Editorials

[Trailer Tracks] Dissecting The Trailer For ‘The Frankenstein Theory’

Published

11 years ago

March 2, 2013

Movie commercials offer us a great service; they not only show us which upcoming movies look good, but also which ones to avoid. And if one looks closely, they often reveal more than intended about the film in question. In honor of this profound art, I give you TRAILER TRACKS, an examination of upcoming movie commercials: What they say, what they don’t say, and what they say on accident about the product being sold to you, the excited chump.

Today’s Entry:
The Frankenstein Theory (Dir. Andrew Weiner)

Introduction:
Once upon a time, a bunch of knuckleheads took some cameras and went out to Norway or somewhere equally cold and not-America in order to test a theory that Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein story was in fact not a story at all. Not only was Frankenstein’s Monster real, but he’s still alive today, stalking angrily through areas both cold and not-American.

And since this theory throws out Shelley’s book as fact (while keeping her creature), this film crew specifically sought out a manic ugly beast-monster thing rather than the loquacious, emotional superhuman found in the novel. That way when they kill it, no one has to feel bad.

Well, they all died. This is the footage they left behind. All the footage. So there are bound to be some boring parts. Mostly boring parts. But every once in a while something cool will happen. Offscreen.

The Set Up:
So a young and stupid film crew treks off into the unknown to find Frankenstein’s Monster (hereby knowingly referred to by the erroneous name, “Frankenstein,” because that’s what the movie thinks he’s called. They don’t even pronounce it correctly). The trailer doesn’t give us a very good idea of how many victims we’re talking about here. There are definitely two dudes and one lady, plus a badass tracker guy. So at least four future Frankenstein poops.

Their plan is simply to walk through the snow listening for Frankenstein shouts. But almost as soon as they get there, they start freaking out. They hear the monster’s shouts, just as they expected to, but now it scares them. They find his tracks. At one point, they find a bunch of Frankenstein vomit in the show. According to the trailer, each new discovery makes them cry and run around for thirty minutes.

The Problem:
If a picture is worth 1000 words, here are one thousand words on why this Frankenstein trip is doomed:

And here’s one word:

TROLLS

See, the whole Frankenstein theory is really stupid and lacks almost all sense. Why would a character birthed in a 19th Century novel exist in the real world? And even if he did, why would he still be alive, today? And why would he act so different than he does in the book? It’s asinine.

Trolls, however, are a whole different story. Everyone knows Trolls exist. Didn’t you see that movie about them?

By walking around in the snowy woods following gigantic footprints and weird echoing bellows, these morons are mistakenly tracking a bunch of Trolls instead Frankenstein. Like Frankenstein, however, Trolls like to eat people, especially young, stupid people. So they’re dead, either way. The difference is simply a matter of jumping out of an airplane instead of jumping off a flying carpet.

The Solution:
There really isn’t much of a solution. Everyone dies. That’s just how most found footage films roll. And while this might be sold as a horror film here in America, up in Troll country they’re going to watch this and laugh their asses off.

Maybe things could have been better for these poor kids had they hired a real Troll Hunter. But the tough guy we see them hanging out with in the trailer is no Troll Hunter. Drunk and full of jokes, he looks like he could handle of couple of these guys:

…but no Trolls. And certainly no Frankenstein.

The film’s big stinger is that the trolls take all the dead bodies (and their still running cameras) to a hidden castle where they are feasted upon by, you guessed it, the real Dracula.

In Summation:
The Frankenstein Theory looks like one of the more boring found footage films ever made. At least Grave Encounters can put some scary stuff in the preview. When a found footage film commercial offers you no real scares, it’s not trying to be coy. That means it has none to offer you in the actual film either. Watch this film’s prequel, Troll Hunter, instead.

Evan Saathoff

4 Comments

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

1 day ago

April 22, 2024

Luiz H. C.

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.

SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?

AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega…

There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.