V/H/S/2 - a 'found footage' anthology movie that actually works

The concept of V/H/S/2, and the original, sounds like it shouldn’t work intrinsically. Combine a horror anthology film (a risky bet at best) with a found footage film (a tired concept long since worn out its welcome). Together they shouldn’t work (and in the case of the original V/H/S, didn’t), but V/H/S/2 manages to pull it off, providing a horror anthology that’s a lot of fun.

You might ask why I’m doing the sequel instead of the original, and the answer is easy; I’d much rather talk about a good movie I liked than a crap one that I didn’t. The original V/H/S was garbage, with boring stories that dragged and lacked in creativity and an overreliance on the same tired, annoying clichés and techniques that have hounded ‘found footage’ since the genre’s beginnings.

Anthology films are a hard bet as they’re only as strong as the combined parts, and if even one of them is bad then the overall film suffers as a result .You can’t have one good segment and two bad ones. My problem with the original V/H/S was that the duds were real duds, the sort of boring ill-made slogs you wish were just over, and the film was made up entirely of duds.  

V/H/S/2, on the other hand, mostly avoids these issues and instead uses a mix of creativity and confidence to showcase four fun segments. V/H/S/2 is a far better movie overall, where even the weaker segments are still a lot of fun. V/H/S/2 is comprised of four horror stories, each from a different director, with a fifth framing segment. The films, with the exception of the framing segment, also manage to avoid most of the pratfalls of found footage films by not having the characters lug a camera around. Instead the cameras are mostly hands-free, with the film sources being hidden cameras, helmet-mounted ones and even a bionic eye. This means the characters can actually act like people, using their hands and doing everything that it takes to survive (you never feel compelled to yell ‘drop the camera you idiot’ at the screen, which is essentially the basis for a drinking game when you watch ‘Cloverfield’).

One funny bit of nonsense; though the film is called VHS and concerns itself with VHS tapes, the sources of the ‘found footage’ would never be put on a VHS format. The GoPro camera and bionic eye are digital, while the video cameras used in the other films use much smaller tapes, which would then be converted to discs. It’s pure nostalgia why VHS tapes were the chosen media (the film was produced by a horror website, the sort that views horror in blood-covered nostalgia goggles and pine for the old video-store VHS days of horror). 

Because an anthology film is only as strong as its parts, I’ll be looking at each individual segment.

~

Tape 49

The wraparound framing segment is easily the weakest part of the movie, offering a flimsy excuse for why all these stories are being told. Two private investigators are sent to search for a missing college student. When they find the squalid apartment he was living in, they find a bunch of VHS tapes. For ill-defined reasons the detectives decide to stop doing their jobs and watch some of the tapes, thinking they’ll discover some clues to the missing person’s whereabouts. It’s a weak wrap-around segment that suits no purpose, ending on a really dumb note for a weak final scare. Still it does its job of giving a breather between the different segments, and each segment is over pretty quickly.

~

Phase 1 Clinical Trials

A man who has lost an eye agrees to a clinical trial where a bionic eye is implanted in his socket. The eye is outfitted with a camera to monitor how well it works. He goes home, happy with the implant but concerned about his life being filmed. Things get concerning when he begins to see deadly apparitions who are out to get him. He meets a woman whose bionic cochlear implant makes her hear these apparitions, which get more aggressive when they are noticed. Together the two try and cope with the changes, while the apparitions start to get more and more violent. It’s a fun concept, giving an interesting take on a ghost story, and ramps up the tension really well.

Overall it works pretty well. The bionic eye concept manages to work, with the occasional ‘blink’ adding some authenticity. It also captures the freaky magic of this sort of horror, with many scenes of some horrible spirit only barely captured as the camera turns away. There are issues, such as a sex scene added for no other reason than to add some nudity which feels out of place. Also the ghosts downright cling to tired clichés (Little girl in a blood-stained white dress? The Shining called and it wants its ghosts back). All in all it’s a decent beginning to the film, starting slowly and building up to a nice (if not sudden) crescendo. The second segment then hits the ground running pretty quickly.
~
A Ride in the Park

A cyclist with one of those Go-Pro cameras strapped to his helmet is riding through the woods and gets attacked and killed by a zombie. He quickly reanimates and goes on a killing spree in a zombified form, with more zombies joining him. So basically it’s a little bit of gory action from the zombie’s perspective. It lacks anything in terms of plot or characterisation, but it does what it does well, with some decent first-person cannibalism. For the second segment it may lack in substance, but it’ll keep you entertained with its high energy and nice gore. It also has a perfect length, clocking in at less than fifteen minutes, just enough time to get to the point without wearing out its welcome.

