This is a handsome, but empty production. Or, put another way, it is an imposing shell energized by the lightning of fine acting and craftsmanship, but adrift without a soul. The idea is obvious: create a spry, postmodern, and loose adaptation of the often-often-adapted Mary Shelley novel to attract the audience which drove Guy Ritchie's two enjoyable Sherlock Holmes films to around one billion worldwide. But Shelley's gloomily Romantic story of science gone awry (and the prior cinematic versions which gave us malformed laboratory assistant Igor and "IT'S ALIVE!") proves an uncomfortable candidate for too-cool-for-school revisionism. The result is a curious case of hyperactive lethargy in which no charming diversion—not a wild-eyed camp performance by James McAvoy as the title character, not a love story for a straightened and beautified Igor (Daniel Radcliffe), not the extensive Victorian-era production design, not composer Craig Armstrong's thundering original score—distracts from the fact next to nothing of consequence is transpiring, and there is a waning sense of anticlimax when the film finds its way around to the main creature-feature attraction just in time to end.

C+

Someone had to see it.

Well, this sort of thing is right up David's alley. It's a period setting, stars James McAvoy, and is just the sort of crappy flop that I could see him finding merit in, and by the looks of his review, he did. Good on him for having his own taste.

Suddenly, the film has slightly peaked my interest...

Ha.

But you mean 'piqued'.

, yes, "piqued"

I enjoyed this quite a bit. I thought McAvoy and Radcliffe had great chemistry and the guy who played C in Spectre was certainly better here eventhough he was kind of a weird character. I atleast got more entertainment out of this than anything in Crimson Peak and I find it surprising that movie had the bigger budget. The production values here looked flawless and although there isn't a whole lot of action this felt much larger in terms of scope IMO.