Michael Ledo This seems to be a part one of a made for TV movie series. A 200 year old scientist is creating a stronger race of humans that appear to have little personality or acting ability. Two detectives are assigned the task of solving these murders with New Orleans as the backdrop. During an autopsy it is discovered one of the victims was one of these super beings.The "why" the monster kills was not really explained, nor do we know how many of these Frankensteins are really out there. The scenes were mostly dark. Monster make-up was light. No nudity or bad language. One sexual scene.The film moves a bit slow as it builds up to important action scenes that never fizzle. If you got into the X-Files stuff, this movie might interest you.

el Cambion Frankenstein (2004)This was made for TV on the USA network and had fine production values.A twist on the classic Frankenstein story. This one takes place in modern-day New Orleans where a detective investigates a series of murders.But the 'Frankenstein monster' is an intelligent 200 year old looking for his "maker" (a Victor Helios, also 200 years old, keeping himself alive with genetic experiments) who is creating synthetic humans from stolen body parts to eventually replace mankind.It had a bit of an unusual ending and I see it was originally designed to be the pilot of a series... which explains the ending. Turns out it was based on the book "Frankenstein: the Prodical Son" by Dean Koontz and Kevin Anderson. Which I now want to read. Two Thumbs Up from me. I enjoyed it!I can't reveal any spoilers but there were twists in the characters as well as a massive rewrite of the plot. And all I'll say is... role-reversal.

Boba_Fett1138 Over the years many film-makers had provided new movies with new stories inspired on the famous Mary Shelley novel. They often are about the son of Frankenstein or his great-great-great-son or anything else of the sort but they all have in common that they have a mad doctor who is trying to create a new monster. This movie is a Frankenstein movie set in the modern age, which by default already is a very bad idea.The Frankenstein-creature is a classic character. Putting him in this modern day and age already takes away much of his class and heart.This movie basically of course doesn't have a lot to do with the famous Mary Shelley novel or any other previous Frankenstein movie. Yet it of course chooses to carry the name "Frankenstein", while it really isn't deserving to. The movie is more a one that concentrates on the police detective work to hunt down 'doctor Frankenstein', in this movie known as Victor Helios, played by Thomas Kretschmann and his creature(s). It isn't really about the creature trying to be good, though there are certainly still some parallels with the Mary Shelley novel. The good old doctor and the creature are more evil villainous ones, for movie purposes, which in my opinion just was a bad choice. They try to make the creature look sympathetic but the creature just remains too much a mysterious one for it to really work out.I liked the movie its cast with actors such as Parker Posey, Thomas Kretschmann, Adam Goldberg and Michael Madsen involved. The only deserved a better concept and script to work with.No, it's not like this movie is horrible and it's definitely a watchable one but it's just that the story mostly remains uninteresting and really isn't an involving one to watch, while previous, much better Frankenstein movies, obviously were. The movie is lacking a heart and a good true main character you get to care for. Watching this is an enjoyable yet also very shallow experience. Oh well, at least it all isn't as bad and tiresome as the 2004 TV mini-series, with the same name.The movie had a good look and atmosphere. No wonder, since it had director Marcus Nispel at the helm, who is an expert in the genre. He did the "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and is currently working on the "Friday the 13th". So when is he going to do an original horror movie on his own? He seriously needs to start looking for new and original scripts, if he truly wants to become a respected and acclaimed director. He certainly has the talent for it to become one I think. So far none of his movies has been based on original material.And for those wondering why this movie its ending is so abrupt and feels so incomplete; This movie was supposed to be a pilot for a TV-series. Doubtful that this will ever still turn into a TV-series, since it's now 4 years later already and still no word on it.OK so it's watchable but it's not really a movie I would just recommend.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

gavin6942 A security guard turns up dead and an autopsy finds he has two hearts, bones like concrete and other abnormalities that would essentially make him live forever. More murders happen, and soon the police believe that not only do more men like the security guard exist but that they were, in fact, created by another man rather than born as such.Director Marcus Nispel is good at one thing in particular: making his films look like rich oil paintings. His take on "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was beautiful (even if the film itself sputtered) and "Pathfinder" is more visual than cerebral in every respect. A great choice for the new film "Alice", I think Nispel honed his skills on "Frankenstein". It comes across as the more grim and artistic interpretation of "Seven", which I mean in every possible good way.The movie's failings are something I cannot really place on the shoulders of the director or the cast. Because by far the biggest flaw was the truncation of what could have been a television series (and was supposed to be) into a movie. Questions are answered too quickly killing a good mystery, more questions are raised but never addressed (in fact, hundreds) and this comes together with an ending that begs for a few sequels or an ongoing series (but, of course, I cannot say what that ending is).Adam Goldberg does a surprisingly decent job here. I am not a fan of his, and do not think he is strong outside the realm of comedy (his best film remains "The Hebrew Hammer"). Here, he comes across as a lovable and able detective who has the necessary failings of a man who falls in love with his partner (at work). He played it straight and I think this was one of his better performances.Michael Madsen is an actor who cult film fans and horror fans just love (probably more because of "Reservoir Dogs" and less because of "Free Willy"). I, also, love this man. And I do not think his fans will be let down here... while his part is small at first, he becomes more prominent as the movie progresses and those things we love about Madsen begin to shine. This may rank as one of his better better roles, possibly his best outside of a Tarantino film.If you see this movie, give it the benefit of the doubt. Some flaws exist, but as I said I think these are more on the part of the network and less due to the creative forces involved. The acting is good, the story is very original and highly interesting and I cannot stress enough just how beautiful the film comes across. Possibly the best interpretation of "Frankenstein" I have seen yet.Recommendation: read Dean Koontz's novels. While I have not, on my second viewing I watched the film with someone who did, and it made a big difference. There is a lot going on behind the scenes and a good deal that had to be left out -- I really wish they had made a sequel or a series, but the novels will have to suffice.