20131213: Thriller Review--The Frankenstein Theory

The Frankenstein Theory

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 86 minutes, horror, supernatural.
2. IMDB: 3.9/10.0 from 1,231 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet...',  26% liked it from 257 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.9/5.0 from 95,827 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Andrew Weiner.
6. Starring: Kris Lemche as Jonathan Venkenhein, Joe Egender as Clarence Malusky , Timothy V. Murphy as Karl McCallion, Heather Stephens as Vicki Stephens, Eric Zuckerman as Eric, Roger Morissey as the Creature.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film starts within an interview of a documentary team of Dr Venkenhein (Ghost Busters joke?), who has various degrees in history and in chemistry.  Jonathan's primary thesis was that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was not fiction.  He's putting together an expedition to Canada to attempt to prove his thesis.


2. In the next segment, the film crew talks about how stupid they think the project is, but that Jonathan is paying for the whole project.  Officially, they will be respectful.  Sure they will.  Throw in a bit of distracted driving (caused by the found film approach), with a near vehicular homicide, and the viewer is setup to watch a home movie where the camera crew thinks the subject is a fool.  Great start in a mere seven minutes.


3. Jonathan thinks his 5 x great grandfather was the model for Dr Frankenstein, and also the founder of modern genetics, 50 years ahead of Mendel.  Since the monster was not well-received at the time, most of the artifacts and papers related to the monster's creation were destroyed.  Jonathan aims to prove his hypothesis by finding the monster in current times still alive, and to bring back proof of its condition.


4. Jonathan's girlfriend thinks this theory is bovine scatology, as does Jonathan's university, from which he is suspended, much to his great embarrassment.  The girlfriend thinks the expedition is a grand waste of money that will not end well.


5. The first part of the trip starts in the dark one morning.  After two airplane flights, the crew (Vicky, Eric, Luke, Brian) and Jonathan land in Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada.  They hire a local SUV to continue from Whitehorse.  It's brutally cold.  From Whitehorse they will drive to Deline in the Northwest Territories.  Before they leave the Yukon, they meet with Clarence Malusky, who claims to have had an encounter with the Frankenstein monster.  Clarence apparently did encounter the monster, and does identify a sketch from 1802.  However, Clarence is a meth head who clearly has some personality issues.  They make it out alive at least.


6. They make it to Deline uneventfully.  Jonathan arranges for provisions, such as food and snowmobiles.  Further into the Northwest Territories, Jonathan discusses his ancestor Johann using recombinant DNA methods to incorporate the longevity of certain species into the monster.


7. By Day 4, they reach a yurt (hunter's lodge, quite small), deep in NWT.  Jonathan has tracked unexplained homicides in the area where they are to months of the year.  He figures the monster committed these killings.  He concludes the killings follow a migratory pattern.  That night, one of their snowmobiles is stolen by someone. The next day, Karl tracks the snowmobile on foot to avoid alerting the thief.  After four hours, Luke and Eric follow on the remaining snowmobile.  Looks likes a bad choice.  They find blood, then Karl's rifle, then Karl.  They return, and the panic level rises.


8. Will the remaining party find the Frankenstein monster?  Will any of them return to their homes?


3. Conclusions
1. Uses the found-film approach.  Automatic loss of at least one star.
2. One line summary: Fantasy of finding the original Frankenstein's monster alive today.
3. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10  Found film approach.


2. Sound: 8/10 Mostly good.


3. Acting: 8/10 Timothy V. Murphy was rather good.  Kris Lemche and Heather Stephens are also veterans and gave competent performances.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 Too many cliches.  The self-destructive scientist.  Insufficient preparation for a difficult expedition.  Thinking the wild creature will respond to kind words in the wrong language.  Getting killed one by one.  Found film.  Discover the search object, but cannot prove it (like the entire X-Files series).