Escape to the Movies: I, Frankenstein

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I, Frankenstein

It's alive! Kind of!

Watch Video

I know Bob has said that Robocop (the original) is his favorite movie, and it's definitely sitting high in my all time top 10 as well. But I am cautiously optimistic about the remake version.

Sure it's not something we needed. The original Robo is still as fun as it ever was. But it looks like they've taken the concept and tried to keep the spirit alive while delivering their own story and character motivations.

Most remakes are unneeded, and Robocop '14 may be as well. But it's got too many actors I enjoy watching for me to just dismiss it out of hand without at least giving it a try.

Yeah, this movie doesn't look worth my money. I rather spend my money on something that may be good. Like the Robocop remake. I will at least give it a chance (the director did two of the best police film in recent memory, Tropa de Elite 1 and 2). It looks ok enough.

Was Yvonne Strahovski good in this? I only know her from Mass Effect, and that was the sole reason I wanted to see this (but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

Let's go through my mental process here.

Title: Oh crap, not this again. I do hope they understood that Frankenstein was the doctor and not the name of the monster.
Oh good, they managed to understand that. I can't wait....

And for the entire explanation of the movie, so till the 2.30 mark it just got worse and worse.
This is total horsecrap. None of this makes sense and the appearance of the Frankenstein name is presumably only there for "brandrecognition". There is no possible reason for the existence of this horrendous pile of badly written flop material.

This just sounds like:
"What's popular?"
"Zombies!"
"Right, Frankenstein's Monster was sort of a zombie right? Okay, what sort of movie can we stuff him into?"
"Let's make an I, Robot spoof with the monster in it? Also Dan Brown seems popular, let's rip his stuff off too. Demons and Angels sounds like a good place to start. Also Hellboy."
"Right, make that, but not too much effort, we might be able to tap into the "ironic" crowd too."

The reason the monster is called Adam is because it's kind of his unofficially-official name.

Mary Shelley's original novel never ascribed an actual name to the monster; although he does call himself, when speaking to his creator, Victor Frankenstein, the "Adam of your labours"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein%27s_monster#The_creature.27s_name

So it's probably because of that, not just a random name pulled out of nowhere.

CriticalMiss:
The reason the monster is called Adam is because it's kind of his unofficially-official name.

Mary Shelley's original novel never ascribed an actual name to the monster; although he does call himself, when speaking to his creator, Victor Frankenstein, the "Adam of your labours"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein%27s_monster#The_creature.27s_name

So it's probably because of that, not just a random name pulled out of nowhere.

As much as that makes sense, that's more of a turn of phrase in the novel than an actual name (I preferred to call him "monster" or "yellow eyes"), not dissimilar to the old American phrase "what in Sam's hill?" does not actually refer to a Sam. "Adam" really is one of those names that tends to be ascribed to "the first time playing god" science experiments because of the biblical story in Genesis, although I'm sure the movie has an explanation for it that's far less interesting.

OT: So, Robocop was that bad or were you just disappointed in it? I'm cautiously optimistic at this point.

Seeing this made me think of what Lewis "Linkara" Lovhaug said in his review of Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster, which was "At this point, can we officially declare Frankenstein-ploitation a thing?!" This feels like one of those films where the rule of ham should have been used by more of the actors and not just Bill Nighy.

In regards to the reveal of Mikey's look in the upcoming TMNT movie... I've seen better redesigns of the turtles online. In fact, I can point you to one right now.

Artist Tumblr: http://ramonvillalobos.tumblr.com

I never really knew Van Helsing was so hated...Jeez.

Okay I'm sorry, but for someone who spends the length of this review acknowledging that something like I, Frankenstein is a B-movie, Bob (and a lot of other reviewers I'm watching today) seems to be under the impression that because people have started to embrace said B-movie silliness (either honestly or "ironically" which is just another way of saying "I love them but I have the insecurity of a Batman fan who refused to come out of the closet about it until Frank Miller turned him into a psychotic jock i.e. something that appeals to the mainstream") then that movie should be some kind of fantasy mix of B-quality yet A-quality?

