Frankenstein Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Someone new is playing God.
Two hundred years after Mary Shelley's novel the brilliant but mad Doctor (Thomas Kretschmann) has sustained his creature and himself over two centuries through genetic experimentation. In present-day America Detective O'Connor (Parker Posey) is investigating a series of horrific murders which leads her to the doctor and his creature. What she uncovers reveals the strange evolution the doctor and his creation undergo over the course of two centuries and the divergent paths creator and monster take in pursuing good or evil.
| Luke Goss | The Creature |
| Alec Newman | Victor Frankenstein |
| Julie Delpy | Caroline Frankenstein |
| Nicole Lewis | Elizabeth |
| Monika Hilmerová | Justine |
| Donald Sutherland | Captain Walton |
| William Hurt | Professor Waldman |
| Tomas Mastalir | Lieutenant |
| Ian McNeice | Professor Krempe |
| Roger La Page | Dr. Vandenberg |
| Milan Bahúl | Farmer |
| Ondrej Koval | Frederick |
| Kevin Connor |
4.60 out of 10 (481 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Bear In Mind It IS A Made For TV Movie
posted on 04 Apr 2009I don't think these kinds of movies should be judged by the same standards as others. Compared to a full budgeted, generally more free, Hollywood movie, this movie lacks somewhat. Compared to something like The Langoliers, it's spectacular. Judge it on its own merits and it's certainly not a waste of time, the performances all around are excellent, stand-outs from Adam Goldberg and Micheal Madsen in my opinion, and it's got a plot that doesn't suck as well as some genuine twists. I'd say the production values are the best drawing points though, as this has the appearance of a big-budget, cinematic blockbuster, while most come off as cheesy and campy. There are worse ways to spend a couple of hours.
Coulda Been Better
posted on 30 Jan 2009This movie really coulda been better but then again can't almost every movie? Yeah. One of the main factors that didn't allow this movie to be better was time. Who was responsible for making this less than 90 minutes in length? Was it the USA Network? There just wasn't enough time to put in more background and to make these characters more interesting and to answer a question or two such as - what was with the doctor's exposed spine? Medically speaking - that's bad... but there it was yet he was walkin' and talking' like there was nothing wrong with him, well, except he had an extreme case of being insane but physically he was fine and with an exposed spine no one's fine. Another question I have is who are the people who rated this movie either a "10" or a "0"? I tell ya, some people just have no idea. God Bless this mostly free nation, the United States... it's just a shame so many people aren't too bright. Thinking this is either one of the best movies ever made or one of the worst is almost grounds to be banned from voting for any movie ever. No, it doesn't deserve a "10" or a "0" - it's surely somewhere in-between. Due to its short length it moves along alright. Unfortunately the color of the picture throughout is wrong. New Orleans does not constantly have an ugly haze in the air to make you feel like you're coming down from being high on heroine while the whole city around you is half dead wasted on methamphetamines. And Parker Posey and Adam Goldberg as the two detectives... could casting have been anymore messed up? Umm, yeah, probably but this twosome didn't work. Goldberg had a few funny lines, excellently executed and Posey is very good actress but I didn't believe them as detectives at all. Then there was the whole end of the movie. Holy crap, wasn't that left wide open for a sequel?! Man, sometimes Made-for-TV movies can come out not so bad, not too cheesy, not too schmaltzy but most of the time they just need to have a time restriction lifted (assuming there are decent actors, writers, and director.) All in all this 2004 "Frankenstein" was okay. In a way it can be compared to all movies because, well, it is a movie and in that case it maybe gets a grade of D+. To be more fair this was just Made-for-TV and maybe should not be held to higher standards... maybe... and if that's the case then give this one a C+ 'cause as far as TV movies go, this one was better than many and down the line in a few years I might even give it another viewing so it's not totally worth being in the trash bin.
