Escape to the Movies: I, Frankenstein
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
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.
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.
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."
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.
So it's probably because of that, not just a random name pulled out of nowhere.
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.CriticalMiss said:
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
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
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 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 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.Mr.Pandah said:
And Gargoyles? Fuck yeah!
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.SnakeoilSage said:
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?)
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?)
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.
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.
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.JenSeven said:
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...
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...