Just watched..."Legend of Hercules" and "I, Frankenstein"

[Master Rel]

No Spoilers


My wife and I hit the movies today and watched a two'fer.

First due to the time we got there was Legend of Hercules.

Let me say that the fight scenes were a bit of fun, but as these were about 5 minutes of the whole movie, the rest was a sci-fi channel version of 300, kinda.  Some of the sets, costumes, and locations were really good.  The acting...oh dear god the acting was some of the worst I have seen in a long long time.  I mean to say really bad.  The guy handling the Hercules role...I will just leave this with a peek-a-boo face palm.

Second was the I, Frankenstein.

This made by the same folks and some of the same acting talent from the Underworld movies.  So there was a measure of familiarity that was interesting.  It was what was expected but having sat through the Hercules poodoo, this movie was elevated by proxy.  A fun harmless romp.  Better than a stick in the eye.

On a counter point, I would take a stick in the eye before watching Legend of Hercules again.

So, there you go.

[Darth_Phobius47]

So, by a simple yes or no answer, is I, Frankenstein worth seeing? I've heard bad things about LoH so I won't even bother.

[Jev Moldara]

Good to see that my initial impression of Legend of Hercules (that it would be a steaming pile of dung) wasn't far off the mark.

[Darth Scorpious]

I saw the advertisement for legends of Hercules it looked pants so glad to know that it is.
But I Frankenstein looked quite interesting as I do like the underworld movies

[Master Rel]

If you liked the underworld movies then you should like I Frankenstein

[Aletani]

I found that comparing I, Frankenstein to Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing was pretty good. But with less comical happenings, but that type of filming and creatures and some scenes where you just say: ok.. And move on. I personally really enjoyed I, Frankenstein. Aaron Eckhart did a great job and it was a fun twist on that story. If you liked the quirkiness of van Helsing, which I happen to love that movie, then you'll most certainly enjoy I, Frankenstein.

[Master Rel]

I found that comparing I, Frankenstein to Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing was pretty good. But with less comical happenings, but that type of filming and creatures and some scenes where you just say: ok.. And move on. I personally really enjoyed I, Frankenstein. Aaron Eckhart did a great job and it was a fun twist on that story. If you liked the quirkiness of van Helsing, which I happen to love that movie, then you'll most certainly enjoy I, Frankenstein.

There is much to appreciate with both of these movies, I agree they are both fun romps.

Aaron Eckhart was ripped...ripped...admirable considering he is not young young...

[Aletani]

Yes, very impressive. I liked how his mannerisms and facial expressions perfectly matched the scarred pieced togetherness of his Frankenstein's monster body.

[Darth_Phobius47]

If you liked the underworld movies then you should like I Frankenstein

Ok, might give it a whirl

[Luna]

If you liked the underworld movies then you should like I Frankenstein

On the flip side, if you like Frankenstein, you should hate I, Frankenstein.

[Master Rel]

On the flip side, if you like Frankenstein, you should hate I, Frankenstein.

If you preferred the original story, published in 1818...196yrs, 1 month, 10 days ago (considering the scale of life expectancy through the years by location and sex, so roughly 4 lifetimes ago)...written by Mary Shelley.

Well sure, any true classic book will outshine any movie version.  The experience is so personal and intimate with a book, you choose your pacing, you have voices and faces created in your own vision due imagination, and then there is the matter of width and breadth of the richness of a book compared to the hour hour and a half of a movie.

Movies can do little more than present an appreciative version...unless one takes a small book such as the Hobbit and stretch it out for three full films...then you have the opportunity to express a bit more.

But the reality is that some who watch any Frankenstein movie will eventually pick up the book or ebook and read the story for themselves, and that is the real victory.

The I Frankenstein movie, for an action romp, does touch quite nicely on the anguish that the creature feels, his loneliness, and having no real place in the world.

