Escape to the Movies: I, Frankenstein

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

so in other words, a movie you just watch ones to say i saw it and thats it.

Only one thing comes to mind:

image

Izanagi009:
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.

If you've made yourself into a snob, then nothing ever will please you, because you've developed a kind of fantasy expectation from films and games that no one outside of your own imagination can successfully attain. Believe me.

Kargathia:
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.

Boring is subjective, though. I thought this movie had some fun scenes and cool visuals. The CGI isn't horrible and the setting has a kind of Corporate Gothic feel. I like Aaron Eckhart, and he pulls off a decent brooding badass. Boring to me would be this movie spending most of its run rehashing the plot of the original book. But this is Frankenstein fighting demons, and I like that. I like the ultimate human creation fighting angels and demons.

What makes this movie boring, if I may ask?

SnakeoilSage:

Izanagi009:
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.

If you've made yourself into a snob, then nothing ever will please you, because you've developed a kind of fantasy expectation from films and games that no one outside of your own imagination can successfully attain. Believe me.

At the same time, one must not reduce themselves to be amused by simple body fluid gags, innuendos, and horrible CG. I don't believe that anything is perfect; hell, I like Eva and that is very flawed but i am able to critique it and read a bit deeper into it

I don't want to be amused by a concept that only goes halfway and if I,Frankenstein is indeed only a halfway taken concept then i will critize it

I do have to wonder what the logic is behind the evil plan here.

We will make an army of living corpses to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

Except:

1. From what I can tell, the monster is just a stronger, more durable human. While I am sure there is the bar scene or whatever where the monster beats up some bikers or something to prove how awesome he is or something, more durable doesn't mean "not killable." Let's see what corpse fists do to tank armor and how many grenades they can survive. Wouldn't it be easier, instead of spending the billions it must of took to build that monster factory to just give guns to some satanists or steal nuclear weapons?

2. The point of the original book was that you cannot control the monster. They are intelligent, thinking beings who don't like being horrible monsters.

3. Remember Underworld 3? Bringing humans into the conflict between two beings who have been fighting a stalemate over hundreds of years resulted in both species being driven to near extinction within nine days. When your most advanced weapon is a pitch fork or an army of corpses, your not going to get very far against any organized human force.

Still waiting for a Terminator vs Robocop movie.

I don't know what to make out of Bobs reviews lately, since all the movies he recommended were boring for me, and some of the movies he hated I did actually enjoy.
How can he hate this one but praise "Cabin in the Woods" for its ingenuity? I think this movie can actually be a ton of fun.

Sorry, but what monster?

The guy playing the Frankenstein film looks like the ideal man with a few makeup stitches. The whole premise that the monster of frankenstein looks like that makes me go "lolwut".

We tried to give you David Wenham, Richard Roxburgh and Ben Mendelsohn, but you took Sam Worthington so we gave you Jai Courtney.

Fdzzaigl:
Sorry, but what monster?

The guy playing the Frankenstein film looks like the ideal man with a few makeup stitches. The whole premise that the monster of frankenstein looks like that makes me go "lolwut".

Illegal plastic surgery?

Also, just from point of common sense- if you reanimate compiled human, then why not to make him at peak condition?
Especially knowing that small wars and battles were common at the time, so finding fresh remains of strong men wasn't a problem.

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.

I don't think anybody's blaming you for liking or enjoying it. If you have a differing opinion to MB then that's your opinion and you are entitled to state it and to defend it. Look, I've liked plenty of "bad" movies myself, and I haven't seen this one.

But let's not start defending movies with the defence "It shouldn't have to be Shakespeare", ok? That's REALLY obnoxious. And kinda patronising in itself. Maybe it shouldn't be "Shakespeare" but it should be "Jurassic Park" or "Total Recall" (the original) or even "Pirates of the Caribbean". I don't think it's asking too much for a fun summer blockbuster to be at least as good as "Pirates of the Caribbean"!

And for my money, "Transformers" - the original, didn't see the sequels - was an unholy mess that left me astounded that anybody would ever choose to do a movie like this. As for "seeing" Autobots versus Decepticons, the camerawork was so damn awful that I mostly have no idea what I was looking at. And if "The Dark Knight" was overrated, "The Dark Knight Rises" was the opposite - one of the most pompous, joyless movies I've seen in the past couple of years, I don't think it had a single likeable character or memorable story arc in it.