This is the same mentality that has transformed the video game industry into a ridiculous march of "Triple-A" game titles trying to stamp out every ounce of fun and creativity from its products and force people to buy more Mario and Call of Duty rehashes. If people can't see how much of an arrogant snob that makes theme, when they sit there talking about how much they love these films but they need to be "better" then they are not contributing to the healthy growth of the industry that is willing to embrace unorthodox ideas and take risks with unique material. They are the cancerous tumor that is slowly killing the industry's ability to think and create.

IT IS A B-MOVIE. By its very definition it's not going to reach the lofty fantasy ideal you're holding it to. I'm not even sure what it is you're are looking for. Shakespeare with special effects? Another way-overrated Dark Knight? You sit down, you enjoy the oddity of watching Frankenstein fight demons and gargoyles, and you stop expecting it be some kind of genre-defining moment. You don't have to turn off your brain, but stop expecting it to give you a cerebral blow job.

You know there's a reason people enjoy bad movies from the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. Part of it is thanks to MST3K giving us the ability to recognize and enjoy a film for its cheesy, low quality antics, and the other part is an an honest love of the odd and unusual, for whom going to a movie isn't about getting your snob on and bemoaning how terrible movies are these days. I was banging my head against a wall when I saw the trailer for Vampire Academy but you know what? So what. Let people flock to it and enjoy more teen vampire angst. Enjoy friggin' Twilight and all its stupidity. Let Aaron Eckhart fight CGI monsters. At least we're seeing something unique and creative. At least we're seeing Autobots fighting Decepticons. At least we get a memorable Bane performance.

Seriously Bob. I'm starting to really doubt your geek-cred right now. More "characterization" from Frankenstein? Seriously? Go read the book. There. Done. Characterization out of the way. Let's get back to FRANKENSTEIN FIGHTING DEMONS. Because the concept is so off-the-wall and FUN that I don't care if they don't spend thirty minutes pouting about some inane BS invented to make "Adam" look deep and mysterious or some shit like that. You know what his character was in the Universal classic? Growly retard. Watch the film. Now tell me do you live that old movie because it's a B-movie that makes no excuses, or because someone in your college film class told you it was a classic?

I enjoyed this movie and I enjoyed it's oddness. I mean, who the hell whines about how geeky ideas are simultaneously a) taking over Hollywood, yet b) don't get enough support and C) are garbage anyways?! PICK A SIDE already. Me, I'm on the side that supports a fun idea. I don't care how badly it turns out. The insecure people still afraid of what the world will think of them for being passionate about a hobby can scurry back to supporting watered-down "geek" like The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne sitting in an apartment that isn't the Bat Cave pouting about his not-girlfriend, and pretend it's an exemplar of geekdom. I, Frankenstein? This shit is all geek. And I refuse to apologize for liking it or enjoying it.

This movie sounds so ridiculous, I almost want to see it just so I can see for myself how ridiculous it gets!

Mr.Pandah:
I never really knew Van Helsing was so hated...Jeez.

I kind of liked Van Helsing. I might like this one; they seem to be cut from the same cloth. The Frankenstein "Monster" in Van Helsing was meant to act like the one from Shelley's original novel. I wasn't expecting Bob to be so charitable to this one.

And Gargoyles? Fuck yeah!

SnakeoilSage:
Okay I'm sorry, but for someone who spends the length of this review acknowledging that something like I, Frankenstein is a B-movie, Bob (and a lot of other reviewers I'm watching today) seems to be under the impression that because people have started to embrace said B-movie silliness (either honestly or "ironically" which is just another way of saying "I love them but I have the insecurity of a Batman fan who refused to come out of the closet about it until Frank Miller turned him into a psychotic jock i.e. something that appeals to the mainstream") then that movie should be some kind of fantasy mix of B-quality yet A-quality?

This is the same mentality that has transformed the video game industry into a ridiculous march of "Triple-A" game titles trying to stamp out every ounce of fun and creativity from its products and force people to buy more Mario and Call of Duty rehashes. If people can't see how much of an arrogant snob that makes theme, when they sit there talking about how much they love these films but they need to be "better" then they are not contributing to the healthy growth of the industry that is willing to embrace unorthodox ideas and take risks with unique material. They are the cancerous tumor that is slowly killing the industry's ability to think and create.