Are there detective courses in high school now?
posted on 20 Jan 2009The detectives, judges, doctors, (you name them), they are all getting younger each year. Hollywood is getting more unbelievable all the time. It's a shame. What we have here is a teenage looking female detective on the hunt for one of Frankenstein's monsters. The usual here-and-there pursuit takes place; all done in the usual low budget nowhere places. Helios (Frankenstein) has a beautiful wife who he tries to make better when he gets the urge, or needs to do so. Then the first creation/monster of Helios arrives, but he is wanting to help the detectives get the man who created him; but the original creation, unfortunately, is not used enough. All in all, this movie was not worthy of making, unless betters actors as detectives were chosen.
Flat
posted on 11 Nov 2008Marcus Nispel makes pretty pictures, but I'm starting to think he knows nothing about telling a story. This whole film (like his appalling "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" remake) is all one-note. It's just mood, style, and camera work - nothing else seems to matter. And while the style is great, it's piled on HEAVY on EVERY SINGLE SCENE - they all look the same. They all feel the same. How can EVERY SINGLE LOCATION be sepia-toned and dimly lit, even a HOSPITAL? None of the actors look like they've bathed in weeks.Add a convoluted script and phoned in performances and you have... well... this. Go back to commercials, Marcus. You're much better there.
All about atmosphere
posted on 16 Oct 2008First off I can see why Dean Koontz wanted his name taken off this film as while it does follow the basic storyline that he set out, there is so much missing from the book that would have added greatly to the end product. Set in modern day New Orleans, detectives Carson O'Connor and Michael Sloane investigate a serial killer case called The Surgeon. During their investigation they come across a mysterious and enigmatic stranger called Deucalion. He claims to be created and has insights into the case because he believes that the killer is like him: a man created by a mad scientist named Victor Helios. As it turns out, Helios is actually Victor Frankenstein who has managed to keep himself alive throughout the years and has continued his experiments to create life with quite a bit of success. It seems Helios wants to create an army of supermen to take over the world with. Unlike Koontz's series of novels which take their time and fully flesh out the idea, this TV movie seems rushed and ends in a cliffhanger. On the bright side, director Marcus Nispel has created a gritty and downright bleak thriller. There are definite shades of Seven here. Its just too bad he didn't get to work from Koontz's original script and that this couldn't have been done as a series as intended and not a movie of the week.
Read the books instead!
posted on 16 Sep 2008Okay, how anyone can say this movie was worth seeing is just beyond me. I read the novels that Dean Koontz wrote before seeing this, and was sorely disappointed. If you've read the books, I'll tell you right now- don't waste your time! The movie followed the main plot lines- that's all; there's no side story whatsoever (which was one of the things that made the books wonderful!). You'd be better off and much happier just re-reading the first book. After watching it I found out that Koontz bailed on the production of this TV movie, and I can't blame him! His books are so much better! I'll admit that this was better than many TV movies I've seen, but that doesn't make it good. For anyone who thinks this is a good movie, try reading the books (the first 2 are out now & the third is due out this coming May). You'll thank me, I promise!
not bad as a pilot; pretty poor as a stand-alone movie
posted on 07 Aug 2008The cinematography, editing, art direction are all pretty good on this, especially for a TV movie. It is rather one-note, though. Subdued colors, rain, smoke, darkness, grungy sets. Take a bit of the idea of Frankenstein, set it in the modern day, and cross it with a bit of Se7en, and there it is.The acting I didn't particularly care for. I've liked Posey, Goldberg, and Madsen in other things, but not here. Didn't care for Helios or the Monster either.As a pilot, this isn't too bad. As a stand-alone movie (since the series was not greenlighted), it doesn't work very well. We don't learn very much about any of the characters. Parker Posey's character has a young autistic brother she has to take care of (or has to have a nanny take care of for her), who serves no purpose whatsoever.I guess the brother's role would have been fleshed out in the series, but since it wasn't to be, they could have cut him out. Madsen's character has something big going on, but it isn't wrapped up at the end at all. Helios' project(s?) are not wrapped up, and neither are the monster's. The only storyline that has any closure is that of The Surgeon. Perhaps if there is a DVD commentary it will shed some light on in what direction the series would have gone.