One of MB's and my favorite movies of last year was "Warm Bodies", a ridiculous-yet-endearing love story about a girl and her zombie. That movie was great because it took its ridiculous premise and absolutely committed to it. That might be a bad example because it actually WAS Shakespearian (the girl is called Julia, the zombie is called "R" - not exactly subtle!) but the point is that it took its absurd B-movie plot and just sold it so damn well.

Short version: I don't care what you base your movie on or whether or not it's a "B-movie". I do care if the premise is executed well, or if the filmmakers put more effort into the story than they did the marketing. And Shakespeare has nothing to do with it.

And wasn't Jai Courtney one of the best things about "Jack Reacher"? Like Chris Pine in "Carriers", I think he has a megaton of potential. After "Die Hard 5" I hope Courtney isn't just going to squander it like Pine seems to have done.

Izanagi009:
At the same time, one must not reduce themselves to be amused by simple body fluid gags, innuendos, and horrible CG. I don't believe that anything is perfect; hell, I like Eva and that is very flawed but i am able to critique it and read a bit deeper into it

I don't want to be amused by a concept that only goes halfway and if I,Frankenstein is indeed only a halfway taken concept then i will critize it

Oh? Why not? You can make bodily fluid gags funny if you work it right. Horrible CG is horrible CG, but I'm not going to rail against a movie for having if it the rest of the movie is decent. No one really complains that Godzilla is clearly just a big rubber suit. I say applaud the good stuff, ignore the average, and if the movie goes out of its way to personally offend you then toss off the gloves and have at. I, Frankenstein had a nifty idea and some cool visuals, the rest was average. It didn't insult my intelligence or waste my time. That makes a watchable film and one that deserves more than the reviews it's getting.

TheMadDoctorsCat:
I don't think anybody's blaming you for liking or enjoying it. If you have a differing opinion to MB then that's your opinion and you are entitled to state it and to defend it. Look, I've liked plenty of "bad" movies myself, and I haven't seen this one.

But let's not start defending movies with the defence "It shouldn't have to be Shakespeare", ok? That's REALLY obnoxious. And kinda patronising in itself. Maybe it shouldn't be "Shakespeare" but it should be "Jurassic Park" or "Total Recall" (the original) or even "Pirates of the Caribbean". I don't think it's asking too much for a fun summer blockbuster to be at least as good as "Pirates of the Caribbean"!

And for my money, "Transformers" - the original, didn't see the sequels - was an unholy mess that left me astounded that anybody would ever choose to do a movie like this. As for "seeing" Autobots versus Decepticons, the camerawork was so damn awful that I mostly have no idea what I was looking at. And if "The Dark Knight" was overrated, "The Dark Knight Rises" was the opposite - one of the most pompous, joyless movies I've seen in the past couple of years, I don't think it had a single likeable character or memorable story arc in it.

One of MB's and my favorite movies of last year was "Warm Bodies", a ridiculous-yet-endearing love story about a girl and her zombie. That movie was great because it took its ridiculous premise and absolutely committed to it. That might be a bad example because it actually WAS Shakespearian (the girl is called Julia, the zombie is called "R" - not exactly subtle!) but the point is that it took its absurd B-movie plot and just sold it so damn well.

Short version: I don't care what you base your movie on or whether or not it's a "B-movie". I do care if the premise is executed well, or if the filmmakers put more effort into the story than they did the marketing. And Shakespeare has nothing to do with it.

You're kidding, right? You expect all films to at least be as good as Total Recall, Jurassic Park or Pirates? How do you even break down the prerequisites for that kind of grading system? Total Recall is an Arnie cult classic from the 80's, Jurassic Park was a painstaking creation from one of the best directors in the business. Pirates was a shot-in-the-dark success thanks to Johnny Depp turning a bunch of teen girls into squealing idiots with his drunken swagger.

Picking at something like Transformers is really the trendy thing to do these days, but it seems to me that your whole argument is based on really flimsy nit-picks blown up to extremes thanks to the waves of hatred that seem to congeal on the internet. I liked the first Transformers. Yeah. Fuck it. I liked it. It had robots fighting robots, and for all of Michael Bay's masturbatory American military fantasies I liked that even with big bad-ass robot aliens rampaging around, we at least have the firepower to fight back. We're not relegated to the sidelines as mere victims in an interplanetary crossfire. Yes its tedious to put up with the "human" plot about an idiot teenager desperately trying to get laid, a rather unsubtle jab by Bay at the fans of the series who take this shit way too seriously, but ultimately I got what I wanted out of that film: giant robots fighting giant robots. It's not the best incarnation of Transformers, but it's not the worst either. I didn't have to shut off my brain to like it either. I appreciated what it had and ignored the rest. I didn't hold it up to my own fantastic standards (or someone else's) and give it a failing grade for that.

