I, Frankenstein Review

I'm sure some movies sound much better on paper than they do on screen. I'm sure that some movies start out as half-baked ideas and then get put into production before those ideas can be solidified into something coherent. And I'm sure some studios count on flashy special effects to hide the fact that the movie makes no sense. After seeing I, Frankenstein (2014) I am confident that all of these were the case for this outlandish and ludicrous movie.

Dr. Victor Frankenstein dies frozen to death and the creature he created buries him at the Frankenstein family cemetery. Immediately following the burial, the creature is attacked by demons. He kills one of them and is rescued by a band of Gargoyles who take him to a Cathedral where the Gargoyles Order gathers. The Queen of the Gargoyles, Leonore (Mirando Otto), keeps Dr. Frankenstein's journal together with the treasures of the Order and gives the name of Adam (Aaron Eckhart) to the creature. She then explains to Adam that there is an ancient war between the angelic Gargoyles and the demons whom are under the command of the demon Prince Neberius (Bill Nighy). She also invites Adam to join the Gargoyles in the war against the demons, but Adam prefers to isolate himself in a remote place. Two hundred years later, Adam returns and finds a modern society. Soon he learns that Naberius has the intention of creating an army of soulless corpses to be possessed by demons. The scientist Terra (Yvonne Strahovski) is researching a process to create life and Naberius is seeking Dr. Frankenstein's Journal to help Terra raise his army.

If that summary didn't sound stupid enough, let me explain further why this movie is so dumb.

We establish early on that this is a secret war that has been going on for centuries, and it must be hidden from the humans. For starters, I don't understand why it should be kept from humans. The world is at risk of being overrun by demonic forces who will destroy the world for some reason; if that reason was addressed, I must have missed it. The angelic gargoyles' numbers are low and need all the help they can get. Why keep humans out of it? And why do the demons agree to this rule of the secret war? They seem to avoid making a spectacle in front of humans as well. Furthermore, where are the humans anyway? When Adam returns to civilization we see him taking in how society has changed by seeing him stand amidst about eight people in a cramped alleyway. There is one human apart from Terra who gets maybe two lines before being killed by a demon, and that's it. The movie takes place primarily in a sprawling metropolis that doesn't seem to be inhabited by anyone. Most of the buildings we see are dilapidated, abandoned wrecks. Who is this war being hidden from?

Another weird thing is Frankenstein's creature. Most movies have depicted him as a lumbering awkward hulking monster, and reasonably so being a creature made up of mismatched body parts. But here he mostly looks like some muscular pretty guy with some stitches here and there. Frankenstein's monster wasn't meant to be an action hero, and this movie unintentionally proves it. I like Aaron Eckhart as an actor, but he just never struck me as a "Frankenstein" sort of person and he certainly doesn't look like one in this movie. I've also seek Eckhart play some fantastic roles, one of my favorites being Harvey Dent/Two-Face in The Dark Knight. You can see in his eyes his desperate attempt to make this movie work. He looks like he thinks the script sucks and doing his utmost to save it by acting his part really well. But the script doesn't lend itself to depth of character, theme, or story and Eckhart's acting ends up seeming desperate and overcompensating. I did like that Adam was not taking sides, he was kind of a wild card that could tip the balance of the war either way, but he still sticks to what he wants and to his own set of morality. This isn't terribly interesting or unique; it's a action hero trope that works, and it worked just fine here even if it was applied to a completely out of place character from classic literature.

This was a fairly low budget movie with a lot of very busy CGI artist. The special effects were alright overall. The gargoyles looked pretty good when not in human form. The demons in demon form looked a bit silly; like people wearing silicone movie monster masks. The action was decent, though sometimes hard to take seriously even for otherworldly beings with supernatural strength. It reminded me a lot of Van Helsing; it featured lots of CGI with actors in front of green screens. Van Helsing was stupid, but fun, and admittedly a guilty pleasure of mine. I, Frankenstein is just stupid. It can't be considered a guilty pleasure; just guilty.