A Half-Formed Creation
posted on 18 Jul 2008Marcus Nispel clearly shows himself to be a talented filmmaker with this film. His Frankenstein has all the style of his Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. Without a doubt, the man knows how to shoot a movie. However, despite the striking visuals, this movie winds up feeling a little vacuous. In a way, the movie itself mimics the creature of its title, being the somewhat half-formed, brainless and empty creation of a brilliant but misguided mind. In this case, Marcus Frankenstein started with good intentions and constructed a beautifully shot film, but neglected to put the brain into his creation. This version of Frankenstein suffers because it teeters on the brink of being unique and distinctive, but never really commits. Perhaps it's because it was made for television, and it's clearly been made with a strong PG aesthetic in mind.This story is not as much of a straightforward adaptation as a revisionist's version of Mary Shelley's novel. Frankenstein himself is much more like the Terell character in Blade Runner. He's an egotistical, megalomaniac named Helios. Even with its departure from the standard Frankenstein story, this version feels much more in line with the tone and intention of Shelley's novel than most of the past cinematic versions of Frankenstein. Even keeping the tone intact, the story operates on a completely different engine, acting like a version of Seven, with Parker Posey playing the detective who is hunting down one of Frankenstein's psychotic creations.While I'm on the subject, I need to vent momentarily. Parker Posey really is one of the worst actresses around. I used to like her when she was the quirky girl in movies like Best in Show. But her ridiculous vampire queen in Blade: Trinity and her laughable portrayal of a shotgun-toting detective in this movie have made me lose all respect for her. But not even Parker's silly acting can completely ruin this movie. Although it does feel a little thin at points, this is still an interesting and somewhat new approach to an old myth, beautifully shot and edited by Marcus Nispel... who may be a modern day Frankenstein.
what?
posted on 17 Feb 2008Does no one care that this movie just ENDS half way through the plot? Was it suppose to be a mini-series? I guess it would be a cool concept for a movie if the ideas hadn't been so over-developed, but as a TV series? please. We already had like TEN years of the X-files, i think that's enough. As for the cinematography, i thought it was beautifully shot. A very pretty movie. For that, and that alone, I give it 3 stars. Good job, Marsuc Nispel. At least someone wasn't asleep at the wheel. As for the acting: Adam Goldberg didn't have enough lines. Parker Posey had too many, and Michael Madsen could have been way creepier... we've all seen Reservoir Dog's and we know what he's capable of. All in all, my only advice in watching this movie would be to do it in black and white if you can, it somehow makes it more bearable.
Very Interesting
posted on 16 Oct 2007Alright, so it's not as good as all the other Frankenstein films, but it is indeed a very good film and I must say, I am very glad that I watched it. It has a cool plot, and pretty bloody for a made for T.V. film.Alright people, here is the thing. This is not a sequel to any of the Frankenstein films. It is not a film sequel to Mary Shelly's book, it simply takes place after the Frankenstein idea: A man who created his own human a long time ago.Now, a long time later, in 2004, Victor Frankenstein still lives. With his brilliant mind, he managed to find the way to eternal life. His monster still lives as well, along with many more that Victor has created. There have been many murders happening in New Orleans, where Victor now lives. The monster now warns the police that it is one of Victor's monsters that is killing these people. The only problem, is that Victor's later monsters look like humans, so how are they suppose to catch this human monster before he kills again?All the actors in this film did very well. Parker Posey from SCREAM 3 gives an excellent job in the lead roll. I hope this will help her do bigger things. We also have Michael Madsen, the brilliant actor from R. Dogs, who also does a great job in this movie. If you get the opportunity to see this film, then do so. It is very good.
Who is truly the monster? The Creature, or the man who made him?