~

Safe Haven

And here it is, the absolute best segment in the movie. This thing is so great it could be a standalone short, like something from that Masters of Horror TV series. Hell, it’s so great that I’d recommend watching V/H/S 2 just for this segment. It’s creative, it’s violent, it’s creepy, it is downright freaky and a whole lot of fun.

A film crew enter the compound of a mysterious Indonesian cult under the guise of interviewing its leader and founder. Secretly they’re there to investigate claims of child abuse and brainwashing within the walls. As the main crew interview the leader, the other film crew members, outfitted with hidden cameras and mikes, tour the compound, finding strange things and a general uncomfortable atmosphere. Then a bell begins to toll and all hell breaks loose.

I don’t want to spoil anything here, but things continually amp up, adding surprising new dimensions at every opportunity. It keeps things exciting. Once again there is minimal characterisation given to the film crew, with most members simply there just to be added to the body count, but it doesn’t matter because the found footage concept works here. This becomes genuinely exciting, a voyeuristic, high-octane haunted house ride/fight for survival where every turn has something freaky.

The filmmakers (it was co-directed by the director of ‘The Raid’ and the director of ‘Macabre’) understand exactly what makes this sort of film work, keeping a breakneck pace and not being afraid to push it to the limit.

~

Slumber Party Alien Abduction

Pretty self-explanatory. A bunch of kids and teens are having a slumber party, getting up to all sorts of mischief. They’ve attached a camera to the back of their dog to capture all the silliness, but things go awry when aliens appear to kill/abduct them. And that’s about it really. It’s a simple concept with a short build-up that gets to the point.

The aliens themselves are often pretty freaky, not because of their design (they’re the ‘thin grey man’ variety, looking pretty cheesy when caught in still light) but how they’re shot, almost always accompanied by strobing lights, mist and blaring horns, giving freaky silhouettes. It’s a mostly effective combination of filmmaking techniques that adds creepiness in what is otherwise a straightforward horror story.

Otherwise it’s an alright, fairly weak segment that suffers from following the high-octane freak-fest of Safe Haven. It’s also the least violent segment in the movie, offering little in blood and gore. If anything, Alien Abduction acts as a good cooling-off segment, having its own scares and creepy atmosphere.

~

And there it is. I’m not fond of ‘found footage’ movies. I often find them boring and tedious, and I hate the tropes and clichés the genre is rife with. I even hate the techniques they tend to use and the way the camera-based bullshit has to be shoehorned into the plot. But, despite my ire for this type of filmmaking, I really enjoyed V/H/S/2. It was an entertaining ride by several directors that used the ‘found footage’ concept to their benefit, with most not letting the ‘camera’ to weigh the segments down. It’s not a perfect movie, and some segments are weaker than others, but as a whole it’s a good time. And anyway I’d recommend seeing it just to watch ‘Safe Haven’.

The conflicting message of The Princess and the Frog

The Princess and the Frog was the last big traditionally animated feature to come out of Disney before they switched to 3D animation and had their successes with Tangled and Frozen. At the time the movie sort of went ignored, with the traditional hand-drawn animation being overshadowed by other, higher-tech 3D and stop-motion animation (Coraline, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and Up were released the same year, so…ouch).

The story itself is basic as can be. A prince is turned into a frog, and attempts to get a kiss from a princess to turn back. She turns out to not be a princess (she was just going to a fancy dress-up party), so she gets turned into a frog too and the two of them now need to find a way to turn human while falling in love on the way. Pretty standard stuff, with a lot of boring, uninteresting characters and forgettable music numbers (it’s scored by Randy Newman so that’s understandable). But what gets me is the film’s conflicting message.

The movie’s moral message at the end is confusingly contradictory, with the film constantly flip flopping from one message to the next, even when they directly contradict each other. This is a movie that says that hard work and determination are the key to fulfilling your goals and dreams…but you should also just wish upon a star because that works too. It also says that you should follow your dreams…unless you find love, in which case you should abandon your dreams entirely. Being a strong, determined individual and fulfilling your dreams comes second fiddle to getting married according to Frog Princess.