I, Frankenstein was visually loud, with an incoherent story which made little sense, and was tedious to watch. The cast is made up of actors I've seen perform much better in other movies. Many of them seem to be trying to salvage this train wreck of a script, but the script simply gives them garbage to work with. I truly didn't care about any of the characters nor how the story concluded. I, Frankenstein wasn't just bad, it was REALLY bad. It's the kind of movie whose only redeeming value it to watch it with a bunch of friends with the sole intent of riffing and joking about it. This is not worth your time unless you want to make fun of it. As of writing this it's currently streaming on NetFlix, which is the only way it's worth watching; it's not even worth the cost to rent it.

What is one of your guilty pleasure movies? I'm a fan of Van Helsing and (brace yourself) Super Mario Bros. I owned up and told you mine, now comment below and tell me yours!

FairyTale: A True Story Review

This movie keeps coming to mind lately. I remember seeing FairyTale: A True Story (1997) shortly after it hit home video and not being particularly impressed by it, but even after sixteen years I can still distinctly remember some of the visuals.

It's 1917 in West Yorkshire, England. Arthur (The Doctor Paul McGann) and Polly Wright (Phoebe Nicholls) and their twelve-year-old daughter Elsie (Florence Hoath) are still grieving over the death of Elsie's younger brother. Polly's eight-year-old niece Frances Griffiths (Elizabeth Earl) has come to stay with them after her father was declared missing in action during World War I. Polly longs for some sort of proof that there is a life beyond our own, while the two girls zealously believe in fairies and enthusiastically study legend and lore. One day, Elsie and Frances produce photographs of fairies that they claim were playing in their garden; Polly believes that they are real, and soon the snapshots attract international attention. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Peter O'Toole), author of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries and a confirmed spiritualist, declares the photos "as genuine as the King's beard," while illusionist Harry Houdini (Harvey Keitel), who has devoted much of his time and energy to exposing phony mediums and psychics, takes a more skeptical view.

It's true that two English girls produced photographs that showed themselves with fairies in 1917. The photographs were published in a national magazine by  Conan Doyle, who vouched for their authenticity. The "Cottingley Fairies" created an international sensation , though there were many doubters. Many years later, when the two girls were old ladies, they confessed that the photos were a hoax. Everything else that makes up the bulk of this movie was produced as "creative liberties" to tell a fun story. That little tidbit makes the subtitle, "A True Story," effectively a falsehood.

On the other hand, that's kind of the point of this story; questioning truth. There is truth and there is falsehood, and they are not always easily distinguishable. Somewhere between what is true and what is false lies the nebulous grey area that we often like to call magic. That magic is very enticing and can grant us hope in the face the ugly truths and the enticing falsehoods. This movie is about that "magic" and how everyone responds to it in different ways. It would be very easy to extrapolate religious themes from this movie, but thematically it remains firmly rooted in the whimsical.

Yes, there are fairies in this movie. We see them. We even see them when there are no human characters around. That should suggest either that they actually do exist in the world of this movie or we, the audience, believe in fairies. It would make more sense if the fairies only appeared to the girls. The movie may have been trying to get the audience to reflect on how they react to mystical things, but if that was the case, it didn't do a very convincing job. The fairies don't do much; they are so busy expressing their fairy-ness that don't seem to have time to be anything else--like interesting characters for example. While we do see the fairies on screen once in a while, they tend to be a McGuffin (an object or device in a work of fiction that serves merely as a trigger for the plot) rather that something that affects the story directly.

What wins me over so much in this movie is the sets. We're in post-World War I England and the sets and costumes are astoundingly convincing! We get some gorgeous views of the British countryside, some old cottages and buildings that were probably built before the early 1900's and are likely still standing and functional today. The Wright family cottage looks highly detailed but has a very believable lived-in feel to it. It really captures the lifestyle of the time and looks so pleasant and quaint.

FairyTale: A True Story is a nice, cute, innocent story that features some pretty good actors, some amazing sets, an acceptable script, an interesting theme which draws no discernible conclusion, and some decent special effects which seem only slightly dated sixteen years later. This is a nice, clean movie that the whole family can watch. Children will not be concerned by the vagueness of the theme or with the questions the movie doesn't quite answer. If you've got kids at home this is worth catching on NetFlix Instant Play to watch with them. Overall it's not a bad movie, but I wouldn't spend money on purchasing a copy.

