The least loved 'child of horror' out of the big 3 gets another lacklustre turn, this time with Aaron Eckhart (why the hell are you in this?) playing Frankenstein's Monster...which for 99% of the film makes the title of this movie null and very void.
Normally Frankenstein's monster is treated as a stumbling block of hardened clay, his movement reminiscent to someone who has a broomstick firmly stuck up his backside - I figure, that's why he walks that way, but here Frankenstein's monster might have been a kali instructor.
Latter day incarnations of the Frankenstein myth have not really offered themselves up to be as sexy and alluring as the vampires or as visceral, raw and thrilling as any wolf sagas. And it certainly doesn't help that the 2 more aforementioned popular camps are forever combining their lore and leaving poor old Frankenstein out. Think of Colin Farrell in the superior re-make of Fright Night oozing alpha maleness as a totally captivating nemesis, think of Jack Nicholson in Wolf becoming perfectly primal invigorated by his developing power. Well in I, Frankenyawn, the attempt to capitalise on a moody, brooding, ripped-bodied hero is shamingly obvious and the result is more Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing...If Ed Wood had directed it.
"Soooo by-the-numbers is his performance that it mutes any notion that he was actually present during filming..."
First of all the exposition in the first 15 minutes of the prologue is ridiculous, why make a feature length film in the first place when you can have Eckart's annoying narration telling you pretty much everything? The story is basic and totally underwhelming, there is zero character development, which for Frankenstein's monster is the most key component in ANY adaptation. He is not likeable or at least likeable enough to root for and villain Bill Nighy seems to be playing a calmer version of his Underworld character mixed with traits of London gangster. Soooo by-the-numbers is his performance that it mutes any notion that he was actually present during filming - "hello is anybody there *clicks fingers* in front of Bill's face.
The only good thing I can say about the film is that the money is on the screen, yet even in this instance the artistic direction for the effects, as good as they are, have a style that kinda looks dated. Think; The Mummy/Van Helsing/League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and you'll get what I mean.
All-in-all this adaptation is not even a guilty pleasure, it is a pseudo-morose bore, that takes itself too seriously, has no original action scenes. It doesn't really offer an alternative Frankenstein story to make us think what if? It just plods along, torturing us to an inch of ending our lives!
Rating 3/10
Normally Frankenstein's monster is treated as a stumbling block of hardened clay, his movement reminiscent to someone who has a broomstick firmly stuck up his backside - I figure, that's why he walks that way, but here Frankenstein's monster might have been a kali instructor.
Latter day incarnations of the Frankenstein myth have not really offered themselves up to be as sexy and alluring as the vampires or as visceral, raw and thrilling as any wolf sagas. And it certainly doesn't help that the 2 more aforementioned popular camps are forever combining their lore and leaving poor old Frankenstein out. Think of Colin Farrell in the superior re-make of Fright Night oozing alpha maleness as a totally captivating nemesis, think of Jack Nicholson in Wolf becoming perfectly primal invigorated by his developing power. Well in I, Frankenyawn, the attempt to capitalise on a moody, brooding, ripped-bodied hero is shamingly obvious and the result is more Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing...If Ed Wood had directed it.
"Soooo by-the-numbers is his performance that it mutes any notion that he was actually present during filming..."
First of all the exposition in the first 15 minutes of the prologue is ridiculous, why make a feature length film in the first place when you can have Eckart's annoying narration telling you pretty much everything? The story is basic and totally underwhelming, there is zero character development, which for Frankenstein's monster is the most key component in ANY adaptation. He is not likeable or at least likeable enough to root for and villain Bill Nighy seems to be playing a calmer version of his Underworld character mixed with traits of London gangster. Soooo by-the-numbers is his performance that it mutes any notion that he was actually present during filming - "hello is anybody there *clicks fingers* in front of Bill's face.
The only good thing I can say about the film is that the money is on the screen, yet even in this instance the artistic direction for the effects, as good as they are, have a style that kinda looks dated. Think; The Mummy/Van Helsing/League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and you'll get what I mean.
All-in-all this adaptation is not even a guilty pleasure, it is a pseudo-morose bore, that takes itself too seriously, has no original action scenes. It doesn't really offer an alternative Frankenstein story to make us think what if? It just plods along, torturing us to an inch of ending our lives!
Rating 3/10
RSS Feed
