.
+Robert Butler I'm pretty sure that scripts are kinda important.
The scripts are important and crucial. But the director makes the final calls, and can change the script whenever he or she sees fit.
I watched your review before deciding to go and I thank you for that. You lowered my expectations so much that we actually enjoyed the movie. I thought you were a little harsh, I might have given in a C or C+. It really wasn't TERRIBLE! I'm sitting here looking at all the hate and not quite understanding why it did so horribly.
Hi Chris. I have this impression that your main complaint is that this movie is not "original" or "new", and that you feel like the crew do not have high regard to the lore of Frankenstein. As a movie lover who had never paid any attention to the story of Frankenstein, I find this move very good. Other than the acting and the chemistry (which you had acknowledged), I really like the story because in essence it is not about the animated dead, it is about a man with a passion to build something questionable and the world objects to. Try switch out "animating the dead" with "building an atomic bomb", and the drama among the mad scientist, his close friend and the police is still intact. The mad scientist believes he has a debt to pay and he is doing something good to humanity, the close friend wants to aid his friend but has his own moral dilemmas, and the police wants to stop the mad scientist because of the trail he left of illegal stealings and unholy (in his opinion) creations.
My point is, while I respect your opinion and your grade to this movie that I really like, I don't see you forming legitimate criticisms to this movie without referencing the source material or previous work based on the source material. I hope you could elaborate on your views.
I really like Mary Shelley's Frankenstein from the 90s. Am I the only one?
James McAvoy did amazing in this movie. His acting and delivery on his lines were top notch.
You are so close to half a million. You make such good videos, I'm going to help get to half a mill by subscribing.
The character "Igor" is a 20th century pastiche, the result of people vaguely remembering things from that century's films and merging their memories into a single composite character. He certainly has nothing to do with Mary Shelley's novel.
The first hunchbacked assistant to Dr. ("Henry") Frankenstein appeared in a 19th century play based on the book and his name was Fritz; that character was later inserted into the 1931 Boris Karloff classic, still named Fritz. There's a similar character in 1935's "Bride of Frankenstein" named Karl, but in 1939's "Son of Frankenstein" (the last film in the series to feature Karloff) they introduced an insane blacksmith named Ygor played by Bela Lugosi, who is not a hunchback, but does have a crooked neck because he survived being hanged for graverobbing. Except he's not the doctor's assistant, he's the film's MAIN VILLAIN.
So I question the assertion that ANYONE INVOLVED IN THIS FILM EVER EVEN READ THE BOOK! XD
hey chris- I was wondering if you could PLEASE review White Bird in a Blizzard. It's truly a movie masterpiece and has such awesome originality and symbolism. I love your videos and would love to hear your take on it :)
Lmao at the thumbnail. Chris with the Bella swan- like sad coma 😂
You're being too generous.
I found McAvoy relatable in his awkwardness in public & obsessive focus on his passions, Radcliffe is always a treat to watch, the "villains" were entertaining, & the monsters, sets, & effects were visually impressive. I liked the film.
Review Jessica Jones!!!
I can't wait for you review of Jessica Jones. It'll be interesting to see what you thought of it.
There is only a few people in UA-cam who does video reviews. Therefore I appreciate you doing all this for us. P.S. Since I've subscribed, every video you make makes me want to hit the subscribe button again and again.
Hey Chris,
check out Bernard Rose's (aka the director of "Candyman", as you might know) modern and unique version of Frankenstein. It came out this year and is quiet original. There's a good chance that you might enjoy it.
All the best from Austria!
Hey Chris, huge fan. But with this review I was wondering what your take was on Van Helsing with Hugh Jackman. (One of my favorite actors of all time.) I thought it was actually pretty good. Some of the CGI was noticeable but it's a relatively old movie too. 2004 and it's almost been 12 years. It would be great if you'd do it. I think other people and fans of monster movies would love it too.
The Brendan Frasier Mummy is my favorite "cable" movie. You know that movie you see on one of the cable channels on Saturday afternoon, turn it on and come in and out of it whenever.
Oh wow I loved James McAvoy way back in the 2003, where they did the next chapter of the Dune Saga "Children of Dune". You´re right, he is always such a passionate and driven actor, I love most of his characters.
OMG!! I cannot wait for your review of Jessica Jones!!! I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did!!!
Chris, can you please review Spotlight? I'm a longtime fan and think you should really see it. It should have hit wide release in Ohio by now and having seen it, it is not only well worth your time but also deserves research on the articles post-viewing. Keep the quality work, my friend, and next time on Movie Fights, just make up an answer. It's worked before (almost).
How does Hollywood keep getting Frankeinstein so wrong? It's such a production line film though.
