To the production members...
Please stop writing phony positive reviews of this garbage. I've noticed that a preponderance of the positive reviews come from people who have written only one review.
shareBecause one positive review among many negative reviews will make a lot of difference. Is it so hard to believe that some people really enjoyed the film? I loved it, and I had absolutely no ties with it. Maybe if you read the book, you would have some understanding of why the movie was so interesting.
share"Is it so hard to believe that some people really enjoyed the film?"
Yes. Yes it is.
And to say that one has to read the book, well, that's pretty much saying the film-makers didn't do their job well enough.
Well, believe it or not. People are entitled to their own opinion. I enjoyed the film as well, for what it was.
sharedorkus_lustus, You don't like it, don't pursue it. You seem to have to pursue for your pride. It's a good film. And, since it's free, it's really good.
shareI have not read the book, and enjoyed the film quite a lot, had nothing to do with it and have been around IMDb for many years. 8/10
shareI did in fact read the book. I just don't like films that advance the narrative through dialogue and contain very little, poorly crafted action. To me and a great many other viewers find it boring and a cop out. If the dialogue were crafted with some talent and illuminating, say as in the works of David Mamet, Aaron Sorkin, or even Mary Shelley it would be a delight. A film like "My Dinner with Andre" captivates its audience through its well crafted dialogue. This was a simple case of incompetence. Then again there are some people who do enjoy watching ice cubes melt.
shareWhy should there be highly captivating dialogue and carefully crafted action in a found footage B-movie? That's almost an oxymoron. It is the sense that these are ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances that makes for a compelling plot in this particular genre.
shareIf you count pointless dialogue that faintly drives the narrative good dialogue, I guess you're right. But just turn down the sound and watch the film and see if it's remotely entertaining. It's boring and the concept is stupid and not thought out or properly developed.
shareI guess it depends on what you want to get out of a movie, particularly if you walk into with unrelenting personal expectations. I found that if filled a niche in the genre -- a movie that wasn't afraid to take some chances with a somewhat campy reality-show style premise. I was glued to the screen. Who knows maybe years down the road "The Frankenstein Theory" will become a cult classic. Heck, that's exactly what happened in the case of "Session 9".
In some ways I think the "blandness" was a refreshing departure from the overload of sensory input that is so common these days in cinema. There doesn't always have to be a violent shock or profound discovery every few seconds. Sometimes watching ordinary people acting scared, or stupid, or crazy is itself entertaining. At least it was realistic. I mean, par for the course, the director could've added in that Hollywood trope of the scared woman who immediately walks out the front door to investigate a strange noise in the middle of the night -- because after all that's what any real person would do when they feel their life is threatened.
We all appreciate different qualities of art for different reasons. Some people love action movies. Other people perceive action movies as insipid. That just goes to show everyone has different tastes. Variety is the spice of life!
Nothing about the dialogue was pointless and this film was anything but boring. They were out to look for Frankenstein and among each were the couple of soft skeptics, a believer, an open minded woman, a semi quiet cameraman and a dead serious Guide named Karl. They all did their jobs to make it a believable found footage film.
sharetara_heck made her only post on the very day she signed up. Hmmm...very suspicious.
shareI've read the book. The blurb of the movie "the most chilling novel of all time" suggests that nobody involved in the movie has read it. It wasn't even a horror novel, it was Romantic era science fiction. "The monster" isn't even a killer on purpose; in fact the book is much more sympathetic to him than Viktor Frankenstein. The only reason it got thrown into the horror genre is the mention of corpses. And if someone came on and only reviewed one film ever, that is suspicious to me.
share