This is a modern day setting for the classic Frankenstein tale, including the little girl and blind man. Adam is artificially created and narrates in very intelligent first person, a level of intellect he never really achieves in the film. He is left for dead a few times and is abused by the system which sees his skin lesion deformity as ugly. The film is not a real horror or science fiction thriller, but a drama that makes us look at how society, especially our law enforcement, treats the mentally ill and how society marginalizes those who are different. Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of the theme is that the director/script writer felt he needed to inform his audience verbally what he was attempting to do visually. This made the film unnecessarily preachy when he had succeeded visually. Sometimes less is more.

Now for what it was, Xavier Samuel nailed the role as "The Monster" and certainly deserves top billing for his lead and performance. Won't appeal to those looking for a sci-fi horror thriller or fans of the LAPD.

Guide: F-bomb, blurred camera phone sex/nudity.

Bernard Rose has a knack for bringing the human condition into characters on screen, and from there, transposing it to our minds as audience members when we are experiencing his pictures. 'Candyman', 'Paperhouse', and 'Immortal Beloved' are all zenith examples of mythical "genre films" wherein the real themes presented are the characters themselves, and the iconographies of genre lay by the wayside, standing as mere coincidence, rather than complete audience draw. In his newest picture, a modern retelling of Mary Shelley's classic story of Gothic horror and the default of man and his flaws, 'Frankenstein', carries on this method, and even perfects it in many areas.

Like 'Candyman', this film attempts to project the feared myths of culture past and folklore on an already assuming audience in attempt to bring the tale to real terms. What we get in return, is a story not about fabled characters, but real people; people that we all know. The plot (given brief) concerns itself with a more loyal take on the story - Doctor Viktor Frankenstein (Huston),his wife (Moss, who has never looked lovelier),and their assistant are research scientists attempting to create the perfect proto-human (Samuel). Once this goal is achieved, there may be a way to create cures and longevity in the medicinal field. The project is completed and a man is born.

Scientific difficulties prove unforeseen and our perfect human being becomes something a little less human. A practice to put the proto-man down via lethal injection backfires, and thus the "Monster" is unleashed upon the world. Instead of a London town in history, unleashed upon in fear, we have the modern Metropolis of Los Angeles swept away in doubt. This propels the story (and film) to a platform that renders anything possible, and for anything to happen. And it does. Many of the characters from the story are present here, devoutly portrayed, and slyly woven into the very fabric of how we view society today.

What this brings about, is an emotionally charged, utterly compelling, and beautifully deranged epic tale with relevant themes that reign very akin to previous Rose fare: Prejudice, class struggle, inner demons vs. the evil of man, et al. All the violence, degradation, mutilation, and gore to be found in the story are present, but in a way that reminds us how very human, and vulnerable we are. Slight bits of comic relief litter the film, but the direction is so spot on, and the story, so poignantly told, that it's actually difficult to catch the drift, and spot the poetic irony. Rose indulges in his fare share of gore, violence, and the surrender of man in the face of true danger, all the while making the audience realize how ignorant we are to how bad the world can be, and therefore taking away the sense of security we feel sitting in a darkened movie theater, and pulling the veneer off of the simple picture we are experiencing. However, it's there, in all it's glory. Rose tips his hat to the underdogs of the world today, while reminding us that it also takes a man (or woman) with good intention to bring about the changes that the world is perpetually cycling through.

A good film will, regardless of genre or intended audience, make it's audience laugh, cry, tremble, or become angry. The best ones are capable of accomplishing all, and leaving the audience in the deepest comatose state of reflection upon leaving the Movie House. Bernard Rose's adaptation of "Frankenstein" manages to do all of this and more. In the end, he delivers a bona fide ADULT Horror Movie that should satisfy genre fans and fans of the original story alike. Sadly, the film, being distributed independently will probably never be as recognized as it's predecessors, given the desensitization to horror and the egoistic regain of people of the "I" generation, who even in this film appear to be the real "Monsters" of this world.

FRANKENSTEIN is a low budget and modern reinterpretation of the Mary Shelley novel, setting it in the modern era but sticking close to the plot of that book. Things start off on a poor footing with some gruesome experimental material and lots of annoyingly shaky close-up shots, but it does get better when the creature emerges from the laboratory to encounter the outside world. While actors such as Danny Huston and Carrie-Anne Moss are rather wasted, Tony Todd puts in a good performance as the blind man. Xavier Samuel is okay as the creature, but too hidden behind a ton of make-up for the most part. The main problem I had with this is that you don't feel anything for any of the unlikeable characters, the creature included. The filmmakers instead wallow in the gore and gratuity, which is all very well, but it leaves this a hollow experience.