posted on 28 Sep 2007We all know the basic story of Frankenstein. Mad scientist, obsessed with using science to cheat death who ends up creating something he cannot truly understand or control. A monster. This version poses the true question; Who is really the monster? Deucalion, the mass of body parts stitched together and brought to life? Or the man who dared to create and give life to such a being? In this case, it certainly seems as though Frankenstien's first creation has become more human than Frankenstein will ever be and the mad doctor the true monster.Ducallion, known as "The Monster," has wandered the world for two centuries. He is the first of many creatures created by Dr. Frankenstein, who is now known to the world as Dr. Victor Helios. Deucalion, however, has a trait that Frankenstein never intended for him to have; immortality. Helios is bound and determined to create a perfect race. To improve humanity. Only his twisted ideas of perfection are costing many lives. And now, in modern day New Orleans, one of his creations has gone on a killing spree, risking the exposure of their kind and Helios' experiments to the world. And putting two very determined detectives on his trail, as well as Deucalion, who is determined to stop Helios' plan to replace humanity with his, as it turns out, not-so-perfect creations.Vincent Perez is a great actor and gives a wonderful performance as Deucalion. He tends to underplay the part, projecting Deucalion's quiet intensity more than his physical strength, although the role does call for some physical acting. But... Frankenstein's monster ended up far better-looking than one would have expected him to, which I admit can be a little weird.Some might say Parker Posey is miscast as Detective O'Connor, but she handles the role well, slipping between playing the tough detective and the sister trying hard to give her autistic little brother a good life and a safe world to live in.Adam Goldberg is the sometimes squeamish Detective Sloane, O'Connor's partner and would-be love interest. As usual, he often provides the comic relief to an otherwise serious storyline.Thomas Kretschmann is appropriately creepy, cold and calculating as the mad scientist who has been using his science and experiments on himself to stay alive for all this time.It's a whole new twist on an old story, ladies and gentlemen. Despite being a fairly low budget production, it is an enjoyable movie. Except for the purposely unresolved ending, which leaves room wide open for a sequel. Now, in all honesty, the book was much better (as is the case 9 times out of 10) and gives much more information. Although, it is a trilogy, so if you plan to read the books, it's going to take a while.
What a shame... this could have been good
posted on 02 Jul 2007So I'm poking through the video store and see this DVD for Frankenstein. I flip it over and read the back and I'm literally rocking back on my heels, because the story is so damn similar to a series of Dean Koontz novels. I think Koontz is just above average most of the time, but lately his Frankenstein novels as well as 'Velocity' were just way above average; I really really liked them.Thing is, even though there's tons of similarities I don't see any credit for Koontz anywhere. So I wonder, if it's a coincidence, and rent the DVD and give it a watch.OK, I read and really liked the books (well, 1 & 2. The conclusion to the trilogy hasn't come out yet), and maybe that makes any view of the movie as being not as good unfair. But the movie falls horribly, wretchedly short of what Koontz's elaborate and intelligent storyline deserves. First off, this should have been a TV series that should have run for an entire season, so I guess you have to cut it some slack for trying to stuff a ton of story into only 90 minutes of movies. They should have said "hey, let's give this thing the budget, talent, and directorial talent of 'Lost' or 'CSI'" They didn't, and it shows.I can see why Koontz parted ways, even though they completely ripped off his story. The first scene of the book has an excellent grab-you-by-your-throat beginning where Deucalion - who is halfway around the world in Tibet - first learns Dr Frankenstein is still alive. He utters a roar of rage, fury, & despair and one of the monks asks him if someone is dead. "Worse," he says. "Someone is still alive." Instead of that, we get a scene on a boat coming to America which makes Deucalion look something like a desperate beggar. Since we know Deucalion has mastered quantum physics and can shift instantly from one place to another in shadows, this doesn't make a lot of sense.The casting was off. The guy who played Deucalion could have served, but they needed some Lord of the Rings visual tricks to make him look bigger. There's a scene where he's standing next to the male detective - who's played by a short scrawny little guy - and you realize that the detective is *taller* than the monster.Both the detectives are horribly miscast. Parker Posy almost fits the physical description, but she can't act and seems more like a drug addict than anything else. The