IT IS A B-MOVIE. By its very definition it's not going to reach the lofty fantasy ideal you're holding it to. I'm not even sure what it is you're are looking for. Shakespeare with special effects? Another way-overrated Dark Knight? You sit down, you enjoy the oddity of watching Frankenstein fight demons and gargoyles, and you stop expecting it be some kind of genre-defining moment. You don't have to turn off your brain, but stop expecting it to give you a cerebral blow job.

You know there's a reason people enjoy bad movies from the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. Part of it is thanks to MST3K giving us the ability to recognize and enjoy a film for its cheesy, low quality antics, and the other part is an an honest love of the odd and unusual, for whom going to a movie isn't about getting your snob on and bemoaning how terrible movies are these days. I was banging my head against a wall when I saw the trailer for Vampire Academy but you know what? So what. Let people flock to it and enjoy more teen vampire angst. Enjoy friggin' Twilight and all its stupidity. Let Aaron Eckhart fight CGI monsters. At least we're seeing something unique and creative. At least we're seeing Autobots fighting Decepticons. At least we get a memorable Bane performance.

Seriously Bob. I'm starting to really doubt your geek-cred right now. More "characterization" from Frankenstein? Seriously? Go read the book. There. Done. Characterization out of the way. Let's get back to FRANKENSTEIN FIGHTING DEMONS. Because the concept is so off-the-wall and FUN that I don't care if they don't spend thirty minutes pouting about some inane BS invented to make "Adam" look deep and mysterious or some shit like that. You know what his character was in the Universal classic? Growly retard. Watch the film. Now tell me do you live that old movie because it's a B-movie that makes no excuses, or because someone in your college film class told you it was a classic?

I enjoyed this movie and I enjoyed it's oddness. I mean, who the hell whines about how geeky ideas are simultaneously a) taking over Hollywood, yet b) don't get enough support and C) are garbage anyways?! PICK A SIDE already. Me, I'm on the side that supports a fun idea. I don't care how badly it turns out. The insecure people still afraid of what the world will think of them for being passionate about a hobby can scurry back to supporting watered-down "geek" like The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne sitting in an apartment that isn't the Bat Cave pouting about his not-girlfriend, and pretend it's an exemplar of geekdom. I, Frankenstein? This shit is all geek. And I refuse to apologize for liking it or enjoying it.

Is it all geek, yes. Can over the top geeky stuff be good, yes and i have an example even more crazy than I, Frankenstein: Kill La kIll.

The show literally wallows in its crazy over the top world with a straight face and a lot of laughs. BUT there are also characters with strong motivations and personalties along with a bit of a brain in it's imagery, naming and the like. Is it a super-intellgent anime on the nature of humanity like Psycho-pass, hell no. Is it a fun ride that actually rewards cultural understanding and has good characters, hell yes.

Just because something is a B movie doesn't mean that you have an excuse to ignore characterization and plot.

I'm expecting lots of people to point out that he's called Adam because that's his name in the book. I'm also expecting the people who point this out to have probably not read the book (and so not realised that this is in fact incorrect), but because they saw the "fact" brought up on QI, they couldn't help but recite it here.

Wait, what?!

Due respect to the review, the most fascinating bit was the quick bio for Kevin Grevioux. This bodybuilding looking dude has a degree in Microbiology, afterwards attending graduate school and this time working towards a Masters in Genetic Engineering, jumped ship for screenwriting and cinematography and wrote the Underworld series?

F**k f**king yeah!

Dolph Ludgreen has now dropped to #2 in terms of most anomalous action movie star. Thanks for the awesome trivia, MovieBob!

(also on Season 1, Episode 1 of Mad TV? what kind of alternate dimension of awesome did this dude drop in from?)

As been mentioned, the monster was always called Adam. Not just from the saying but coz Adam was the first man.

The more they release about the Turtles movie the more it seems like something you'd watch on a dare or because you had lost a bet. It seems like the kind of movie you'd put on a loop after duct taping someone to chair to see how long it took to break that person. It's not too often I feel bad for Bob but if he has to watch the Turtle movie to bring us back the horror stories, then from the bottom of my heart it is a week I feel sorry for you Bob.