More than anything it has a weird message teaching young girls that if you have a dream that you want to achieve, don’t use hard work just marry a rich guy and everything will work out. Because of love and stuff.

So let’s take a look at how this came to be, with a quick synopsis of the film.

~

The first (possibly only) black Disney princess starts off as a poor waitress working in New Orleans. Tiana spends her time working several jobs to earn money to buy a restaurant, which is a dream she shares with her dead daddy. He worked hard his entire life but never achieved it, and Tiana is determined to make that dream come true.  Compared to other Disney princesses, most of who suffered from inertia (Ariel’s and Jasmine’s adventures started because they just got bored), Tiana is a refreshing change because she understands that hard work and determination are needed to reach a goal, something Disney then undermines by beating it out of her over the film.

She works super hard and earns the money, but is still unable to attain her dream. In comes the ‘wishing upon a star’ thing. She gets dressed up as a princess for a costume party and wishes on that star for her restaurant. In comes the frog prince.

Prince Naveen is a lazy, talentless loser who has no money and has been disinherited from his parents since he doesn’t know or do anything. He goes to an evil witch doctor for help (because witchcraft obviously beats out effort) who tells him the easiest way to solve his problems is to marry a rich girl. Witch doctor betrays Naveen and turns him into a frog, and the prince runs off to find a princess to break the curse.

Assuming that she’s a real princess (mostly because she’s wearing a dress it seems) Naveen convinces the grossed out Tiana to kiss him by bribing her with non-existent funds for her restaurant dream. She kisses him, but the curse goes haywire because she’s just a lowly waitress and she gets turned into a frog too. The two argue and whatever, then form a truce as they try and find a way to return to being humans by consulting an old voodoo lady in the swamp.

The two frogs reach the voodoo lady after some more terrible music numbers and misadventures where they start to fall in love because it’s Disney. Tiana asks to be turned back into human, and tells voodoo lady about her dream of opening a restaurant. Old voodoo lady responds by singing an upbeat, toe-tapping musical number… where she tells Tiana to abandon her dream. Voodoo lady sees that the two frogs are falling in love, and because it’s Disney love trumps everything else. So give up on your dream girl, you’ve got yourself a man.

Tiana utilises selective healing and ignores the voodoo lady, instead feeling that she just needs to try harder. Voodoo lady is disappointed, gives them (on retrospect, mis)information and they go on a stupid fairytale ‘before the clock strikes twelve’ task to work everything out.

At the end the two stay as frogs and end up getting married in the swamp with all the colourful, boring, vapid, empty animal characters we’ve met during the film. But of course at the frog marriage they turn back into humans because this is a Disney movie. Then they have a real, expensive wedding (without their swamp ‘friends’), the prince is re-inherited by his parents (who are seemingly just happy he married somebody), so they become rich and now Tiana is a real princess. And of course she gets her restaurant as well.

So in the end Tiana got her dream…by abandoning hard work and instead marrying a rich guy who could buy her dream for her. Fuck you Disney.

~

There are a ton of problems here, obviously, but a weird one is that while the hard-working Tiana got her dream by dubious means, the lazy, talentless moron Naveen got his dream as well (his princely fortune) by being lazy, talentless and moronic, and just marrying some girl. Naveen got what he wanted by following exactly what the villain told him to do. The evil witch doctor’s evil, underhanded plan was the one that actually made everything work out in the end. What the hell Disney?

Another major concern is the movie’s odd determination at suggesting that hard work isn’t going to help you get your goal, but rather luck and wishing on stars is what will get you there. Initially Tiana seems like a change of pace for Disney princesses – she works her ass off trying to reach her goal, and it’s a real, tangible, achievable goal not some vague ‘quest for something more’ that most Disney gals go off on. Tiana is the most hard-working, determined and individually capable Disney princess, and then Disney spends the entire movie teaching her to give all that crap up. She gets her dream by abandoning hard work, wishing on stars and marrying a dude. Good job Disney.

Now I’d understand the whole ‘fairytale love overcoming obstacles’ thing if the obstacle was something obstacle-like or adversarial like death (Snow White) or the other person being ugly (Beauty and the Beast). But in Frog Princess the obstacle is her dream, the one she’s trying to attain. And she abandons it because she meets a guy. It’s a bizarre ‘choose one or the other’ scenario that gives the wrong answer because Disney, at the time at least, still traded on the ill-conceived, dated notions of whatever the hell ‘true love’ meant.

