VideoVista covers rental and retail titles in all genres and movie or TV categories, with filmmaker interviews, auteur profiles, top 10 lists,
plus regular prize draws.
INDEX OF ALL REVIEWS
SEARCH THIS SITE
TOP 10 LISTS
INTERVIEWS & PROFILES
RETRO REVIEWS SECTION
ABOUT OUR CONTRIBUTORS
SUBSCRIBE TO NEWSLETTER
SUPPORT THIS SITE -
SHOP USING THESE LINKS
visit other Pigasus Press sites...
The ZONE - genre nonfiction
Soundchecks - music reviews
Rotary Action - helicopter movies
cast: Tiffany Shepis, Patti Tindall, Scott Anthony Leet, and Ed Lauter
director: Sean Tretta
87 minutes (18) 2010
widescreen ratio 16:9
4 Digital Media DVD Region 2
review by Matthew S. Dent
The Frankenstein Experiment
There is a long and, in film, fairly respected tradition of misconception around certain scientific phenomenon. Radiation makes things grow really
big. Spaceships can zip across the galaxy in hours. Black holes are gateways to alternate dimensions. The newest addition seems to be that stem cells,
which can do pretty much whatever the story demands.
Enter The Frankenstein Experiment (aka: The Frankenstein Syndrome), the thrust of whose plot can largely be guessed from the title. A
group of researchers at a secretive, privately funded institute are conducting illegal stem cell research on people. They create a serum, which through
the magic of stem cells brings back the dead: all nice and cuddly until the resurrected people start to get violent.
There are definitely similarities with the Frankenstein story, but the original's trademark intelligence and philosophical points get lost or left
behind by a confused and disjointed plot. In the end, a confusing religious twist leaves a viewer scratching his head, and not in a particularly
The main problem is the characters. Whoever wrote them didn't seem to really know who these people were, and as a result they end up serving the
plot rather than feeling at all like real people. Characters should, I believe, have defined personalities in the same way that real people do.
Having characters wildly change their very nature midway through is not good writing.
Take, for example, the main character, who narrates the whole story starts off willing to break the rules to advance medical science. But then the
next moment, she's adamantly against everything they're doing. Similarly, the 'head scientist' is a cold, heartless witch, until they manage to
resurrect someone. This could be seen as character development, but for the fact that it happens suddenly, without any traceable 'development'.
Rather, the writer simply decided that the characters needed to be different at that point in the story.
Looking beyond its flaws, though, the foundation upon which the story is built is an interesting and well thought through idea. Indeed, it could
have been a good film, if it had been more competently executed. The finished product does not cover the writer and director in glory, and the
jarring final scene, out of step with the rest of the film, sums up the whole affair, really.