Great review. I always respect how you convey flaws and merits of a movie without spoiling it, that takes effort and care.
Chris, I'm trying out for a job as a film critic and I need to submit a written review. I've written and obviously read plenty of reviews, but never something that's been read by anyone else. Do you have any tips and what you think the ideal length is? Great review, let's just say I'll be sticking with Creed this weekend
i knew it! ever since " i frankestein" i lost interest in this story.. what is it about this story that keeps hollywood want to continue remaking it? is it the name that makes it feel secure instead of risking it with an original story.?. what is it? glad i made it to the first 500 views.. keep it up chris, i always watch your reviews and you save me of wasting money on bores!!
Chris a 'Grave Encounters' review would be great!
James McAvoy as Frothenstein! Serious amounts of spittle flying from him.
I can't believe *another* Max Landis project was disappointing.
This movie was INSULTING! I LOVE Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and this film is just insulting! Why couldn't this film be told as an origin story for Igor and then end with him getting found by Victor.
God's blessing all the movie reviewers.chris,jeremy and schmoes.
I can understand people who didn’t care for this movie at all. The film lacked coherence and felt a tad rushed. It should have been longer honestly, it’s cut too short at an hour and 50 minutes. Should have been closer to two and half hours honestly with more build up. And Mary Shelley’s novel written in 1818 is not dull or drab in my opinion. I’ve read it twice from cover to cover and I think it’s a brilliant monster story. But of course the director has a right to his opinion just like everybody else does. Other than it being short and lacking some plot, it was actually a fairly good movie. The acting was awesome, the action to me was pretty decent, the setting was deported wonderfully and the reimagining of the story was pretty creative. All in all I give it a 7 out of 10.
I really liked this movie. Pleasantly surprised. 👍
Hey Chris, i was just wondering if you read comics?
Chris, i would be curious what you would think of ''By The Sea''. Angelina Jolie Pitt's new film. You should review it, it looks very underrated from what i am seeing and feeling during the trailer. I feel like mainstream audiences wouldn't approve well of the film because it is probably slow and very dramatic and people may have been mislead by watching the trailer. I really want you to review By The Sea, think about it.
I literally only wanted to see the movie for Dan, James, and Andrew! I love them so much.
I liked this movie but at first I judged the movie by the trailer I thought The monster Was gonna be the zombie monkey but I feel like it should've of been closer to the trailer besides the zombie monkey how cool would it be if the cops actually got evidence to get Frankenstein and they started chasing them so they had the monster kill the cops who were chasing them and the monster decides he doesn't want to do that and attacks Frankenstein
Spotlight review? Maybe?
Kindly review The Man from Earth(2007), it's a forgotten masterpiece..
And maybe, do a similar reviews on minimal set movies like 12 Angry men & Dogville.
Always enjoy your reviews!
Hey Chris, can you please review the movie "Spotlight" it honestly deserves the 93% it has, it was such a really good movie, and it's choreography was so perfect. I really Recomend reviewing this movie.
Can I just ask where the fuck Igor came from? I've read the book and he doesn't even exist. Also lol @ the director saying the book is dull; it's not meant to be a horror film.
+Nevi1097 My thoughts exactly when I first read the book :) The original material has surprising depth to it (surprising because of the author's age), which I would love to see "reimagined" on the big screen instead of the constant horror angle.
from the third entry in the Classic universal Frankenstein series, he was wonderfully played by legendary actor Bela Lugosi
Yuki Ame I know I can't believe Shelly was so young when she wrote it! I didn't enjoy the book /that/ much(due to Victors constant moaning, I loved the writing style though) but after reading it I just can't help but critique every Frankenstein movie adaptation.
Nevi1097 Victor is the single most annoying main character I have read about; the Monster is pretty cool though. I've always thought of the Monster as the innocent child she lost, and of Victor's neglect - as her guilt for letting that happen. Which makes the whole horror interpretation kind of surreal. Like the world of the book has been flipped completely around. I guess this is another "suspend your disbelieve" movie moment :)
Yuki Ame Same! He's definitely close to being one of the most self-pitying, irresponsible, inactive, and annoying characters I've read. I always thought the Monster was a bit of a dick though with Victor's shit and society being an asshole to him, he's not really to blame. And wow that's a great interpretation of it!
As someone who absolutely adores the book for its philosophical questions and it's interesting characters it absolutely breaks my heart that we haven't had a decent adaptation of the book. Don't get me wrong I like the old frankenstein movies and Young Frankenstein as much as anyone, but can anyone actual make the BOOK into a movie? At this point all the movies are bases on Fanon (what people think vs what it actually is). Yes, the Kenneth Branagh one was decent but I (and a lot of people) found it a poor adaptation. THEATER PERFORMANCES SEEM TO HAVE IT DOWN. I saw a great play with Benedict Cumberbatch playing the creature and it was outstanding. As an aspiring director that's one of the movies that's on my list to make.
