Based on an unpublished graphic novel by Kevin Grevioux, who conceived the story for Underworld and appeared in that film as the Lycan Raze, I, Frankenstein stars Aarok Eckhart as Adam Frankenstein, creation of the eponymous scientist, who becomes embroiled in the ongoing feud between two immortal clans, a story not too dissimilar from Underworld‘s Death Dealers and Lycans. Filmed in Australia in 2012, the post production process pushed the film back to early 2014, and now the first trailer has been released.
Adam Dworak – It’s Underworld meets Van Helsing. I liked Underworld and I liked Van Helsing, so I’m really looking forward to seeing what a conglomeration of the two will be, whether the child will flourish or whether it will be a mutated half breed. Either could be interesting!
The problem is the Creature is too handsome, too modern. He should be a a stitched together monstrosity, a patchwork, not a Versace model. It’s not believable, and it’s certainly not traditional. You also have to remember that Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was one genuine science fiction novels, the Creature is a child of science, but this is supernatural, and it’s a betrayal of the source material.
I miss the time when Hollywood would cast an actor who was right for the part, someone unconventional in an unconventional role, and the two which spring to mind are Warwick Davis as Willow or the cast of Time Bandits, instead of someone who clearly is wrong but the producers want a handsome leading man. It breaks the illusion. What is the point of going to all the effort elsewhere in a film if the focus of every frame is a mistake?
I’m not a fan of Aaron Eckhart, though that may be because I’ve never forgiven him for The Core, but I like Miranda Otto from Lord of the Rings, and Bill Nighy is always good – Shaun of the Dead, Underworld.
I know a lot of people disliked Van Helsing, but it was a piece of summer blockbuster fluff, and it ticked all my boxes, it had vampires, werewolves. Maybe I’m just not as judgemental as some.
Brian Robinson – An interesting idea. Did Shelley’s novel ever describe what happened to the monster after Frankenstein went into the snow after it? No reason why it should be alive after all this time, but it is an interesting idea that it might survive and find an identity. But this reeks of producers and certain comic writers (the graphic novel remains obviously optioned but unpublished at this time) seeing Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and smelling a quick buck.
And then we are met with horrible CG (let it be known that I do not hate CG, per se, just this type of under-developed tat). With no apparent attempt to tell us who the foe is. And how many times do people have to be told that the monster is not called “Frankenstein” and that is has no name?
And then I read, “From the producers of Underworld“. And it all made sense.
And the film lost me forever.
Michael Flett – I had little interest in this to begin with, and now even that has been ripped from within me, beaten, stamped on and set on fire.
What interest I did have was that it was written by Kevin Grevioux, as I do like the Underworld films, which despite their flaws have always been entertaining and stylish, with fantastic design on the costume and sets and perfect casting in Kate Beckinsale’s Selene, a role she was born to play, and the brooding presence of Scott Speedman, well, for two of the four films anyway. But this just looks hideous. Perhaps the phrase “unpublished graphic novel” should have rung alarm bells – the last time we heard that was Oblivion.
No subtlety, no grace, no visible story, just things exploding, things chasing other things, appalling computer generated monsters without even an attempt to make them look realistic or blend them into the backgrounds. It’s screaming like a child for someone to pay attention to it, but it’s not giving me a reason to. What will this film give me that is unique or different that will make it stand out from the crowd?
I suppose I should be grateful that the cast isn’t entirely populated by teenagers. I like Aaron Eckhart, he was great in Thank You For Smoking, he even made The Core enjoyable for the nonsense that it was, and Yvonne Strahovski was fun in Chuck, but I have no idea who her character is supposed to be, nor Bill Nighy, though we know he’ll be excellent whatever he’s given to do, nor Miranda Otto or Jai Courtney.
While the basis is obviously similar to Underworld, a war between two ancient supernatural clans carried into modern times, the film looks like the abomination that was Van Helsing, a film incompetent in every conceivable way, and why anybody would wish to emulate it is a concept which eludes me, and for that I am grateful. It was a film that had no narrative structure whatsoever, was only concerned with ridiculous computer generated “spectacle” which only served to demonstrate how preposterous and out of control the whole thing was.
I can’t help but ask what this trailer is trying to tell me? It is utterly generic, with lots of supposedly weighty proclamations delivered in a vacuum. The only line which made me smile was “Frankenstein must be destroyed,” for reasons which will escape the target teen audience.
Looking at director Stuart Beattie’s credits does not fill me with enthusiasm, with more script credits, usually not as primary writer, including the disappointing 30 Days of Night and G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra, where he was the principal writer and not one person had anything nice to say about it.
The film was originally set for release this February, moved to late summer, moved to next January and converted to 3D and IMAX. It strikes me that they are frantically trying to patch up the turkey, stitc
hing it up like Frankenstein’s monster, but they need more than a lightning bolt to revive it.
I, Frankenstein is scheduled for release on January 24th 2014
I, Frankenstein trailer – reaction
The problem is the Creature is too handsome, too modern. He should be a a stitched together monstrosity, a patchwork, not a Versace model. It’s not believable, and it’s certainly not traditional. You also have to remember that Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was one genuine science fiction novels, the Creature is a child of science, but this is supernatural, and it’s a betrayal of the source material.
I miss the time when Hollywood would cast an actor who was right for the part, someone unconventional in an unconventional role, and the two which spring to mind are Warwick Davis as Willow or the cast of Time Bandits, instead of someone who clearly is wrong but the producers want a handsome leading man. It breaks the illusion. What is the point of going to all the effort elsewhere in a film if the focus of every frame is a mistake?
I know a lot of people disliked Van Helsing, but it was a piece of summer blockbuster fluff, and it ticked all my boxes, it had vampires, werewolves. Maybe I’m just not as judgemental as some.
Brian Robinson – An interesting idea. Did Shelley’s novel ever describe what happened to the monster after Frankenstein went into the snow after it? No reason why it should be alive after all this time, but it is an interesting idea that it might survive and find an identity. But this reeks of producers and certain comic writers (the graphic novel remains obviously optioned but unpublished at this time) seeing Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and smelling a quick buck.
And then I read, “From the producers of Underworld“. And it all made sense.
And the film lost me forever.
Michael Flett – I had little interest in this to begin with, and now even that has been ripped from within me, beaten, stamped on and set on fire.
No subtlety, no grace, no visible story, just things exploding, things chasing other things, appalling computer generated monsters without even an attempt to make them look realistic or blend them into the backgrounds. It’s screaming like a child for someone to pay attention to it, but it’s not giving me a reason to. What will this film give me that is unique or different that will make it stand out from the crowd?
While the basis is obviously similar to Underworld, a war between two ancient supernatural clans carried into modern times, the film looks like the abomination that was Van Helsing, a film incompetent in every conceivable way, and why anybody would wish to emulate it is a concept which eludes me, and for that I am grateful. It was a film that had no narrative structure whatsoever, was only concerned with ridiculous computer generated “spectacle” which only served to demonstrate how preposterous and out of control the whole thing was.
Looking at director Stuart Beattie’s credits does not fill me with enthusiasm, with more script credits, usually not as primary writer, including the disappointing 30 Days of Night and G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra, where he was the principal writer and not one person had anything nice to say about it.
The film was originally set for release this February, moved to late summer, moved to next January and converted to 3D and IMAX. It strikes me that they are frantically trying to patch up the turkey, stitc
hing it up like Frankenstein’s monster, but they need more than a lightning bolt to revive it.
I, Frankenstein is scheduled for release on January 24th 2014
Comments
Related Posts