SnakeoilSage:
You're kidding, right? You expect all films to at least be as good as Total Recall, Jurassic Park or Pirates? How do you even break down the prerequisites for that kind of grading system? Total Recall is an Arnie cult classic from the 80's, Jurassic Park was a painstaking creation from one of the best directors in the business. Pirates was a shot-in-the-dark success thanks to Johnny Depp turning a bunch of teen girls into squealing idiots with his drunken swagger.

Picking at something like Transformers is really the trendy thing to do these days, but it seems to me that your whole argument is based on really flimsy nit-picks blown up to extremes thanks to the waves of hatred that seem to congeal on the internet. I liked the first Transformers. Yeah. Fuck it. I liked it. It had robots fighting robots, and for all of Michael Bay's masturbatory American military fantasies I liked that even with big bad-ass robot aliens rampaging around, we at least have the firepower to fight back. We're not relegated to the sidelines as mere victims in an interplanetary crossfire. Yes its tedious to put up with the "human" plot about an idiot teenager desperately trying to get laid, a rather unsubtle jab by Bay at the fans of the series who take this shit way too seriously, but ultimately I got what I wanted out of that film: giant robots fighting giant robots. It's not the best incarnation of Transformers, but it's not the worst either. I didn't have to shut off my brain to like it either. I appreciated what it had and ignored the rest. I didn't hold it up to my own fantastic standards (or someone else's) and give it a failing grade for that.

"Pirates" wasn't great, but it was at least an enjoyable ride. And yep, that'd be the minimum standard for me. I don't EXPECT every movie to be that good, not by a long shot, but that's at least the kind of reception I'd like it to be getting before I'm willing to spend money on it. If people whose opinions I trust say a movie's not much good, I'll avoid it. Easy.

Anyway, I have an advantage there: I'm from the UK, we get nearly all movies released six weeks after the Americans have had a chance to blow their money and complain about it over the Internet. It's like a ready-made quality control system.

I don't think I've ever "picked at" Transformers. Blasted it is more like it. Again, I don't begrudge you for liking it, but I didn't (to put it mildly). I don't always agree with MovieBob but I did on that occasion... I thought it was just terrible. I won't go into the laundry list of problems I have with it, that'd just be petty. It just did nothing for me at all.

daxterx2005:
Still waiting for a Terminator vs Robocop movie.

The folks over at Screw Attack have that very scenario planned for their next DEATH BATTLE! episode.

Elijah Newton:

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?

No matter how interesting, fascinating, and vibrant the scientific fields are in theory, I could imagine that someone with his level of creativity and interests probably couldn't find anything about the tenure-track academia slog all that alluring. He likely wouldn't find much in the private sector either, as there's nowhere near as many STEM-degree career opportunities as college brochures like to promise their prospective students. Having just spent three years earning a masters in chemistry part-time and the past year interviewing for terribly-degrading jobs, I can't help but feel like the sciences have been thoroughly overrun by complacent, careerist, publish-or-perish losers and lame jobbers who wouldn't know creativity or individuality if those things sat on their faces. Bravo to this guy for pursuing and achieving things that he truly loved instead of drinking the Kool-Aid that might well have landed him in the shitty role of another poorly-paid adjunct professor or something else awful.

What? you thought niberius was ok?
Bill Nighy? really? I've always thought hes an abomination of an actor, but at least in Underworld, everyone was so bad that he didn't stand out. On the other hand, here, most of the cast is actually kind of -as decent as the script allows- so he comes up so eye-rollingly-painfully horrendous, that I couldn't believe they didn't re-shoot some of his lines.
Tbh, for me, the only really acceptable role is in the hands of Yvonne Strahovski, who gives as much humanity as possible to her cardboard character... and you didnt even mention her... But thinking about -thank you for smoking-, and -the dark knight-, I just feel bad for Aaron Eckhart.

sorry.. double post for some reason.

