Reviewed by: Pamela Gardner
the idea of Frankenstein’s monster being built through “an ambiguous method consisting of chemistry and alchemy”
modern desire to be spiritual WITHOUT being religious
To create a human being requires more than a physical body, it must have a soul.
sneering contempt for Christianity, accusing it of being fiction-based and irrational
How can we know there’s a God? Answer
What if the cosmos is all that there is? Answer
If God made everything, who made God? Answer
Is the religion of Secular Humanism being taught in public school classrooms? Answer
|Featuring:|| Daniel Radcliffe … Igor
James McAvoy … Victor Von Frankenstein
Andrew Scott … Roderick Turpin
Jessica Brown Findlay … Lorelei
Charles Dance … Actor
Mark Gatiss … Dettweiler
Louise Brealey … Actress
Freddie Fox … Finnegan
|Director:||Paul McGuigan—“Lucky Number Slevin,” “Push,” “Wicker Park”|
|Distributor:||Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation|
“There is no satan. There is no God, only humanity.”
That line from the film pretty much sums up the blasphemous nature of this film.
“Victor Frankenstein” opens with narration by Igor (Daniel Radcliffe) pondering his life as a hunchback clown in a circus. We see a trapeze artist perform; she falls and is critically injured. Enter Frankenstein (James McAvoy), with his quick diagnosis and the hunchback’s quick action, her life is saved. Intrigued by Igor’s intellect, Frankenstein frees the hunchback, corrects his deformity and gives him the name Igor. Frankenstein makes Igor his partner and lets him in on his life’s work, creating life from non-life.
The acting is average to good. Radcliffe and McAvoy are strong leads and convey their parts well. The supporting cast it just that, supporting—no stand outs.
Now to the plot, it’s well written and easy to follow. Some things were not fully explained, which actually kept my attention, waiting for answers.
Now to the objectionable content, the the entire film is a a secular humanistic and anti-God tirade, masquerading behind the theme of scientific discovery. Frankenstein is portrayed as a humanistic atheist, God-hating man, who believes anyone who holds any faith or believes in God is a primitive being, holding humanity back from progress. Sound familiar? There is a detective in the film who is shown holding a cross and speaks of his wife as being with the Lord after her death. He is mocked and ridiculed for his faith in Christ. Even though he is portrayed as a man who is against God, Frankenstein also has a God complex. He is quoted saying, “we will make a man in our own image,” openly blaspheming the Word of God. The Frankenstein character is also shown as a man with father issues and guilt over the death of a family member, which fuels his shaking his fist at God.
There are also violent action sequences, a scene where a man is maimed, and scenes dead body parts. There is a love scene where Igor is shirtless and deeply kissing the trapeze artist.
Now on to the most important aspect that needs to be addressed, the biblical aspect. There’s a line in the film where Frankenstein says “God, if there is a God, made us weak, not strong and destined to death, and that’s not good enough.” This shows a true lack of understanding of the Gospel. While it is true that man is fallen, because of sin, and the wages of sin is death, that’s not where the story ends. It comes to the cross, because God loves us so much He sent His Son to die on the cross that we may never die, but have eternal life.
Frankenstein reduces life to random chemical processes, and that’s exactly the origin that the Evolutionary theory gives suggests—that there is no Creator, no purpose, just blind chance. It comes down to a worldview issue. You either believe the Bible is true from the very first verse, or you believe in millions of years of random chance producing all the life in all its complexity. We as Christians need to engage the culture on this issue; it is foundational to a lot of the woes we face in this fallen world. Virtually every societal and political issue is rooted in the origins debate, and we need to equip ourselves to answer the question of origins.
I cannot recommend this film. It does not offer any uplifting Biblical truths. It does, however, challenge the Christian to understand the Creation/Evolution debate, and why it’s so important.
What disturbing roadblocks are researchers discovering in attempting to prove evolutionary origins? Answer
Where did life come from? Is evolution really the best scientific answer? Answer
Can evolution be the source of life in all its complexity? Answer
Violence (and grossness): Extreme / Profanity: Moderate—“My G*d” (1), “Oh G*d” (1), “Oh my G*d” (1), “By G*d” (2), “Where in G*d’s name” (1), “damn” (4), “hell” (1), s-words (2), “bloody” / Sex/Nudity: Moderate—talk about sperm and human female fertilization, cleavage, kissing, shirtless males
See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.
…A monstrous miscalculation… pandemonium… the jokes they’re called upon to deliver land with a thud. …The only real horror in this frenetic spectacle is how unaffecting it is.
—Sheri Linden, The Hollywood Reporter
…all kinds of obnoxious and pointless… the movie’s a bloody mess, and a needlessly loud one as well.
—Glenn Kenny for RogerEbert.com
…Radcliffe and McAvoy can’t save this monster… definitely a gruesome abnormality that should never have been brought to life… lumbers around causing dismay and havoc that’s hard to watch… [1/5]
—Jordan Hoffman, The Guardian (UK)
…McAvoy plays this young Frankenstein—a fast-talking, hyper-driven medical student and border-case sociopath in London—as if cocaine-addled. … [2½/4]
—Brad Wheeler, The Globe and Mail
…will be quickly forgotten… Someone left a copy of Mary Shelley’s novel out in the rain, threw the wet mess into a blender, hit puree and came up with “Victor Frankenstein”… [1/4]
—Rene Rodriguez, The Miami Herald
…Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy can’t prop up a soulless “Victor Frankenstein”… it’s all presented in such a grandiose, panderingly hyped-up style it drowns out the movie's better creative intentions. …
—Gary Goldstein, Los Angeles Times
…This skewed take on Mary Shelley’s classic never shows enough sparks of life to justify reanimating its nearly 200-year-old source. …
—Andrew Barker, Variety