I like the idea of a movie based on a famous hoax. I would love to see a movie about Orson Well's 1938 War of the Worlds Broadcast, where everyone thought the world actually was being invaded my Martians. A movie about that production and the ensuing panic would be really interesting. What's another famous historical hoax you would like to see a movie about? Comment below and tell me all about it!

Jack the Giant Slayer Movie Review

Several dark fairy tale revisions have come out in the past couple of years. Alice in Wonderland, Red Riding Hood, and Snow White and the Huntsman have been darker, edgier retellings of well known fantasy stories. While they aren't at fault for having female protagonists by any means, I'm glad we got a fairy tale movie with a male protagonist in Jack the Giant Slayer (2013).

Jack's (Nicholas Hoult) family farm is near ruin and goes to sell his horse at the castle village. A strange monk gives Jack a small bag of magical beans as collateral for promised money in exchange for the horse. That evening the runaway princess Isabella (Eleanor Tomlinson) arrives at Jack's cottage to escape the rain. After one of the beans falls between the floorboards, the cottage is caught in a giant beanstalk growing miles high. Isabella is trapped in the cottage while Jack falls to the ground. The King (Ian McShane) orders the leader of the elite guard, Elmont (Ewan McGregor), to lead some men up the beanstalk to save his daughter, Lord Roderick (Stanley Tucci), a noble meant to marry the princess, but seems to have ulterior motives, and Jack accompany them. At the top they discover the legendary realm of the giants, but when Fallon, (Bill Nighy) the leader of the giants, discovers the humans, he plans to use the beanstalk to reclaim to the land below.

Jack and the Beanstalk has always been a favorite fairy tale of mine. I'm delighted to say that this version is a exciting, original, and entertaining adventure. Like Snow White and the Huntsman, Jack the Giant Slayer has all the elements you expect from the original tale; selling farm animals for magic beans, gigantic beanstalks, man eating giants, the "Fee-fi-fo-fum" line, etc. It's a respectable adaptation of the original fairy tale while still throwing a bunch of new twists and turns at us, yet the new elements still seem like the stuff of classic fairy tales and don't seem out of sorts in the movie.

Jack the Giant Slayer was directed by Bryan Singer who is known for directing or producing the three good X-Men movies out of the five that are currently out. Like his other movies, Jack the Giant Slayer was very visually based and special effects intensive. Yet like the [good] X-Men movies, there is a nice balance of story and visual effects. There are several points in the movie I just had to step back and marvel at the detail in the visual effects. Not everything was CGI, though; we saw some gorgeous countryside scenery and some very elaborate sets. Exterior shots of Isabella's castle had to be digital imagery, but most of the interior shots looked like actual sets, and they were very impressive.

The characters aren't the main focus of the movie, the visual effects are. The giants are all computer animated, but they still move in a lifelike way, and as if they have a weight to them. It's pretty distracting when a computer-animated creature in a movie moves like it weighs nothing; it's like the movie screams, "Hey! This is fake!" But even things like the miles-high beanstalk being chopped down were well animated. A beanstalk that grows miles high is going to be extremely heavy and will likely cause considerable damage when chopped down. Jack the Giant Slayer did all that and more. It was genuinely fun to watch.

Jack the Giant Slayer was a fun movie. The characters were predictable, but were played by some excellent actors. The special effects were amazing and well executed. There is lots of action, a few laughs, plenty of unexpected twists and turns, and several moments that cause you to go, "Wow, that was cool!" There are parts that are predictable, but the movie presents them in unique and creative ways. I'd say it's an above average renter, but if you can catch it in theaters it's really exciting and fun on the big screen. I may get a copy on Blu-Ray when it becomes available.

What's a dark fairy tale movie you'd like to see made in the future? I think a dark, medieval Beauty and the Beast would be pretty amazing. Comment below and tell me all about it!