PS.. you'd think someone with such a highly academic background could do better than some hodgepodge of pseudomythological nonsense like Underworld... I guess.. he wouldn't have been a very good scientist either. :P

If Australia needs to answer for Jai Courtney, then America needs to answer for Will Farrell. And Ben Stiller. And Adam Sandler. And Katherine Heigl. And the entire cast of the Scream movies. And Will Farrell again.

blackrave:

Fdzzaigl:
Sorry, but what monster?

The guy playing the Frankenstein film looks like the ideal man with a few makeup stitches. The whole premise that the monster of frankenstein looks like that makes me go "lolwut".

Illegal plastic surgery?

Also, just from point of common sense- if you reanimate compiled human, then why not to make him at peak condition?
Especially knowing that small wars and battles were common at the time, so finding fresh remains of strong men wasn't a problem.

To be fair, an important theme of the original book was that the monster looked horrific and because of this was rejected by ordinary humans and his own creator, changing him from a sensitive being into a vengeful murderer, so him looking like a regular man doesn't really fit with the book this movie is supposedly a sequel to. With that in mind, I wonder how the movie deals with the fact that as their 'hero' murdered three people including a small child in cold blood in the book, probably ignore it I imagine >.>

What was the deal with the TMNT?

I never understood why Frankenstein is supposed to be horror.

If anything the book is about racism. Here we have a guy who is not only incredibly strong he is also a genius. Eleven months old and he became fluent in German AND French. He was damn near the perfect human. The problem is...he looks different so we have to kill him.

I thought that was a pretty clear message.

Fdzzaigl:
Sorry, but what monster?

The guy playing the Frankenstein film looks like the ideal man with a few makeup stitches. The whole premise that the monster of frankenstein looks like that makes me go "lolwut".

Well to be fair the monster was supposed to look 'beautiful' insofar as he was made from the most aesthetically pleasing parts. The horrifying aspects of the monster came from the fact that he was very clearly dead. His skin was all sickly looking and didn't really move right.

But yeah...the 'creature' in this movie is way too healthy looking. Maybe he got better?

Mooboo Magoo:

Fdzzaigl:
Sorry, but what monster?

The guy playing the Frankenstein film looks like the ideal man with a few makeup stitches. The whole premise that the monster of frankenstein looks like that makes me go "lolwut".

Well to be fair the monster was supposed to look 'beautiful' insofar as he was made from the most aesthetically pleasing parts. The horrifying aspects of the monster came from the fact that he was very clearly dead. His skin was all sickly looking and didn't really move right.

But yeah...the 'creature' in this movie is way too healthy looking. Maybe he got better?

I don't think they made the monster out of bits on newt.
And they can already regrow their tail. Wait, that gives me an idea.

Making a Frankenstein's Monster-like giant lizard man would seem like a preferable idea to the one portrait in this movie.

Eh, well at least it's not bad. I felt like this movie came out of absolutely nowhere. It's kind of a weird trend to take old IPs and then throw them into entirely new worlds and most of the time I don't like it. Mostly because I'd rather see new characters and leave old characters in their own realm unless a really great and meaningful clash comes around. But I guess every writer/producer/etc is going to think that their movie is special and worthy of appropriating established characters into their vision, so... "eh" again.

When I saw the trailers for this, I thought this had potential but expected it to be nominal or bad. Nominal is thankfully the better of the two.

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?

There is not one singular way of "loving" a movie. People don't enjoy The Room for the same reason they enjoy Citizen Kane, and yes, contrary to the imposed Hollywood notion of fixed single-interest marketing demographics there are people who enjoy both. Ironic enjoyment is not an insecure or closeted enjoyment, it can be extremely passionate and overt. I spend far more time ranting to people about the quality of movies I've enjoyed ironically than those which genuinely gripped me. Ironic enjoyment is an enjoyment which is based on a sense of dissociation from the events which occur on screen which would kill a more serious dramatic movie, because said dramatic movie wants you to feel something and if you aren't then it's failing. You mention MST3K, which is the epitome of ironic enjoyment. The basic format of the show is about breaking immersion for comic effect.

This isn't a straight B movie, it's a movie with a B-movie premise but it's getting a theatrical release. It clearly has a serious budget and competent people making it. It's not an Ed Wood movie, it's not going to fail that badly because everyone involved kind of knows the basics. They aren't going to make the kind of obvious or hilarious mistake, the absolute worst they can do is to be boring.