This week kind of what I expected. We seem to be in the dumping ground season for films so it's releases not because the studio felt like it was good work, but after investing in the films they had to release them in the hope of making at least a little of their investment back.

I almost wonder if I shouldn't take 2014 off from films and hope things might get better in 2015.

JenSeven:
Let's go through my mental process here.

Title: Oh crap, not this again. I do hope they understood that Frankenstein was the doctor and not the name of the monster.
Oh good, they managed to understand that. I can't wait....

Since Frankenstein is a family name, and the monster is, in a sense, the doctor's son, one could argue that the monster's name is also Frankenstein. Since he's called Adam in this movie, he would be Adam Frankenstein.

You know what this movie needs...

http://youtu.be/w1FLZPFI3jc

Van Helsing was great I loved it!

This looks to be another strange generic mashup, it dose not look horrible but meh can't be worse than the last 2 Underworld films...

Awe, Bob doesn't like Van Helsing? That movie is awesome.

OT: Eh, it looks interesting enough. I'd watch it if I'm bored on some cheap weekend ticket.

ZZoMBiE13:
I know Bob has said that Robocop (the original) is his favorite movie, and it's definitely sitting high in my all time top 10 as well. But I am cautiously optimistic about the remake version.

Sure it's not something we needed. The original Robo is still as fun as it ever was. But it looks like they've taken the concept and tried to keep the spirit alive while delivering their own story and character motivations.

Most remakes are unneeded, and Robocop '14 may be as well. But it's got too many actors I enjoy watching for me to just dismiss it out of hand without at least giving it a try.

hmm. uh, this looks like it was supposed to be posted somewhere else, but yeah I hear you. I'm ready for disappointment though. Heard the new Robocop is in a suit that lets him walk around instead of a cyborg. Kind of misses the point of the original I think. But then, I'm pretty sure the entire reboot is going to miss the point of the original. Here's my guess: They make it a sterile, boring action movie that shows a sterile, boring version of OCP, instead of a hive of incompetent, weaseling dickbags that are actually interesting. Carbomb origin instead of a drawn out, horrifying gun mutilation? Dude's in a glorified wheelchair instead of being an actual cyborg who has to grapple with his actual loss of humanity? PG-13? Shit man. I'm calling it. This is going to really suck because it won't be fun or interesting at all. It will take no chances, will add nothing to the mythos and will be a shameless cash-in on a name brand. I really, really hope to be proven wrong.

I still can't understand why no one else seems to have a problem with the fact that that Frankenstein's "monster" looks like a fashion model or, you know, a movie star. He's supposed to be a hideous monster. That's why Frankie rejected him in the first place. That's why he was an outcast. That's why he swore revenge against his creator. Now he's a generically handsome guy with a few stitches! What the actual hell!? Why does no one have a problem with this!?
Did I miss the part in the prologue where Adam got some reconstructive surgery!?

The title could actually be a really super clever nod to some aspects of the book (which I totally wouldn't have caught if we hadn't discussed them in class a week ago, but ANYWAY.) The monster's identity is complicated, bound up with his creator's hopes for him and his own need for companionship. It wouldn't be a bad angle to look at his coming to terms with those aspects of his identity, perhaps claiming the family name like StormDragon pointed out as a symbol of claiming his humanity. Hell, that even ties into its apparent reference to I, Robot, which is all about the line between robotic intelligence and humanity. Shelley probably couldn't have foreseen the development of robotics but the central idea, that of what defines humanity and how to handle the changes of that definition as new life forms develop under human hands is the same.

Damn...now I want to use the name for that, it sounds a lot more interesting than "gargoyle angels and devils because"

Mr.Pandah:
I never really knew Van Helsing was so hated...Jeez.

I found it to be a fun, if not particularly memorable, romp. That's all I really expect out of this movie as well. As long as it isn't "Legion," I'll be happy.

Oh, and Yvonne Strahovski didn't hurt either. Also, who the hell knew Aaron Eckhart was so freaking ripped?! GEEBUS!!!

Sort of wished they'd played up the camp here, go for that "Army of Darkness" crowd and feel, b/c there's no way anyone was taking this film seriously, and it may be the poorer for its seriousness.

Izanagi009:
Is it all geek, yes. Can over the top geeky stuff be good, yes and i have an example even more crazy than I, Frankenstein: Kill La kIll.

