Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Mehdi Hoffman There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

badkitty-06421 worse than lair witch project! THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT was done by high schoolers.. and the stupid movie was written by a dreamer! its good to 'dream' about stuff, but if u're putting it on the big screen, please put it in prospective. coz you've just wasted ur money on the cheap script, crap actors and really wasted a trip to the arctic. Frankenstein, being a fictional character that has been fascinating to the audiences for over the century, i really think he deserves more credits that you have given him. luckily, i found this in my local library... i don't think this movie even made it to the big screen in NZ. really not worth paying for it. I wonder how much were made at the box office?

RJ I went into this movie with high hopes. I'd read the positive blurbs about it and decided to give it a go. Boy, was I deceived.The premise is very promising. A team of aspiring filmmakers decide to follow a young professor on a journey to Canada's Northwestern Territories. Except, the twist here is a bit different. The young professor is called Jonathan Venkenheimer, a descendant of one doctor Johann Venkenheimer, popularly referred to as doctor Frankenstein. That's right, the one with the monster.Jonathan is convinced the monster was real, showing the film crew copies of letters that formed the introduction of Mary Shelley's famous novel. The letters Jonathan found are those of a Captain Walton to his sister, a man who found the emaciated Dr. Frankenstein in the Arctic. Accompanying the letters is an old drawing of the Monster, giving us a first glimpse at what it looks like.On the first leg of the journey, the crew visits a young man who once saw the Monster himself and shows him a copy of the drawing. The man freaks out and pulls a gun on the crew. Once this is peacefully resolved, the crew realizes that the young man is a meth user, probably a dealer, and so they discount his testimony immediately.As the crew continues they meet their guide Karl, who thinks it's nonsense but since money is money decides to come with after all, provided they do what he tells them. Before long the group reaches a hut that hunters use while out here, with the nearest other building some 60 kilometers (that's 37 miles) away. Later that night, Jonathan explains how he came to track the creature to Canada. Every two months people inexplicably disappear. Jonathan links this to migratory patterns of caribou, who are in that general area. He combines these two facts into a theory: the Monster is alive and kills to protect himself, while feeding on the caribou. Queue sleepytime.This is the start for some buildup we are very familiar with. Scary noises in the distance (wolves in this case as well as the Monster itself, explained away as a bear by Karl) coupled with night-vision camera followed by footprints and destroyed equipment in the morning leads to stress. Karl claims the gear was destroyed by someone playing a prank on them and goes into a nearby thicket from where he of course does not return.The story here turns into the classic ten little Indians story as one by one the crew is picked off. A dead Karl is found in the thicket, later one of the crew is found dead by another who is in turn picked off. And so on.In the end, after only he and the girl are left, Jonathan decides to confront the Monster himself, talking to him. Pushing his luck, the young professor insists on touching it and gets ripped apart while the girl waits in the hut. A few moments later the Monster kicks in the door and we see the Monster go after the girl, pick her up and carry her out. Roll credits.Yes. That was really all there is to it. It is a typical found-footage movie with night-vision camera, hysterical women, and things that go bump in the night. The camera work was shoddy, though this is to be expected. The acting was bad. In fact, I remembered literally no names, other than the professor's. The actors made no impression on me whatsoever. Worse yet, they couldn't even stay in character. Multiple times one of the actors is addressed with his real name, not even his movie name.This movie had so much potential. With a back story like this, Frankenstein's Monster as the creature feature of the week, the film makers had one of the best novels from the Gothic period as source material. But instead they waste it on a movie like this. This is essentially a Bigfoot movie, with the scary noises (such as howls, projectiles like rocks and logs being thrown, as well as knocking like Sasquatches are meant to do) in the woods, other animals being afraid of the Monster, and the creature carrying off a woman to possibly be his forest bride, you have one hell of a potentially awesome story that ultimately fails. Even as a regular Bigfoot movie this would have been a bust.

The Couchpotatoes This movie is definitely not as bad as some people want to make us believe. Even though I'm not a huge fan of camcorder movies this one is certainly not the worst I ever saw. The only problem I have is that they call it a horror movie while it isn't at all. But other then that I enjoyed The Frankenstein Theory. I thought the actors were okay and the story was not bad at all. There are some nice nature shots as well so all in all this movie deserves much better then its low ratings. Too bad they didn't show the Frankenstein monster more or even better made him a bit scarier. But I guess with a low budget this is the best we can expect. Certainly worth a watch to me.

mecheart The found footage horror genre continues to grow more and more titles, few of which stand out on their own merits or regenerate the fear and intensity of the first entries such as 'The Blair Witch'. Recent examples of more potent, original films in the same vein include the 'REC' series, 'The Bay', 'The Tunnel', 'Bigfoot the Lost Coast', etc. While 'The Frankenstein Theory' never rises to or exceeds the horror coolness factor of the aforementioned titles, it does intrigue and make one think with its 'theory', and succeeds in that for a few moments it makes one wonder "what if?"The small cast and their performances, for the most part, do not stand out but neither do their bleats of terror nor obnoxious stereotypes ever annoy as much as in some similar films. Standouts among them are Timothy V. Murphy who is imposing as always as the expedition's wilderness guide, and Heather Stephens who is quite easy on the eyes. In addition there's a brief performance by Leland White as a paranoid meth peddler, which I thought was quite convincing and hilarious. As mentioned the premise is rather imaginative despite its presentation in found footage formula. Frankenstein is real expedition leader (Kris Lemche) tells us. A savage yet intelligent creature created by his ancestor, which he believes to be still running amok in the Canadian wilderness. Thus the purpose of the plot's expedition is to prove the monster's existence.Based on what the expedition leader already suspects, a well armed team of private soldiers was called for to deal with the creature, but of course logic never prevails in these kinds of tales. Once the expedition gets rolling, the film treats the viewer to some beautiful far northern scenery, mediocre acting, dialog and writing, and a precious few jump scares. The only character I really cared about was Karl. When his time was up, the order which the others' tickets were punched really didn't matter.All in all, 'The Frankenstein Theory' is a decent waste of an hour and a half. One could easily do worse in seeking a movie to watch. The problem then really becomes that one could do much better. Had the ending not been plainly given away by a character three quarters of the way in, I perhaps could have rated the film higher. This film isn't horrible, nor is it incapable or sub-par or spectacular in any form.