So that was the oddly contradictory, conflicting and dubious message of The Princess and the Frog, a movie whose failure lead Disney to take up 3D animation and beat Pixar at their own game with two hits, Tangled and Frozen. Frozen itself has a fun message, where ice-powered Elsa, tired of being told to be prim and proper (and to not use her deadly ice powers) reacts by running away from home, building a castle and also dressing sexily. Seriously, the big Oscar-winning music number ‘Let it Go’ has her letting her hair down, tearing off her princess clothes, garbing herself in figure-hugging silk and putting on some lippy and eye shadow and becoming sassy, which is just fine by me.

'Why Don't You Play in Hell?' is hilariously insane

Japanese director Sion Sono has made a lot of odd movies, often ranging wildly in tone and content. He’s made films about cults, mass suicide, underskirt photography, serial killers, religion, the 2011 Japan earthquake, prostitution – the content and themes in the movies may be grim, but the tone has always been different. Suicide Club was a grim horror flick, Cold Fish was a creepy thriller, while Love Selection ranges the gamut from comedy, drama and horror as it continues.  

His latest, ‘Why Don’t You Play in Hell?’, is a radical tonal change from his other films, having a silly premise and taking it as ridiculously far as it can with it. It’s a bizarre comedy capped off with gushing, over the top violence. What’s it about? The passion and enthusiasm of wannabe filmmakers. Oh, and a bloody Yakuza clan war.

A bunch of weirdo movie buffs get together to make a movie club, called the ‘Fuck Bombers’. What they lack in skill they make up for with massive enthusiasm. Their leader, Hirata, has a strong passion for cinema, and tends to film real-life events, capturing them as he sees them being ‘cinematic’. The ultimate goal of the Bombers is to make a masterpiece.

Meanwhile a hit on Yakuza boss Muto goes awry when his wife Shizue slaughters the would-be assassins. Muto takes swift revenge on the rival clan, allowing the apologetic remnants to live on the agreement of a peaceful truce, but his wife is thrown in prison and his daughter Mitsuko’s actress dreams are shattered.

Ten years pass, some things change and some stay the same. The Fuck Bombers go nowhere, though their blind enthusiasm and passion remains. Hirata is still determined to make a masterpiece, but their star ‘action hero’ Sasaki has become disillusioned and frustrated after a decade of making amateur films that go nowhere.

On the other side, the Yakuza truce has dissolved as rival boss Ikegami has become obsessed with Mitsuko (ever since a chance encounter with her after the failed hit), who has now become a violent, rebellious young woman. With Shizue about to be released from prison, Muto is determined to make Mitsuko a film star, willing to go to any lengths. To that end he decides that the best way to kill two birds with one stone is to have a film crew capture their bloody assault on the Ikegami clan. The Fuck Bombers are hired by Muto to make Mitsuko’s film dreams a reality, giving Hirata and his friends the opportunity to shoot the biggest, most realistic gangster film ever.

It’s a silly film, not taking anything seriously but having a lot of fun with its premise.  As a Sion Sono movie it’s full of bizarre and strange characters in odd situations. After a brush with death, rival Yakuza boss Ikegami mandates that all his men should wear Kimonos and live in a castle. Hirata and the Fuck Bombers are downright enthusiastic about suicidally filming a Yakuza death battle, while the Yakuza themselves all get into the idea of their final bloody battle being a film.

There are issues. With so many characters and storylines there’s little room for character development and some characters and plot threads don’t get much time dedicated to them. This is very much a silly, oddball movie that’s happy to be simplistic and silly. A lot of scenes feel a bit odd and the constant switching between the numerous characters means you never get too good a handle on anybody. But in the end it doesn’t really matter too much, the movie’s weirdness allows these bizarre sequences and characters to mesh together well. It’s a simple movie, all goofy as hell but a lot of fun. The film is almost entirely build-up to its insane third act, and fucking hell is it crazy

The climactic finale is balls-to-the-wall insanity, with massive gushes of blood, severed limbs, sword clashes and hailing bullets, while the film crew runs around capturing everything. There’s a lot of fun to be had with the premise, with the film crew sporadically interrupting the very real battle to set up cameras and lighting and give direction.  It goes one step further, when the Yakuza ‘actors’ start agreeing to choreography and pretending they’re in action movies, dying in slow motion and wielding weapons stylistically even though it’s all real.