The show literally wallows in its crazy over the top world with a straight face and a lot of laughs. BUT there are also characters with strong motivations and personalties along with a bit of a brain in it's imagery, naming and the like. Is it a super-intellgent anime on the nature of humanity like Psycho-pass, hell no. Is it a fun ride that actually rewards cultural understanding and has good characters, hell yes.

Just because something is a B movie doesn't mean that you have an excuse to ignore characterization and plot.

I don't think every story needs in-depth character motivations. As far as movies go this is like a quick-and-fun dungeon crawl in D&D or playing Brutal Doom. You don't take anything profound from it other than the fact that you had fun and got exactly what you were promised. This movie does NOT lack effort, it's not boring and it's not a movie-by-committee. That should be enough to get fans of urban fantasy and zany "what if-?" scenarios into the seats.

Look at it this way. You have a perfectly good hamburger. But you expected a porterhouse and now you won't stop griping. Then everyone demands porterhouses. Suddenly porterhouses are everywhere but making so many results in cost- and corner-cutting to meet the demand. Now we can't have perfectly good hamburgers because all they sell is subpar porterhouses. And then you start complaining about the lack of good burgers, oblivious to the irony of what you have done/are doing. I'm just saying keeping your movie or video game palette open to some variety is healthy for you and the industry.

SnakeoilSage:

Izanagi009:
Is it all geek, yes. Can over the top geeky stuff be good, yes and i have an example even more crazy than I, Frankenstein: Kill La kIll.

The show literally wallows in its crazy over the top world with a straight face and a lot of laughs. BUT there are also characters with strong motivations and personalties along with a bit of a brain in it's imagery, naming and the like. Is it a super-intellgent anime on the nature of humanity like Psycho-pass, hell no. Is it a fun ride that actually rewards cultural understanding and has good characters, hell yes.

Just because something is a B movie doesn't mean that you have an excuse to ignore characterization and plot.

I don't think every story needs in-depth character motivations. As far as movies go this is like a quick-and-fun dungeon crawl in D&D or playing Brutal Doom. You don't take anything profound from it other than the fact that you had fun and got exactly what you were promised. This movie does NOT lack effort, it's not boring and it's not a movie-by-committee. That should be enough to get fans of urban fantasy and zany "what if-?" scenarios into the seats.

Look at it this way. You have a perfectly good hamburger. But you expected a porterhouse and now you won't stop griping. Then everyone demands porterhouses. Suddenly porterhouses are everywhere but making so many results in cost- and corner-cutting to meet the demand. Now we can't have perfectly good hamburgers because all they sell is subpar porterhouses. And then you start complaining about the lack of good burgers, oblivious to the irony of what you have done/are doing. I'm just saying keeping your movie or video game palette open to some variety is healthy for you and the industry.

Believe me, Matoi and Satsuki have fairly simple motivations (vengeance and conquest respectively) but they have complex personalities to back those motivations. To use an analogy in relation to personalities, one note on a piano can sound good but cleaver use of multiple can make classics. We can have a standard badass be Frankenstein but so many movies have that standard badass. We instead could have one who, while strong and durable, just wishes for a end to his life or a purpose since the original story was about a man reborn and looking for people but shunned because of the matter of creation. Also, the rule of movies is that we can't just have supplemental material provide stuff for the characters or plot before the movie (note, things made after the movie that expand them is fine but I don't think that having prerequisite reading does not speak well to the characterization or plot of a movie.) We would complain about this if it was any other movie so why an exception for Frankenstein

Also, why must we not have a bit of a snobbish behavior with movies. Media is starting to become a bit boring to me. I've seen so many tropes, cliches and bad executions that I just want to have something interesting but with good traits. Concepts are a dime a dozen, hell I can come up with a concept to have Shinto, Greek, and Hindu gods in war with each other giving abilities to "avatars" to solidify their power but that concept can be ruined if the characters are bland or one-note, the plot is a slog, or if fails basic editing.

I guess to put in simple terms, I want a movie made by someone with the imagination of a 10 year old but the intelligence and artistic mastery of a savant.

Darth_Payn:

Mr.Pandah:
I never really knew Van Helsing was so hated...Jeez.