male detective looks nothing like the character in the books, who is tall, handsome, and wears loud hawaiian shirts.I've got no beef with the guy who played Dr Frankenstein, but I have serious problems with what they did with his lab. This is a genius billionaire who in the books had a huge private lab totally state of the art. Here it looks like a dirty abandoned insane asylum; the kind of thing you'd expect from the movie 'Seven'. I know the director was going for a dirty creepy feel, but it made absolutely no sense. Also Dr Frankenstein was a little more sympathetic than he should have done. In the books, this is a man who is perfectly willing to destroy the entire human race for the sake of perfection, and who takes sadistic delight in beating his wife - in fact designed her to be beaten and quickly heal. Instead we see a sort of conflicted Dr who seems one moment to care about his wife and the next is killing her. It makes no sense.I felt bad for the chick who played Dr Frankenstein's wife (s). She of course got no real character exposition, so of course none of her scenes made any sense.Totally excised from the story is anything that would help it make sense. We never really understand that 'children' Frankenstein is seeding the world with are psychotic killers who feel nothing but rage and torment and want to kill humans because they are jealous of the happiness normal humans seem able to feel. We aren't told that they are forbidden to kill anyone, even themselves, except at their master's direction, or that Frankenstein has a plan for slowly killing and replacing everyone in power. We barely see the autistic brother of the female detective, and the storyline of the autistic creation of Dr Frankenstein's - so fascinating in the books - who hates the autistic brother and is trying to escape his prison in the lab... this story is totally gone.No disembodied head & hand, which I thought was another interesting character from the books, and no sign of madness among Dr Frankenstein's household staff. Without these to interact with, and without the scenes of Dr Frankenstein beating her, there's no wonder that Frankenstein's wife has nothing much to do and no chance for character or storyline development.The storyline from the books is fascinating, and far far more believable than this, which does it a major injustice. It looks like they put 'some' money into it, but some of the effects remind me of 'Highlander', the series.If I had one wish for the story, it would be that it gets picked up by a major network who puts some real money into it and decides to do it right - slowly, not rushed - with lots of episodes to put in *all* of the story. That would be a hit TV series that could compete with anything, and would probably be scary as hell. This... isn't.
Frankenstein vs. The Detectives?
posted on 24 Mar 2007This was supposed to be an ongoing series? What a bad idea. A scientist who is creating an army of Frankensteins and some super-freak (Vincent Perez) is trying to stop the mad scientist from conquering the world with the help of a local Detective (Parker Posey). Sort of like the old Japanese Atomic Mutant movie "Frankenstein Conquers The World." The only thing missing from this clunker was the Third Reich. Aside from the pedestrian acting and the lack of special effects, the story was ponderous. Like most low budget movies, they tried to make up for the lack of special effects by filming every scene very dark. This got old fast and I got tired of squinting at the T.V. I would give this dud a zero except that Parker Posey is so cute. By the way, Vincent Perez needs to go on a diet. He looks about fifty pounds heavier than when he was in Crow II.
Read the books
posted on 22 Mar 2007This movie was an excellent movie. It stayed along the lines of the book extremely well. It was based off of the series of books obviously titled "Frankenstein." They didn't have enough permission to make any more movies so yes it ended with a cliff hanger just like the first book. They were written by Dean Koontz and are definitely some of my favorite books. There are two so far and a final one to come this year or next. My advise is to stop complaining about the ending of this movie and to pick up the books and read. They are excellent. I promise. Really. Me and my friend have both read them and he can back me up.God Bless, -=Nash and Glenn=-
Worthwhile watch; but still a let-down
posted on 30 Dec 2006I thought that this movie was beautifully crafted .. acting was definitely above par for a Network made-for-TV movie. I guess that I left this movie feeling a bit unsatisfied. It seemed like too much of a "safe" pilot than a really movie. There was some conflict resolution, but the only resolution that was handed down in this movie was on a sub-plot .. leaving the evil villain to his own devices.. mysterious stranger is still mysterious and available to help. It reminded me of the Traffic miniseries .. too deliberately setup as a pilot for a full on series. Gave it a 5/10 as a movie.. if this does end up being a series .. i'll definitely add it to my tivo list.