Wrath of the Titans Movie Review

Back in 1981, a special effects move was released called Clash of the Titans. It featured some fairly impressive stop-motion animation coupled with live actors. It's a cheesy classic that few people seem to remember. In 2010 was a cutting-edge remake that was basically a special effects fest. It was pretty fun, but couldn't be taken very seriously. Box office successes deserve sequels, right? So Wrath of the Titans (2012), a sequel of a remake of a old cheesy movie, was made. Why did they think this was a good idea?

A decade after his heroic defeat of the monstrous Kraken, Perseus (Sam Worthington) the demigod son of Zeus (Liam Neeson) is trying to live quieter life as a village fisherman as the only parent of his 10-year-old son Helius (John Bell). Meanwhile, a struggle for supremacy rages between the gods and Titans. Dangerously weakened by humanity's lack of devotion, the gods are losing control of the imprisoned Titans and their ferocious leader, Kronos, father of the long-ruling brothers Zeus, Hades (Ralph Fiennes), and Poseidon (Danny Huston). Their unity had overthrown their powerful father long ago, leaving him to rot in the abyss of Tartarus, a dungeon that lies deep within the cavernous underworld. Perseus cannot ignore his true calling when Hades along with Zeus's godly son, Ares (Edgar Ramirez) switch loyalty and make a deal with Kronos to capture Zeus. The Titan Kronos' strength grows stronger as Zeus' remaining godly powers are siphoned. If Kronos is able to escape Tartarus, it will mean the end of the world.

The cast that appears in this movie had to have been contractually obligated to take up these roles again for this sequel. Liam Neeson is known for some outstanding roles; Oskar Schindler in Schindler's List, Henri Ducard in Batman Begins, even some of the lousy movies he's appeared in like Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and Battleship were made slightly better just because he's in them. One of the best reasons to watch the 2010 Clash of the Titans was to hear him say, “Release the Kraken!” Then there is Ralph Fiennes reprising his role as Hades. He's a stellar actor who will likely be remembered forever as Lord Voldemort. Bill Nighy even appears for a short while. All these actors are exceptional, but given the terrible script and and sloppy story, I can't imagine why they would consent to appear in this movie. Sam Worthington's acting hasn't improved, and the only real change we see in the character is he now has a stupid-looking haircut.

The script in Wrath of the Titans is ridiculous to say the least. Right from the opening character introductions, the dialogue is awkward, forced, and corny. One of the villagers in Perseus' community approaches him and basically says, “Well, hi there! You are Perseus. You defeated the Kraken exactly ten years ago. You are the son of Zeus. You fight good. Now everyone knows what happened in the last movie. I will now remind you that you have a son who will probably fight as well as you did. For the sake of the audience I'll also remind you that I have asked you before, but do you intend to teach your son to fight?” I'm exaggerating only a little bit. No one causally walks up to someone and reminds them of their personal history and reputation as if it was a conversation starter. Sadly, it doesn't get any better after that. Fortunately, later on there's too much action for us to notice much of the laughable dialogue the characters are shouting at one another.

Like its predecessor, Wrath of the Titans is a special effects fest. The CGI artwork was actually quite good. Lots of fireballs, exploding mountains, ugly monsters, and moving labyrinth walls. The scene that has Perseus and company braving the labyrinth that surrounds Tartarus is an intricate one. The walls moved constantly; halls became dead ends, narrow corridors crushed in on our heroes, and floors withdrew themselves from underfoot. It's was like a gigantic stone clockwork device that could sense where the human-size gods were and tried to destroy them. The monsters and titans were fairly detailed and well animated for the most part. That has to be the most pathetic excuse for a minotaur I've ever seen, though; it looked more like an ugly human with horns. The minotaur scene was so short, I'm not even sure why they bothered including it.

There have been movies made where the excellent implementation of special effects are what made the movie worth watching. Wrath of the Titans is not one of those movies. The special effects and CGI work was excellent, even if the scale and spacing was vague. The characters were shallow and uninteresting, the script was laughable and poorly written, and the story was murky and incomprehensible. That significantly weakened my ability to enjoy the special effects and action. The production itself was way below the talents of most of the actors involved, but I'll excuse them on the grounds that they were probably under contract. Wrath of the Titans was not a good movie; it was not even a decent sequel. If you really want to see some fun Grecian gods clash, just stick with Clash of the Titans. It's silly and over the top, but it's fun. Don't bother with Wrath of the Titans, it's just not worth the money to even rent it.