I kind of liked Van Helsing. I might like this one; they seem to be cut from the same cloth. The Frankenstein "Monster" in Van Helsing was meant to act like the one from Shelley's original novel. I wasn't expecting Bob to be so charitable to this one.

And Gargoyles? Fuck yeah!

I saw Van Helsing in theatres when it came out, and I had some high hopes for it. But I thought it was really REALLY DUMB. Nice monster designs, nice fight sequences, but stupid script. I kept thinking of a better movie that could have been made with the source material, rather than just big dumb monster fights. So yeah, not really digging VH. And it kinda looks like what they're doing to poor Frankenstein here is the same.

I'll see the Robocop remake because the original, while amazing (seriously, Paul Verhoeven is THE best sci-fi director!) it also looks a bit dated now (particularly the stop-motion robots).

But if the remake cuts out the violence of the original (which it probably will) it will probably end up being shit but worth a watch anyway just to find out.

Bring back Paul Verhoeven!!!

Robocop
Total Recall
Starship Troopers

soooo two of those have been remade and god knows that Starship Troopers DOES NOT need to be remade because it still looks good today! You can't just remake Starship Troopers...that movie was a fluke, lightning doesn't strike twice there!

VonBrewskie:

ZZoMBiE13:
I know Bob has said that Robocop (the original) is his favorite movie, and it's definitely sitting high in my all time top 10 as well. But I am cautiously optimistic about the remake version.

Sure it's not something we needed. The original Robo is still as fun as it ever was. But it looks like they've taken the concept and tried to keep the spirit alive while delivering their own story and character motivations.

Most remakes are unneeded, and Robocop '14 may be as well. But it's got too many actors I enjoy watching for me to just dismiss it out of hand without at least giving it a try.

hmm. uh, this looks like it was supposed to be posted somewhere else, but yeah I hear you. I'm ready for disappointment though. Heard the new Robocop is in a suit that lets him walk around instead of a cyborg. Kind of misses the point of the original I think. But then, I'm pretty sure the entire reboot is going to miss the point of the original. Here's my guess: They make it a sterile, boring action movie that shows a sterile, boring version of OCP, instead of a hive of incompetent, weaseling dickbags that are actually interesting. Carbomb origin instead of a drawn out, horrifying gun mutilation? Dude's in a glorified wheelchair instead of being an actual cyborg who has to grapple with his actual loss of humanity? PG-13? Shit man. I'm calling it. This is going to really suck because it won't be fun or interesting at all. It will take no chances, will add nothing to the mythos and will be a shameless cash-in on a name brand. I really, really hope to be proven wrong.

Nope, this is where it belongs. The inserts in the credits of often discussed in the forums and since Bob brought it up, I shared my opinion. As did you.

Thing about the new Robocop though, there's no way they could do the original better than it was already made. I think it's in the film's favor that they aren't trying to just remake it but rather let it be it's own thing. Let's face it, the Robocop "mythos" is one undeniably great movie, two undeniably terrible movies, a television series of dubious quality, a cartoon and toy line that were laughable even in their day. The "mythos" was long since tarnished. The worst this new one can do is add to an already wrecked lineage. Worst case scenario, it's one more in a long line of attempts to recapture the original films magic, best case scenario it's watchable and maybe fun. Who knows?

No one loves the original more than I do. But I am willing to at least take this new one with an optimistic view until I have reason not to. The cast is too strong for me to not at least give it a fair chance to impress me.

This reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons where they write a children's book about trolls because they felt like Vampire's were too overdone.

It my be just me, but it certainly came across as another fantasy monster flick.

Mr.Pandah:
I never really knew Van Helsing was so hated...Jeez.

It was good fun with a fair bit of excitement, a silly crossbow and nice sets. Aaaand critics hated it.

The concept sounds interesting, if only as a mindless action movie.

Nice to know someone else shares my low opinion of Jai Courtney. And I didn't like Van Helsing either.

SnakeoilSage:

I think the fundamental problem with this movie isn't that it doesn't appeal to some higher definition of movie "quality", it is that for all its cheese, it's just plain boring. And the golden rule of B-movies is that they can get away with pretty much anything, as long as it's entertaining. This... just isn't.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here