So so.
posted on 16 Nov 2006Normally, I would not recommend reading a book before watching the movie. It just spoils what might be a great movie. With this one, however, it might help answer some questions.This film had great potential as the pilot for a series. If it had continued, I think it would have been much better and made more sense. The theme and feel was right up there with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and other horror-genre series. Having read Dean Koontz's book, I knew what was going on, but if I had gone in cold, I would have said, "Huh?" at the end.This is not a stand-alone story. It's just the beginning of a much more complicated one. I saw no indication anywhere, except here and in Mr. Koontz's book, that once he had pulled out of the project, this was ever intended to be more than a movie. With that in mind, they should have given it another half-hour and wrapped up all the loose ends.Two characters were in the book but left out of the movie, and I wonder if this is why Mr. Koontz pulled out of the project. They provided a lot of information about autism and some nice red herrings about the identity of The Surgeon, and they explained the necessity for some other characters. Anyone who has watched enough horror TV shows would have little trouble figuring out whodunit in this one. Without the other missing character, one has to wonder why they left Vicki and Carson's little brother in the story at all.If you see the movie, read the book and get the questions answered. It will answer all of them except Victor's rib-thing, which was cool but totally out of the blue and not explained.Now for the good part: Though the story left me flat, I enjoyed the acting. Adam Goldberg and Parker Posey have great chemistry together, and Michael Masden is an awesome bad guy. I really enjoyed Vincent Perez as Deucalion, but as a fan of Gerard Butler, I couldn't help thinking he'd have been perfect for the role. I had pictured someone older for Victor, but I was really won over by Thomas Kretschmann's performance. He delivers a Ralph Fienees-esquire performance that really makes you say, "Oh, yeah. He needs to die." The role of Erika 4 and 5 unfortunately didn't develop well enough to like or dislike. I thought Ivana Milicevic did well with what she had to work with; it just wasn't much.
definitely worth seeing
posted on 04 Nov 2006If you stick to Kubrick's idea that tone is more important than plot or theme, Frankenstein is a great movie. It indulges itself in decadence and decay and manages to produce things that are both beautiful and profoundly disturbing. There may be a few spoilers here. The story follows two cops (Parker Posey and Adam Goldberg) hunting down a serial killer in New Orleans who dissects the corpses of those he kills and takes out various organs. As seen here, New Orleans is a tottering pile of rotting buildings and knick knacks, and one can definitely feel that the movie has gotten its bent from Se7en, particularly the scene in the Sloth murder house. Of course, the murders turn out to be more than they seem, and they become linked to a certain Doctor Victor Helios, who is, of course, the famed Frankenstein, who has survived the last two centuries by methods unknown. Dr. Helios is being hunted by a "man" named Deucalion, whom, as it is revealed through several impressively nightmarish flashbacks, is the original Frankenstein monster. This is an interesting take on the monster. Here, he's no half-witted rag-tag pile of body parts, but is instead enigmatic, brooding, and intelligent. One of the most interesting scenes is when he tries to show Posey the truth of his origins. Deucalion is onto Helios's trail because he has discovered that Helios has not stopped his experimentations at all- rather, he has been perfecting them, and has produced numerous successful creations. Part of the fun of the movie is trying to guess who's "of God" and who isn't. This story is actually two stories, and this can be troubling. On the one hand we have a detective story, but on the other hand we have an exploration of character with Helios and his wife, who is also a creation. Helios's hunt for perfection is essentially tearing her apart, and her wish for death becomes more and more evident as time goes on. But the two plots have almost nothing to do with one another, except perhaps thematically, and oftentimes the Helios plot takes away from the tension with the murder hunt.It seems to be going somewhere, like they might intersect somewhere, but never does. All in all, this movie is more about impressions than anything. Some scenes and performances stand out. For instance, there is a "birth" scene that may just match the original birthing scene from the first Frankenstein movie. Here the creation is covered in some sort of white fluid and looks exactly like a marble statue. It is a profoundly inhuman and disturbing effect, and as it awkwardly comes to life you can't help but be creeped out. Another good part about this movie is the performance by the killer (whom I won't reveal here), who manages to be deranged and childish at the same time. There's no real resolution to the movie, so don't expect one. Personally, I wish that we could be given a little more backstory to what exactly Frankenstein and his monster have been doing for the past 200 years, but I suppose they couldn't work that out in 2 hours. Eventually it tries to become a study about humanity and what it means to be really human, but I feel that it's better just to sit back and enjoy the macabre vision in front of you. 7/10