I actually enjoyed this movie a lot! I felt it had a good sense of humor about itself which kept it interesting for me. The performances, like you said, were great and I was awed by the production design, the look and the music by Craig Armstrong. I thought the script was pretty clever how it wasn´t really a re-imagening of the book, but more so a call-back to the Hammer-style Horror-adventure-flicks from the 70's and 80's. As that, a pure hommage to that style of movie, it totally worked for me. Here in Germany, it just came out on DVD in 2016, so it´s actually gonna be on my Best-Of-List of 2016. But, hey, your opinion is your opinion. But I had a great time with it.
I loved this movie, I saw it for the first time last year. It's been added to my spooky movie marathon this october.
I thought this had hope honestly
Haven't seen the movie (and don't intend to), but in response to what Chris said about the director not liking the book: I believe Tim Burton had some disdain about the Batman comics as well? But those movies are critically acclaimed. It's a bit weird admittedly, but just saying that the director not liking the source doesn't mean the result will be bad. Maybe he/she likes the plot/character/conceit, but not the execution of the actual work.
Are you gonna watch Spotlight? I saw it the other night and it was very well made.
Does anyone have a link to the interview where the director said that the original Frankenstein was dull as dishwater? My science fiction teacher would love that.
Really enjoyed this movie, but there were a lot mess up plot scenes yes over the top, Daniel RatCliff did a wonderful job
would love if you did The Mummy(1999) review ;) just because they decided to remake it just now. God I hope the remake is good
why is chris obsessed with that with that stormtrooper
I think you did a great job of presenting yourself and you're free to have your own opinion of course, but I really disagreed with you on this. I thought the movie, like the book, had strong themes and both had a lot of depth and had a deeper message that some people may not have picked up on, but this movie had great acting, great characters, a great story, and a great overall message. I hope to see more. yes, it's not identical to the book but it still has a strong and deep meaning to it and I don't understand how one could have been bored. I am hanging onto every moment of this film to take it all in. Also, I didn't see how it was flipped like a retelling of the same story but from a different characters perspective. Many people have complained that it's not identical to any other Frankenstein story[even though it never claimed to be] but it's certainly not 'the same story shown from anothers perspective'. Never have we seen this before and that's a good thing.
It would be great if you did a video about the process or method (¿?) that you go through when trying to analyze a movie
A,B,C reviews of movies this week XD
I firmly believe that Max Landis could do wondrous things with the talent of a good director. Or, hell, at least a capable one.
That's what puzzled me. The director is known for his awesome work with
the Sherlock tv show. But his directing for feature films isn't up to par. Guess he should stick with tv.
When the UA-cam ad is longer than the actual video I'm watching smh
Hail Captain Phasma, a new addition to the background.
Your videos are soooooo good you made my day!
I must say, as someone who recently read the original book by Mary Shelley, this film was most certainly a re-imagining. They fucked around with the original story so severely that it barely resembled the original at all. The themes were the same, and there was very much a gothic atmosphere, but since Igor doesn’t even exist in the book and it’s set primarily in Switzerland, it’s very different. Through this lens, it did seen original, though the Terminator-esque action at the end was tiring. Overall, in my opinion, a great film.
please review Krampus when it releases
Great review as always, Chris! If it comes to a theater near you, you should review the movie Room starring Brie Larson. Saw it Wednesday and it is amazing. One of the best of the decade and best of the year thus far!
i always watch your reviews before i watch the movie, because then i kind of know what i can expect, but i'm sad that you think it's bad ( i haven't watched it, mind you), mainly because i love james mcavoy
Please review Spotlight, Chris!
Yes! Can't wait for your Jessica Jones review!
Chris I have not even started watching but your face explains it all.
not that i have seen this movie, but judging off what i read, you can barely call this a re-imagining of the original mary shelley novel. there is no assistant character in the book, that was purely created in future film "adaptations". i'd call this movie more a new version based off all the past film versions, very few of which bare much resemblance to the plot of the original novel.... doesn't make it suck less though, lol
Chris, please go see The Night Before. It's really funny as hell, I want to hear your opinion about it!
Yo Chris that Darth Vader shirt is badass! love it
Are you going to do a movie Review on Spotlight?! it's an amazing film!!!
No Escape, where is your review of that one Chris?
What if you would think of the movie as a campy comedy? i watched one review of the movie saying that it was like the Hammer Production Frankensteins and had tons of references to other Frankenstein movies and even the Mel Brooks Young Frankenstein. Would the movie work with that mind set on? I am debating myself on whether to see this movie or not.