Do you have a favorite "Greek Epic?" I thought Ben Hur was pretty good. What's your favorite? Comment below and tell me all about it!

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Movie Review

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a sci-fi/British comedy series by Douglas Adams. It started out as a radio show on BBC Radio 4 in 1978 and was later adapted into other formats. The most popular of these formats is a set of five books that make up the “Hitchhiker’s Trilogy.” It has become a multimedia phenomenon; other adaptations include stage shows, comic books, a TV series, a computer game, and additional radio shows. Finally in 2005, a much anticipated movie was released with posthumous credit to Douglas Adams as a producer and screenplay writer. Hitchhiker’s Guide is a fun outer space romp, but seems to have been made more for existing fans than a means of indoctrinating newcomers on the usefulness of a Babel fish.

Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman) is an ordinary man who is having an unusual day. He discovers that his best friend, Ford Prefect (Mos Def), is actually an alien. Ford tells him that the planet Earth is going to be destroyed so that other aliens can make room for a hyperspace bypass. Since Arthur accidentally saved Ford’s life years ago, Ford returns the favor by helping Arthur hitch a ride on a passing spaceship and then giving him a guidebook that tells a beginner everything he needs to know as he hitchhikes through outer space. They hitch a ride with the incompetent president of the galaxy, Zaphod Beebelbrox (Sam Rockwell), on his stolen spaceship, The Heart of Gold. Also on board is Tricia McMillan (Zooey Deschanel), an earth girl that Arthur had previously met and fallen in love with, and the perpetually glum robot, Marvin (Alan Rickman). They are being chased by a fleet of Vogons intent on bringing President Beebelbrox and The Heart of Gold home. Meanwhile Zaphod seeks the legendary computer that will tell him the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything (in the interest of fame and fortune, of course).

The story in Hitchhiker’s Guide is influenced by the first four original radio shows as well as the novel. It is full of ironic, dry British humor as well as some totally wacky randomness. For an action comedy, it’s not bad. But if you’re unfamiliar with the source material, some of the humor may be lost to you. It’s almost as if the script sometimes has only part of the joke; if you don’t already know what multi-functional towels actually are, then seeing Ford use one as a weapon or umbrella just won’t be as funny.

The movie captures the curious, quasi-spiritual nature of Douglas Adams’ philosophies and satirical opinions.  There is a lot of unflattering commentary about the mundanity of life and the stupidity of human constructs, while also talking about the value of life and the happiness to be found therein. The Vogons seem to encapsulate all that is tedious, dull, and lifeless. The in-movie book (voiced by Stephen Fry) says this about Vogons. “Not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious, and callous. They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the ravenous Bug-Blatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, lost, found, queried, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighter.” I can’t help but wonder what kind of experiences Adams had to get this kind of amusingly bleak view of the world.

One of the neat things about Hitchhikers Guide is the special effects. Sure there’s plenty of computer generated effects, but they use a lot of practical effects, too. All of the aliens are brilliantly constructed by the Jim Henson’s Creature Shop; this gives them a very realistic and organic quality to them. There is a difference when actors have something to actually interact with rather than being told where to look and having a digitally animated creature put in later. There are other puppets used when Ford and Arthur find themselves temporarily turned into sofas, and even a brief section of stop-motion animation when everyone is made of yarn. It gives the film more heart than if everything was done exclusively with CGI effects.

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was a fun movie. It has a pretty good cast with brief appearances from John Malkovich and Bill Nighy. The effects were fun, and complemented the film well. The lighting and camera work was pretty impressive. The art design was diverse and stimulating to watch. But if you aren’t already a fan of either British comedy or the geeky Hitchhiker’s Guide cult following, you probably won’t enjoy it all that much. It’s not a film for the ages, but it seems to have become a cult classic. I own a copy and enjoy it from time to time.

What is your favorite cult classic movie? Comment below and tell me all about it!