Telefilm with mysterious and sinister atmosphere and with intense sequences of terror and violence
posted on 21 Sep 2006The film deals about the Detectives O'Conner(Parker Posey, Superman returns) and Sloan(Adam Goldberg, The Salton sea)are investigating grisly killings by a macabre serial-killer mutilating the victims. Also, a tough policeman(Michael Madsen, Free Willy)named Harker(homage to Jonathan Harker-Dracula) does inquiry on the horrific events. Meantime, she finds a mysterious man named Deucalion(Vincent Perez,Fanfan LaTulipe) who warns her about a megalomaniac Doctor(Thomas Kretschman, The pianist)named Victor Helios. Doctor Helios is actually Dr. Frankestein(originally created by Mary Shelley) still alive along with his sweetheart(Ivana Milicevic).This television movie displays tension, mystery, thriller and eerie scenes when the murders and tortures take place. The film takes accent as the suspense as the terror. The plot for this TV picture was initially adapted by famous terror novelist Dean Koontz(Demon seed, Watchers, Phantoms) and attempted as a television series. Koontz was hired as writing credits and executive producer along with Martin Scorsese, but economic and plot disputes among Cable Network and Koontz, made both left the project, for that reason the screenplay gets flaws and gaps , furthermore,the movie final conclusion is ¨deja vu¨. The picture contains a creepy musical score fitting to the horror film by Norman Corbeil and Angelo Baladamenti, plus , a gloomy and sinister cinematography with frightening atmosphere by Daniel Pearl. The motion picture is professionally directed by Marcus Nispel, director of the much better ¨The Texas chainsaw massacre¨ and usually video-clips filmmaker and occasionally director, being his last film, ¨The pathfinder¨, also with dark and shady scenarios, as habitual in all his movies.
a shortcut to vacuity
posted on 28 Aug 2006okay. so it isn't that bad. it has all a lover of Gothic sightseeing can long for: the colours, the indie-looking actress, the support act is not exceedingly hilarious and milicevic is stunning. but it's bad. bad in a sense you can't ever get any sort of genuine like for any of the characters, not even harker. madsen's voice is state-of-the-art and ever creepy but you can't put a film together based on some good pretty details. vincent perez is worse than the overall movie. he couldn't be phonier and more inappropriate in the incarnation of "his first". all the missing bits aren't a justification for some considerably wrong choices of clichés: the hooded perez, the sick librarian (it could be any other middle-aged female for that matter) throwing up while some nasty lines are jerked unskillfully and the yucky matchmaker nanny. despite what's read before, i need to point out the best thing in this movies lies beneath the intriguing character of the priest. i only hope the sequel keeps track of that sort of exquisite type of idea.
- 1
- 2
Most common letter in English: eeeeeeeee
posted on 19 Jul 2009This film, while having impressive production credits and a decent cast, lacks in several key areas. With a staff such as this I was expecting at least slightly more than I got. I noticed several amateurish audio glitches that would not exist in a film with higher production values. The main characters were given passable characterization, but then other characters (Parker's brother comes to mind) were simply glossed over and seemed to show that the story had potential and lots of ideas but for whatever reason did not make the final cut. I question the utilization of Michael Madsen in a role he did not seem suited for, nor did he seem particularly excited to be playing. The poor pacing of the "climactic" chase and the "ending" itself play out amateurishly as well. Everything in the last 20 minutes reeked of either an extended series pilot or foreshadowing of a sequel. I also see that before the film even played on USA that a number of people voted it up to 10. These folks must be huge fans of Parker Posey (which I am) or simply have no concept of mediocre. I rate this film a 3/10. If Frankenstein was not in the public domain after all these years this film would have no business existing. It completely lacks subtlety and interest, but it does have blood, which apparently excites people who must have been weaned on television dramas their whole lives. If that is you, give this one a whirl, it may be your cup of tea. I, on the other hand, was disappointed. I give this one slightly more credit than the absolute butchered and dumbed-down remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre the director also put his name on. Personally I would of credited both to Alan Smithee or his counterpart and been done with them.