Frankenstein: Entre Anjos e Demônios

I must admit that I enjoyed watching this supernatural action flick heavy on CGI effects despite its flaws. I wondered why afterwards. First, it seemed to follow from the book events and made a good point that the creature is not actually called Frankenstein. However, the "creature" itself, played by a strong Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent in Dark Knight) did not look like any previous incarnation. Mostly, it looked like a normal-sized, muscular, even handsome man with scars, not like a tall, grotesque, patchwork of a man as it should have been. So, the film following this trend of making "monsters" sexy bugged me, but the performance of Eckhart won me over. He might not have emoted much, as befitted the character who didn't learn how, but he certainly had the charisma and gravitas necessary. He didn't look the part but he acted the haunted, grim part very well.

So, the story starts not long after the end of the Frankenstein book by Mary Shelley at the end of the 18th century (1795). While burying his creator, Frankenstein, he find himself attacked by "evil" demons (who look like men, but with demonic faces sometimes) and rescued by, of all things, "good" gargoyles (who look human except when they're CGI gargoyles). The creature is brought to the gargoyle leader and quickly given a name, Adam. He's made an offer to join them in a secret war against the demons over humanity's fate. He declines and lives the next 200 years alone (would have been nice to see, but glossed over in a few minutes), defending against demons. Cue modern day, where his presence is revealed once more to the demons who are trying to bring back life to dead bodies for their own purposes.

So, instead of the overbooked vampires and werewolves, we have demons against gargoyles, plus Frankenstein's creature thrown in to act as wild card. I, for one, found that refreshing. However, the demons looked and acted like standard evil vampires, except when you saw their red eyes or their faces reverting to demonic. Except for their sophisticated leader, they were quite underwhelming and even boring from lack of personality. The gargoyles fared a little better, switching from medieval-looking, grey-tunic-wearing human warriors to big, winged stone gargoyles like you see on some old churches. They were supposed to be good (angels in disguise), but I liked their ambiguity. I didn't initially care for their obvious CGI looks, but they eventually grew on me, and who knows what animated gargoyles might look like anyway.

Foremost, this is an action flick, not really drama or horror, so it doesn't delve much on the inner psychological turmoils of Adam or his everyday "normal" life, nor does it try to scare or gross you out. However, the somber, tormented portrayal by Aaron Eckhart (mostly with his face and eyes) made him an interesting anti-hero. The action itself was peculiar. There were cool set pieces where tons of demons fought gargoyles around a very impressive-looking Gothic church. It had an epic feel to it, it was quite exciting, but you seemed distanced from the action because it cut things fast and the camera often pulled back. Also, there was a particular vibe as the numerous, weak demons were mostly slaughtered by the fewer, powerful flying gargoyles. It was usually one blow, one kill. On the other hand, you had one-on-one fights involving Adam that were very good for the most part. There were still quick cuts, but it wasn't abusive, sometimes lingering a bit on an angle, making for more involving and easier-to-follow battles. The musical soundtrack was better than expected with epic-sounding classical music and dramatic choruses.

Storywise, I found the concept interesting, the demons' motivation made sense, and it didn't hinder my enjoyment with too much obvious stupidity, except a few places where I thought things were just too convenient (like no civilians in the streets or the "secret" base of the demons being so close to the church of the gargoyles). The dialogue seemed awkward or cliché at times, but it was said with such sincerity that it passed through anyway except for a few chuckles from the audience. I liked watching the film, but I don't think I would have wanted to pay full price for it in theatres though. It was like a summer blockbuster but in the middle of the winter.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10 (Good)

The Frankenstein origin story a bit tweaked. I'm guessing you're familiar with it, not only because of countless movies being made about it, but because of the original story too. Or maybe you just heard about it. This takes a more fantastical turn for it and tries to make it as entertaining as possible.

It's not a classic or anything that will be remembered as a great movie. It can be an entertaining watch though, if you let it. The lead character is interesting enough and the origin story or the story in general is told decently enough. It's a family movie so don't expect it to be too violent or too extreme in some regards. Just take it for what it is and try to enjoy it

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.

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/