I, Frankenstein

Anything is Possible in Comic Books and Thanks to CGI, Now Anything is Possible on the Big Screen. Visually Speaking. This is an Entertaining Good Looking Goth with Gargoyles Standing (or crouching) in for Vampires and Demons Replacing Werewolves.

But, if You are a Fan of this Type of Thing it can be Entertaining in a Pop Art kind of way. The SFX that are at the Heart (one could say heartless) of these Monsterfests have a Certain Clichéd Look. These Computer Artists Love Their Blues and Greens and for some Unfathomable Reason also Love to Wash Out Color.

That may be a way to be Cynical, you know, Dark. But here it is with this Frankenstein's Monster as Superhero Movie. It is Mildly Entertaining and its Short Running Time Thankfully does not Wear Out its Welcome. Sometimes the Dialog can be Unintentionally Humorous, "You are the first, I'll call you Adam." Sheesh.

When in the Last Scene the Monster Stands Atop a Building (Gotham/Metropolis) and Strikes the Pose, a Staff in Each Hand, and a Voice Over Proclaims (paraphrasing cliché) "I, Frankenstein am here, bring on the bad guys" with Swelling Exit Music, it is just Priceless. Are there Any Openings in the Avengers or the Justice League of America?

It was fair to say that 'I Frankenstein' took more than its fair share of criticism when it first hit the big screen (or should I say when it was FINALLY release, as it was pushed back a couple of times prior to release). It could be considered a 'sequel' the classic Mary Shelley tale of a monster, created by science, who can't find his place in the human world. We're told (right at the beginning) through a particularly succinct voice-over, that Frankenstein's monster, here played by Aaron Eckhart, found his place in society by helping a secret order of Gargoyles to fight demons (please don't laugh). So, he spends a couple of hundred years whacking Satan's minions, which brings us right up to the present day.

So the bulk of the story takes place in an unknown modern-day city – once which doesn't appear to be occupied by more than a handful of humans. Or at least I assume that's the case, seeing as no one ever notices flocks of giant, stone gargoyles soaring through the sky, chasing down and murdering hordes of demons in blazing fire trails.

And that's about the size of it. Having watching the film (1 hour and 18 minutes worth – felt more like 1 hour and 40 minutes), I can only really see one major drawback – the dialogue. It's pretty awful. The film is dark and sombre and therefore requires some heavy dialogue to match. However, the writer just didn't seem to be able to make it sound anything other than totally forced and cheesy.

And that's about its only real flaw. I'm guessing that the main reason it bombed at the Box Office is because it's absolutely nothing that we haven't seen before. If you've watched some or all of the following: Blade, Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, Underworld, Van Helsing, Ghost Rider, or Soloman Kane then you've basically seen I Frankenstein. It offers nothing that you haven't already seen before. The Matrix was released over fifteen years ago. It contained 'slow-motion' fight scenes and everyone was in awe of them. Now, we know what it looks like when our hero pivots through the air, slaughtering baddies mid-flight. It's not as amazing as it was. I Frankenstein contains many moments like this – ones that, once upon a time, would have seemed amazing. Yet, it's all been done before (and with better dialogue).

Bill Nighy plays the baddie, but he's basically playing the same character he does in all his films (in fact... he could almost be 'Viktor' from the Underworld franchise).

Ultimately, I Frankenstein isn't terrible, it just isn't anything that you'll actually be bothered about seeing again, nor is it anything you'll probably remember by this time next week.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

Where before it was vampires versus werewolves, it is the battle of the gargoyles and demons that takes centrestage in the fantasy action thriller 'I, Frankenstein'. Based on the Darkstorm Studios graphic novel by one of the creators of 'Underworld', it tells of its titular character's struggle between good and evil in the midst of an all-out, centuries old war among two immortal clans of superhuman creatures. But as exciting as that may sound, you'll quickly find that the burden of 'Underworld' hangs too heavily like an anchor around its neck.

Indeed, you had better take the tagline at the top of the poster which reads 'from the producers of 'Underworld'' seriously. Too faint-hearted to mess with a formula that has worked for four films now, the same team of producers and 'Underworld' co-creator Kevin Grevioux have simply applied the same to their unabashed attempt at replicating its success. And that is precisely what co-writer and director Stuart Beattie has done in his sophomore feature film, which plays like an equally dark but less sexy clone of the decade-old franchise.

Like 'Underworld', the lead protagonist finds himself an outsider caught between two warring factions. Whereas Selene was a human turned vampire who found herself falling in love with a Lycan (or werewolf in short), Adam (Aaron Eckhart) is here a monstrosity borne from Frankenstein's laboratory who finds himself wanted by both the gargoyles and the demons. A freak of nature not of Nature's making, Adam is also thought to be soulless, and therefore a perfect living example of the 'walking dead' whom the demons hope to create by summoning the souls of the damned to inhabit the walking warm bodies on Earth.

