Possibly one of the best films I have watched in the last 15-20 years. Beautifully filmed this is a master class on how to film and direct a movie.The film constantly draws and entertains your eye with thoughtful positioning and movement of the camera. The attention to detail of the sets throughout was impressive. The script was spot on with just the right amount of humour which kept pace with the action.The acting from James McAvoy was first rate. Supported by Daniel Radcliffe who raised his game from his harry potter roles for this movie. A great performance from Andrew Scott as the over zealous inspector. All the cast played their parts well.Need to watch it at least twice to really appreciate the amount of work that must have gone into putting this together.Well done all

"I looked into the eyes and there was nothing there!"It would be unpleasant of me to direct this quote from Lorelei (Jessica Brown Findlay) towards James McAvoy's performance as Frankenstein, but it isn't without a certain truth here. As with his turn in 2016's inexplicably acclaimed 'Split', his every movement, intonation, posture, grin and gesticulation never lets us forget he is acting. With sentences instilled with dangerous singularity, McAvoy spits out the words in textbook eccentric, rapid staccato. He is indulged by Paul McGuigan's excellent direction and looks great, but rather like a stage turn projecting to the back rows, there is not one ounce of anything naturalistic about his Victor Frankenstein. Perhaps it is deliberate; the confidence, bravura, enthusiasm, heightened unreality might be traits attributed to Frankenstein - or to these heightened performances in general - but unlike co-star Daniel Radcliffe's Igor (for example, and other characters too), we never *know* him, never like/dislike him, never really care for him, not even when the truth is revealed about his brother (Henry, brother of Victor: two of the most often-used names for Baron Frankenstein over the decades). As with all things, I can only offer my opinion on this.The long-awaited creation scene is spectacular. Occasionally threatening to lose hold of reality, it nevertheless takes advantage of modern filming technology; we can actually travel along the power-lines with the electrodes as they head for the inanimate creature. Whereas the first experiment involved a hellish and extremely effective chimpanzee amalgamation, the eventual human monster is battered and torn by the elements even before (or perhaps during) a time when life has been given him. A clay-like golem, he is a spectacle, but has no time to be anything more. An enhanced, stomping killer hulk that brings the house down.In two pleasing (deliberate or otherwise) nods to past glories, the police inspector Roderick Turpin (Andrew Scott) loses a hand (à la one-armed Inspector Krogh from 1939's 'Son of Frankenstein') and the monster is animated only to wreck the laboratory and bring things to a close of sorts (à la the monster rallies at the end of the 1930/40's Universal run of pictures). Despite my reservations about McAvoy's performance, I enjoyed this a lot. It breathes new life into the pioneering story, which is no mean feat after all these decades, whilst never losing the guiding light of Mary Shelley's original novel.

I'll start this review by praising the film: it is, aesthetically, an awesome movie. All the elements are in the right place, the gothic victorian circuses, hospitals, city, universities, the production design for this film is astonishingly detailed, as is the makeup, costume design and the locations they chose. The acting is excellent at some extent, let's say, from the beginning to the middle of the film. I wouldn't blame the actors though, even with Daniel Radcliffe going a little bit Potteresque - as in an useless protagonist - from the middle onwards. But i believe that's more a fault of the script and maybe the director, than the actor. Editing, music, mixing, photography, special effects, all ok. Direction: could be better. The experience is a lot worse when you've seen Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994), and start comparing the two movies. Instead of taking in and widening the more humanistic, polemical view on morality, or on an illuminated argument of science versus faith, which the script actually points to be going to when the inspector - in the only acting highlight on the whole film - challenges the mad scientist who at this point is not so mad, this fine line turns into dust we see it wreck into common drama (the tragic loss of someone dear) and some quite corny action (?) scenes. As most people, I really didn't like the ending. It's very segregated, too quick and lacks argument and acting. It has just one scene that could be better played and a lot of production show off. One other way to bring it would be to go deeper on Dr. Frankestein's madness. The title character only shows conflict barely, never taking a reflection on what could easily build a good monologue. James McAvoy is such a talented artist, it would be nice to watch him develop on this character, to give it a more "you would do it if you were in my place" kind of moment, to let the viewers savor their inner mad scientists a little. The love romance is absolutely dispensable. The female character is very much reduced to absolutely nothing, to irrelevance, wasting such a good actress. Wouldn't be missed if it was edited out. The female presence could be better used, it is a shame it wasn't. As is the family drama, which spawned just one, completely frivolous, little scene. Could be better used, maybe not concurring with the main argument as it actually is (sanity, morality). It could be a better movie if the writer took the opportunity to write a better script (or if the executive producers didn't meddle, I really don't know what happened). I'm sure the actors could play whatever twist nicely. But here the director had also an opportunity to right some wrongs, and I'm sure he did a little. But it feels like at some point he got tired of going against the stream and just let the script show itself. As the credits rolled up, I couldn't help thinking that a budget of 40 million dollars could be better used to pay the debts of some really poor countries. Instead of that we have a not so awesome movie with no soul whatsoever that will entertain very few people.

I can't give this film below 6 stars because of the cast and the direction of their acting. But I admit that I had great difficulty watching the film due to the topic matter. Making dead body parts into a "living" creature is really tough to present as an aesthetically pleasant art form. And sadly, the story line had its flaws. But I'm surprised the overall rating of this film isn't higher, because it does have many strengths; including its cast's work, their direction, the character development and to a certain degree, the script. I can't pin point the piece of the puzzle that was missing in the director's vision. But this film at least reaffirms that combining critics' and public's review averages does usually offer a reliable gauge of where my (realistic) expectations should be prior to watching a film -- which sometimes can make a poorly reviewed movie more enjoyable or easier to appreciate for its strengths...