The Ideological Content Analysis 30 Days Putsch:
30 Reviews in 30 Days
DAY ONE
Never mind the quaintly underachieving likes of Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster (1965) or Jesse James Meets Frankenstein’s Daughter (1966). These movies are masterpieces compared to I, Frankenstein, positively the worst appropriation of Mary Shelley’s story this writer has ever seen. It wants desperately to be The Matrix, but this humorless CGI phantasmagoria bears more resemblance to the hallucinations of a subnormal and unimaginative ten-year-old boy given a tab of LSD. The comic book plot has Frankenstein’s monster (dubbed “Adam” here, because calling anybody a “monster” in this day and age would be insensitively judgmental), played by Aaron Eckhart, teaming up with an army of gargoyles committed to protecting humanity from “dark prince” Naberius (Bill Nighy).
In terms of screen presence, the question of the relative power of demons, corpses, and gargoyles to inspire audience sympathy would seem to be academic, so that I, Frankenstein’s tableaux of legions of devils being blasted into fiery smithereens carries no more human interest than a war of several strains of bacteria viewed through a microscope. Beyond “look at all the surging colors”, there is really very little to say. Unless the reader finds himself enthralled at the prospect of ninety minutes of actors saying things like, “The gargoyle order must survive, and mankind with it”, or has always dreamed of seeing Aaron Eckhart writhing and screaming to sell the effect of computer-generated flame-tentacles burrowing into his eye sockets, there is nothing to recommend this film, which is possibly even more appalling than Dracula Untold.
A star and a half. Ideological Content Analysis indicates that I, Frankenstein is:
4. Pro-torture. “Descend in pain, demon,” Adam tells an enemy after shoving his face in holy water for enhanced interrogation.
3. Ostensibly Christian, but misleadingly so. “Any objects can be made sacramental by marking them with the blessed symbol of the gargoyle order,” the viewer learns.
2. Anti-capitalistic. Naberius takes the earthly form of a corporate executive, with his demon minions all wearing suits and ties like the agents from the Matrix franchise.
1. Multiculturalist, anti-white, and pro-miscegenation. An army of multicultural gargoyles battles white guy demons in suits (plus one token Uncle Tom demon). A white warrior woman prefers to join her brown boyfriend in death rather than live without him. One might pity an actor as classy as Bill Nighy for being criminally miscast in such a retarded dud if not for the certainty that he was paid handsomely for his part in representing refined European man as demonic and therefore disposable.
Have shopping to do and want to support icareviews? The author receives a small commission for Amazon purchases made through this link: http://amzn.to/1P3Rvze
Totally off topic, but as it’s Halloween and you are the film reviewer guy, what did you make of the Nightmare on Elm Street series? They were pretty much the only horror movies I watched as a kid.
That’s a series I was never deeply into. I enjoyed the first film, which I actually didn’t get around to seeing until I was an adult; but I think the only one I actually saw when I was a kid was part 4. I do intend to watch all of those eventually, but you’re more likely to catch me watching more conventional human slashers as far as 80s horror goes. If you’re a Nightmare on Elm Street fan, you should check out a Dennis Quaid movie called Dreamscape. It came out the year before Craven’s hit and features key elements – you can die in real life if killed in dreams, killer with claws – that would also figure in the Nightmare series. I will add that I am a fan of the 80s/90s vogue for horror characters who spout corny one-liners after killing people. A venerable tradition lost in the age of torture porn.
I saw Dreamscape as a kid, on cable, and loved it.
I was never really “into” Elm Street, I saw the first one and loved it, it was quite scary. I saw part 3 in the theater when I snuck in with my girlfriend when we were like 14, but we didn’t really see much of the movie because, well, we were 14.
I’m sure I’ve seen the other ones at some point but can’t remember them. The one where Freddy haunts the filmmakers – supposedly the original “meta-horror film” idea behind “Scream” – was supposedly ahead of its time but I don’t think I’ve seen that.
I hear the 2010 remake is closer to the original idea but reviewers said it was too “corporate” and too much obvious CGI to be really effective.
I’ve never really been into horror movies but after reading E. Michael Jones’ stuff about horror movies as a sort-of backlash to the sexual revolution I’ve been thinking about them more.
I think the original Scream was a movie called Evil Laugh. Not a very good film, and extremely low-budget, but the basic concept of the self-aware horror movie characters is already in place. Came out in the mid-80s.
Oh, also, on the topic of horror films.
The classic Evil Dead was essentially about a bad LSD trip gone wrong. The visuals and the timing of the film make it so, so obvious.
Kinds go camping for a weekend, drop acid, freak out and kill each other.
I finally watched Donnie Darko earlier today, and it uses clips from Evil Dead in an inventive way. (Oddly, it’s paired as a double bill with The Last Temptation of Christ on the theater marquee.) Donnie Darko is a weird movie, and even weirder given that 9/11 happened the same year it was made. An airplane engine mysteriously falls on Donnie’s house, and his family is asked to sign agreements not to speak about the circumstances of the case with anyone. The story is concerned with a warning from the future about an impending “end of the world” scenario.
I watched Donnie Darko a long time ago, there was a lot of hype around and the connection to 9/11 was discussed in the commentary I think.
It amazes me how Hollywood has stolen so many stories and characters only to intentionally mutilate and warp them beyond all recognition.
For instance the original Frankenstein from the early 30’s had precious little to do with the work it was lifted from and each following remake just got progressively more bizarre. Why they even bother saying their films are based on anything when they just go ahead and do their own weird shit anyway is beyond me.
I guess they feel associating their crap with a respected literary work will make the crap seem meaningful to stupid or stoned people.
Now that special effects are so cheap and easy it seems they don’t even try anymore.
Yeah, the movie is wall-to-wall special effects. So boring. There’s some window dressing about whether or not the creature has a soul, but it’s really all about the CGI action sequences. Even that Transformers movie I saw had ten times the sophistication of this turkey turd.
Movies have potential, but they will never be all that they can be for as long as soulless demons have control over the medium.