Annd something geek and cult cinema really needs to learn is that merely having a cool or outrageous premise does not mean you have a good movie by default. The problem with not asking very much of the audience is that it's very easy to bore them, particularly if the movie you make does not actually live up to its ridiculous premise in execution. This is why people like Bill Nighy and Michael Sheen were such gold for the Underworld series. I mean, fuck.. Sheen almost single handedly made Twilight: New Moon worth watching. Watching someone put their heart and soul into a premise which the rational part of your brain knows is so silly, or at least having a hell of a time with it, is incredibly engaging in a way which goes beyond irony. Watching competent (or "competent") but bored actors phone in their lines or bluster over everything with generic grizzle is just dull. It doesn't matter how good the premise is, it's still dull.

A premise doesn't make a movie. The people who make a movie make a movie. If they don't buy into the premise and follow it through, then the premise is a failure no matter how cool it might sound. It's all very well to watch Frankenstein fighting Demons, or Autobots fighting Decepticons, but none of it means a damn if the end result is boring.

The idea that you cannot comment on the quality of geek movies because they're not "high art", or that doing so is somehow intellectual snobbery is actually kind of insulting. It perpetuates a view of the world in which there is only one measure of quality, where only an elite group of film consumers can have any kind of meaningful appreciation of films and everyone else will be fine as long as you jangle some keys in their face for an hour and a half and call it a wrap. What is actually poisoning the film industry right now is the assumption that mainstream audiences (which now includes geek audiences) are stupid, that they have no appreciation of quality, that the only thing that matters is whether your marketing department can trick the bovine masses into seeing your film, not whether your film is actually worth seeing.

JoJo:

To be fair, an important theme of the original book was that the monster looked horrific and because of this was rejected by ordinary humans and his own creator, changing him from a sensitive being into a vengeful murderer, so him looking like a regular man doesn't really fit with the book this movie is supposedly a sequel to. With that in mind, I wonder how the movie deals with the fact that as their 'hero' murdered three people including a small child in cold blood in the book, probably ignore it I imagine >.>

Yeah that part never made sense to me.
I mean, I understand that it is hard to hide that monster is reanimated compiled corpse
But besides stitches and other methods of holding parts together, shouldn't parts be as good as possible?

As for murdering 3 innocent people, I guess you can always turn into reason for seeking redemption.
Hell, the very line at the end of trailer implies that Adam considers himself to be damned.

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.

...Um, when Movie Bob was talking about the B-Movie Stuff, he meant that (and I apologize for going to caps-lock mode, but I want to make sure you see this, since you've seemed to ignore most of the parts he states these points in his review) HE WANTED THE MOVIE TO BE A MORE GOOFY B-MOVIE, AND THAT IT WAS TAKING ITSELF TOO DAMN SERIOUSLY TO BE A GOOD B-MOVIE. THE PART HE CLAIMED FRANKENSTEIN'S MONSTER WAS CHARACTERIZED TOO LITTLE WAS BECAUSE TOO MUCH TIME WAS WASTED BORING US WITH THE DETAILS OF THE ANGEL/DEMON WAR, I.E. PUTTING THE SETTING OVER THE CHARACTERS, AND I THINK HE WOULDN'T HAVE LIKED IT IF THEY DID CHARACTERIZE HIM TOO SERIOUSLY EITHER.

So to summarize, he was doing the exact OPPOSITE of what you were talking about - he wanted the movie to be more blatantly silly and hammy, not more serious and convincing.

Edit: As for the whole thing about how geek movies can simultaneously "A) Take over Hollywood, B) Don't get enough support, and C) Are garbage anyways" is because the guys making those movies (outside of Marvel), aren't actual geeks, but just money-grubbing idiots who only think in terms of accounting, wanting to milk the most money out of a film for the least cost and effort (focusing on "least cost and effort" even though "most money" goes to movies with some actual EFFORT put into them, rather really good, or faulty yet enthusiastic). In short, this means A) Big Hollywood is snatching up all the geek movie ideas they can to ride on the Marvel film gravy train, B) the geeks who DO know what they're doing often get passed over for hacks who only ask for a slightly lower paycheck for nothing in return, and C) the schlock from the hacks is... well, garbage.

Again, this isn't the WORST movie he's seen about Frankenstein, and not an objectively BAD film, but is still too reserved and cautious to be a real B-Movie.

I, Frankenstein, BayMNT and Robocop. Three entire movies I'd forgot were even a thing all in one video.

This seems like the sort of film where you watch the action scenes, and fast forward through all the talking.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 67218)