By virtue of being an outsider, either protagonist soon realises that he or she can trust neither side. While Selene discovers the ones who killed her family were in fact her own coven of vampires she now calls family, Adam is during the course of the movie betrayed by Gideon (Jai Courtney), the leader of the gargoyle army, and no less than Leonore (Miranda Otto) herself, the angel whom Gideon and his army protect and whom serves as their spiritual link with God. Indeed, both narratives unfold such that their lead protagonist finds himself or herself isolated on either side and is therefore forced to be his or her own best guardian.

That personal battle also has to take place against a much larger canvas in which one side is plotting an ambitiously nefarious plan to once and for all wipe out the other side. In 'Underworld', it is the Lycans who plan to use a human to wipe out the Vampire Elders; while in 'I, Frankenstein', it is Prince Naberius (Bill Nighy) who intends to use Adam himself as a specimen to bring to life an army of corpses to overrun the gargoyles and thereafter exterminate the human race. Is it any surprise that our protagonist will eventually choose to be on the side of good, rather than a blind follower of either faction?

Even if these similarities don't quite register by virtue of the fact that either movie did not have a compelling story to begin with, there's no escaping that the art design of 'Underworld' and 'I, Frankenstein' are strikingly similar. For one, both unfold largely against dim and grim surroundings of moonlight and shadows. For another, there is a distinctive choice to ensure that the entire movie is cast in shades of black, grey and otherwise very dull colours. Yes, there's no escaping the self-seriousness of 'Underworld' or 'I, Frankenstein', which approach their apocalyptic doomsday scenarios with the utmost solemnity.

And yet, their mode of storytelling is first and foremost to ensure an endless stream of VFX-heavy action sequences clearly intended at an attention-deficit audience. More so than Beattie's repertoire of summer blockbusters (think 'Pirates of the Caribbean' and 'G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra'), this clearly eschews plot and character moments over gargoyle-versus-demon action, so don't go in expecting anything more. That being said, it also sees Beattie going bigger than he's ever been with the setpieces, and some of them - such as a daring raid on gargoyle soil by an army of demons - are quite a visual spectacle to behold, particularly in the contrasting use of light and fire whenever a gargoyle or demon is killed.

As is to be expected then, none of the roles call for much from their respective actors - except maybe for Eckhart to look the most buff we've ever recall seeing him been on the screen. Bill Nighy should certainly know - he who plays the chief villain here was also the key baddie in 'Underworld: Evolution'. Certainly, he should be distinctly aware of the intention to recreate the success of the 'Underworld' movies by essentially rehashing the same formula with a different set of monsters. You'll be advised too to toss aside what preconceptions you may have based on Mary Shelley's novel or even Boris Karloff's monosyllabic screen icon; this 'I, Frankenstein' is more 'I, Underworld' than anything else

'I, Frankenstein' was very poorly received by critics, and at the box office. So, why did I enjoy it so much then?

Well, the visual effects, photography and make-up were good. There's demons, gargoyles, Aaron Eckhart, Bill Nighy - who is fantastic as always -, and scruffy and muscular Gideon (Jai Courtney), so why wouldn't I like this film? 'I, Frankenstein' is a twist on the classic Frankenstein tale. In fact, it deviates significantly from what we know about Frankenstein's creation - and I enjoyed this original idea of an age-old tale. Frankenstein's creature is named Adam by the Gargoyle Queen.

Yvonne Strahovski stars as brilliant scientist, Terra, whom I really enjoyed in the film. I liked her involvement - as a human - in a battle between creatures of good and evil. Despite's Adam's inability to show emotion, there somehow was a nice chemistry between him and Terra - not of romantic nature, off course. The film's final moments are action-packed with a bit too much CGI, but I nevertheless enjoyed it.

So, while critics hated the film, I rather enjoyed it, thank you! The ending leaves the door wide open for a sequel. Apparently a sequel was cancelled due to the film's poor performance at the box office. Sadly.

Would I watch it again? Yes.

I definitely saw another movie than the one seen by those who have given this two stars or less, or who complain that they have not seen anything worst than this. Well, they have seen very little or perhaps they have not realized how often they are fed with very bad movie junk, under the disguise of art or top entertainment... As I enjoyed the films animated by Ray Harryhausen, with their cyclops, harpies, Medusas, fighting skeletons, or giants as the unforgettable Thalos (from Jason and the Argonauts), what I saw I enjoyed very much -except for the score, which has become a plague in almost all American cinema of today, a mixture of pastiche sounds inherited from Jerry Goldsmith and all the others, plus the obnoxious little rock number for the end credits. The tension falters a bit in the very last moment, when the thousands of corpses are about to be reanimated, but for the rest it was fine airhead entertainment. If you are looking to have a good time with another fable of the struggle of agents of Good against the Evil, with no romance out of place (between the monster and a scientist?), efficient special effects and the fast rhythm of American (or Australian, for the case) adventure film, watch it, and leave Malick, Weerasethakul or Sorrentino for another time. (P.S. I did not see Mary Shelley's name in big letters in the end credits, so if it is there somewhere, I guess one has to look for it with a magnifying glass, among the endless list of line, executive, associate and whatever producers).