This is an odd, ridiculous movie, a distinct change from Sono’s previous film, the more serious and character-driven Himizu. And it’s a lot of fun. The finale alone is more than enough to sell the film, but everything else comes together well, forming a bizarre comedy with a unique premise and strange characters.

300: Rise of an Empire

Whether you will enjoy this or not is entirely dependent on how you felt about the original 300. It’s really that simple. If you didn’t like it then this isn’t for you. If you did like it, then this movie is basically made for you, though it lacks some of what made that first movie what it was. There’s blood and battle, swords and sandals and more abs than you can handle, but it lacks some of the angry energy of that first movie, and its basic-yet-cluttered narrative leaves a lot to be desired. If you want to see muscle-bound men in loincloths stabbing other dudes in slow motion then this is for you.

Rise of an Empire is an oddly jumbled movie, seeking to act as a prequel, sequel and companion piece to the original film. And while it is enjoyable for all its excesses, it lacks the confident spark of the original, aping Zack Snyder’s directing and stylistic flair but not the self-assured, solid nature of that film. Part of this is due to the screenplay; Rise of an Empire takes place before, during and after its predecessor, and delves into the backstory of both its main conflict and villains, leading to a somewhat messy collection of sequences and scenes.

The Persian army, led by the self-proclaimed God King Xerxes and his naval general Artemisia (both who are out for revenge against the Greeks for their own reasons), launch a massive two pronged attack on a divided Greece. While Xerxes and his horde harass the Spartans (which was the plot of the original 300), Artemisia and her navy come against the forgettable hero Themistocles, who leads a small navy of Greek fishermen as he appeals to the various Greek cities, including Sparta, for support.

There is a lot of backstory thrown around, with a look into why the Persians are attacking in the first place and how Xerxes became the tanned, eight feet tall ‘God King’. A lot of early attention is thrown on him, but then he disappears for the vast majority of the movie (where he’s, presumably, hitting on Gerard Butler in 300). He’s more of a background character in this one.

The heroic hero Themistocles is a more calm and measured character than the flesh-hungry, perpetually shouting Leonidas, seeking victory but also a united Greece (as opposed to the Spartans just wanting to die in the most awesome way imaginable). As a result he’s not as interesting, simply being the hero we’re expected to root for for arbitrary reasons. Acting wise he’s a bit bland, but he suits the role well.

The vast majority of the film is focused on Eva Green’s villainess Artemisia, with her getting more screen time than anybody else, getting a backstory of her own and largely attributing all events to her. Props to her being the most memorable thing about the movie; Eva milks the role, playing up the ‘evil bitch’ thing big time, cutting down soldiers, making out with severed heads and executing her own people. She does tend to be an overboard character though, playing it up as much as she can (while the rest mostly play it straight, missing the fun of a story that’s stupid and ridiculous). Eva even bares her bountiful breasts in the film’s most memorable scene (more on that later) but with the amount of CGI fakery on display they might just be computer trickery (but if not then this is a memorable reveal on the level of Jamie Lee Curtis in Trading Places).

And there is CGI fakery indeed, for Rise of an Empire is an experience in CGI overload. The backgrounds, the foregrounds, the blood, the water, the boats – fuck even the soldiers in most scenes are CGI. While some sequences look great, others have that ugly sort of soundstage feeling, where you can tell it’s just actors standing against a green screen. Many scenes are impressive, with naval battles and sword clashes looking great, though some have too much going on, making it hard to tell what is happening. Every fight scene has abundant visual flair, with a tonne of slow-motion and blood gushing from every wound. It’s gory but in the same way a videogame might be, with uber-fake CGI blood and brutal finishing moves, though the reliance on CGI diminishes things a little. It lacks the gruesome joys of the Spartacus TV series, which used CGI to supplement some gruesome prop work.

The scene many are talking about, the film’s most memorable one, is a bizarre antagonistic sex scene between Themistocles and Artemisia. It’s a bizarro hate-bang between two people who want to kill each other, involving rippling muscles, heaving breasts and a lot of choking, slapping and hair-pulling. It’s a ridiculous, unintentionally funny scene for all the wrong reasons, with its two lead actors violently trying to screw each other, but it’s memorable and entertaining, and one of the weirder things to be put to screen.