[Luna]

If you preferred the original story, published in 1818...196yrs, 1 month, 10 days ago (considering the scale of life expectancy through the years by location and sex, so roughly 4 lifetimes ago)...written by Mary Shelley.

Well sure, any true classic book will outshine any movie version.  The experience is so personal and intimate with a book, you choose your pacing, you have voices and faces created in your own vision due imagination, and then there is the matter of width and breadth of the richness of a book compared to the hour hour and a half of a movie.

Movies can do little more than present an appreciative version...unless one takes a small book such as the Hobbit and stretch it out for three full films...then you have the opportunity to express a bit more.

But the reality is that some who watch any Frankenstein movie will eventually pick up the book or ebook and read the story for themselves, and that is the real victory.

The I Frankenstein movie, for an action romp, does touch quite nicely on the anguish that the creature feels, his loneliness, and having no real place in the world.

None of what you said (except the last bit about the movie itself) applies to this movie. It isn't an adaptation, nor does it even claim to be (and, while I assume you don't actually think it's an adaptation, your post certainly makes it look like you do). It's a stereotypical action movie that takes bits of a classic novel in an attempt to make it unique.

Anguished or not, the monster's appearance is absolutely unacceptable.

You got the date right, anyway. A lot of people think it was published in 1831. Then again, I assume you used Google because not even I bother to keep track of how many days ago it was published (although I'm not sure why you put that in. I have an idea, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt).

Side note - there has never been a major movie based on Frankenstein. They're all based on Presumption. I say "major" because this is the Internet so someone is bound to point out some little-known French art film based on it or some crap like that.

[Master Rel]

Not exactly sure why you are so hateful on the movie versions 

Without Hollywood making the Frankenstein creature into a star then millions upon millions, nay I will say billions upon billions of human beings would have never heard of said story.

Many movies have tried to pay some homage' to the original but to be honest the story is quite dated.  It would be hard to establish the feelings of the age without including the fears relevant to the modern viewing audience.

The upcoming Johnny Depp movie, Transcendence, takes a stab at the same time honored Promethean subject that inspired Mary in her day.

As for the date, I looked at my copy of the reprinted original story for the original printing date. 

I noted the lifetimes due to the time period in question, so hard to relate to that time.

Now a true grand period piece would be most welcome IMO; 2.5-3 hour movie at least, with a big big budget, with great actors, the writers/director staying true to the original story.

All that aside, the I Frankenstein is "Frankenstein" in name and most basic original story alone...gone is the potential of the drama set by the book...it is just an action romp made better for me because the Legend of Hercules was just so very bad.

[Luna]

Some of the movies are good, but none of them are based on Frankenstein. They're all based on Presumption, a sort of stage adaptation of Frankenstein (which is pretty good - even Mary Shelley thought so - but it's quite different from the novel).

I don't find the story dated. It's certainly no more dated than many other sources that have been effectively adapted into movies, anyway. I could understand using the 1831 edition because of the incest bit, but 1818 would still be better.

I suppose it's relevant to note that I only care about it as much as I do because Mary Shelley's life and works have had a significant impact on my own life, and I'm a semi-expert on the subject (I won't be a proper expert until I have formal titles and whatnot, but I'm working on that).

[Master Rel]

Some of the movies are good, but none of them are based on Frankenstein. They're all based on Presumption, a sort of stage adaptation of Frankenstein (which is pretty good - even Mary Shelley thought so - but it's quite different from the novel).

I don't find the story dated. It's certainly no more dated than many other sources that have been effectively adapted into movies, anyway. I could understand using the 1831 edition because of the incest bit, but 1818 would still be better.

I suppose it's relevant to note that I only care about it as much as I do because Mary Shelley's life and works have had a significant impact on my own life, and I'm a semi-expert on the subject (I won't be a proper expert until I have formal titles and whatnot, but I'm working on that).

And that is a welcome direction!

Best of luck and success with your chosen field of study my fine forum daughter lol!