Compared to Zack Snyder’s confident original, Rise of an Empire feels a bit messy, muddled and a little unsure of itself. It relies on the style and even plot of the original, with 300’s messy political nonsense making its way here in one of several narrative threads that are abandoned almost instantly. There is also a large difference in general tone. In 300 the Spartans were basically a bunch of psychotic battle-hungry soldiers who thought dying in combat was great, with the crux of Leonidas’ many shout-y speeches being ”We’re gonna die and it’s gonna be fucking awesome!”, usually followed by enthusiastic cheering. Conversely Themistocles and his Athenian bunch sort of want to live, with the many many speeches being about standing together, holding out hope, defending their country and beating back the foreign invaders. It lacks the insane, blood-hungry rage of the first movie (the film offers no equivalent to Gerard Butler’s “THIS IS SPARTA!”). Rise of an Empire feels a bit more reserved in comparison.

That being said, it delivers on its promise of uber-stylised swords-and-sandals-at-sea combat. It’s more 300, with a little bit more of almost everything. More blood, more sex, more CGI, more abs, more slow-mo (though less shouting). You want to see a big budget CGI extravagana, then Rise of an Empire is for you, just be prepared to leave your expectations, and brain, by the door.  

(For comparison’s sake, despite the vastly differing tone, I liked Pompeii 3D better, though this is a valid ‘pizza-and-beer’ flick). 

Pompeii 3D

I have a theory about how this came about. Somebody was watching a documentary about Pompeii on TV. They turned the channel and caught part of an episode of Spartacus: Gods of the Arena. Then, as is often the spark of retardation, they decided to combine the two, but not before taking out the historical accuracy of the former and the wanton gore and sex of the latter. What results is a mild, inoffensive action/disaster movie hybrid that’ll soak up a lazy afternoon.

The plot, what little there is, is basic. Slave-turned-gladiator Milo finds himself carted off to Pompeii to fight to death in the arena. On the way he falls in love with Cassia, a naïve, moronic nobleman’s daughter who is being wooed by Corvus, the man who, coincidentally, was responsible for the slaughter of Milo’s family. As Milo battles it out in a rigged match in the arena, Mount Vesuvius explodes and chaos erupts. Now Milo must escape from the arena, kill the bad guy, save the girl and flee the city.

The distinct lack of anything resembling historical fact or knowledge is concerning. You will not learn a single thing about Pompeii or the volcanic eruption it’s so renown for. Hell, not once does anybody ever refer to the volcano as Mount Vesuvius, something incredibly basic you’d think they’d manage to sneak in. But instead we get gladiator battles, flaming eruptions and hailing stones to dole out carnage.

 

The action segment of the movie feels like a far weaker version of stuff you’ve likely seen in every other gladiator-focused film and television series. The battles lack the visceral thrills or hardcore choreography of the likes of the Spartacus television scenes or even Rome. The disaster section of the movie though is relentless. Earthquakes, collapsing buildings, falling rocks, flaming boulders, tidal waves and clouds of burning ash all rack up a decent kill count of nameless extras.

Acting-wise, Pompeii could act as an expensive audition reel titled ‘Why none of these idiots are A-listers’. The acting is laughably bad, with nobody on the same wavelength. Kit Harington (better known as Jon Snow from Game of Thrones) proves that he’ll never get any big roles, giving a generic ‘brooding tough guy seeking revenge’ thing we’ve seen dozens of times before. The always awful Emily Browning goes all doe-eyed and needy as the love interest who makes stupid decisions in her near-suicidal determination to be with the man she loves for purely superficial reasons (she never even learns his name). The pinnacle of all this is Kiefer Sutherland, resurfacing here and hamming it up big time, putting on an accent that’s impossible to place.

Pompeii isn’t a great film, it isn’t even a particularly good one, but it is entertaining. It combines the B-grade thrills of a middling action movie, combined with those of a gladiator flick and a disaster film. You get swords and sandals, chariots and bloodsport, as well as earthquakes, flaming boulders, tidal waves and burning ash. And it’s all pretty entertaining. Don’t get me wrong, this is not a good movie, but it’s the sort of ‘lazy afternoon, pizza, buddies and beer’ fare that is perfect for a spare evening.

I, Frankenstein is a horrible, misshapen mess

 

Oh man this sucks big time. Words struggle to express how bad this movie is. If you’ve seen the crappy trailer, which promises an ‘Underworld-esque’ action/horror flick, then you may think you know what to expect. You may even think it looks alright, in a trashy way. You are wrong. This is a horrible, boring movie devoid of anything of value. It’s not fun, it’s not exciting, it’s not clever – it’s a dull, aggravating waste of time that will annoy you. I, Frankenstein is I, Excrement.

Every now and then a movie will come along that’s just pure garbage, It’ll look alright in a schlocky nonsense way, as a sort of shitty-but-fun-time that will fill up a lazy afternoon (something like Pompeii 3D), but once you watch it you find that it’s a painful, boring slog. You check your watch constantly waiting for it to finish, you stop caring about what happens and start thinking about whether its too late to leave the cinema and get your money back. All you’re left with are regrets. This is not ‘so-bad-its-good’, this is not ‘crappy pizza fodder’. This is pure dreck, this is frustrating boredom. This is I, Frankenstein.

The film centres on Adam, Frankenstein’s monster. The opening dialogue explains that after his ‘birth’ he ran off aimlessly into the world, getting caught up in a really lame war between Gargoyles (slightly angelic protectors of the people, who dress in Roman styled garb when they aren’t transforming into ugly CGI statue monsters) and Demons (basically Buffy rejects, with silly face make-up). The demons want him for their own nefarious purpose, while the gargoyles sort of want his help in culling the demonic horde, while also planning to eventually take him out. Two hundred years pass and a big corporation run by Bill Nighy’s king demon is trying to make an army of undead to take over the world. They need Adam to understand how reanimation works, or maybe they just need Frankenstein’s journal, or the love interest/scientist that keeps showing up. It’s all very unclear.

A whole lot of nothing happens. The movie is ninety minutes long, but nothing really occurs. Adam spends a lot of time wandering the streets, the gargoyles stand around talking about whether they should kill him (there’s seriously about five scenes of the gargoyles discussing this), while Bill Nighy and his demon horde stand around an office building in suits.

One big thing is that Adam is an overwhelmingly unlikeable protagonist. He has no redeeming features, no character arc, he’s just an ugly, brooding asshole. When we’re introduced to him in his opening narration, he reveals that after being ‘born’, he got angry at Dr Frankenstein and murdered his wife because he wanted Frankenstein to suffer. This is our hero, a mean-spirited, petty asshole. So when he has to fight to save the world you won’t really give a shit whether he succeeds or not. 

The movie has tried to ape the styling of the Underworld franchise (particularly that first film) with its gothic city imagery, perpetual night and two rival clans of unhumans duking it out, but it fails to do so in any meaningful way. It lacks any confidence or originality, instead just copying from a more successful franchise it wishes it was.

All the attempts to be like the aforementioned vampire/lycan movies come across as laughable. There are several scenes of Adam standing on rooftops looking over a city that is perpetually night, brooding like a teenager who just discovered goth culture. There are silly scenes of him standing around waving sticks in ‘training’ which looks like they handed him the props with no proper instructions so he started waving the around like batons in a school parade.  

The acting is god awful, to a painful degree. Every time somebody opens their mouth they’re about to say something stupid in a boring, serious way. Horrible Aussie actor Jai Courtney continues his losing streak as a tool whose every line is ‘Let’s kill Adam’. Bill Nighy gives his most sullen and boring performance ever, and then in the finale does a weak riff on his ‘evil dude who pronounces the ends of words weird’ thing he did in Underworld and the Pirates of the Caribbean films. The worst is, easily, Aaron Eckhart as the brooding and boring Adam, growling his lines and lacking any presence or charisma. The man is overwhelmingly unsuited to this sort of role. He works better as a corporate type character (he was great in ‘Thankyou for Smoking’). Here he’s entirely out of his element. The rest aren’t any better.

There are a lot of action sequences, but they’re all so immensely boring, both visually and choreography-wise. Most battles are big, ugly CGI-fests where gargoyles and demons run into each other, with the former exploding into white light and the latter burning out in big fireballs. It’s like a really lame fireworks display. Aaron Eckhart proves himself a weak action hero, with his stick-waving Adam heading several boring fight scenes where the choreography feels like an episode of Power Rangers.  

I, Frankenstein, like its central figure, is an ugly mishmash mess of rotting pieces that come together into a hideous, malformed whole that nobody should have to witness.