Closer to God (2014) #422

More thriller than horror, "Closer to God" is a slow burning, suspenseful, updated reimagining of the "Frankenstein" story. Familiar names and the controversial theme of creating life and it's implications are evident, as well as the "village mob" from the classic 1931 "Frankenstein". Technically the film's pacing could move slightly quicker and the background music could be darker and more menacing, but otherwise the film is solid. The stoic acting, primarily from Jeremy Childs portrayal of Dr. Victor Reed, adds a level of gravitas to the serious subject matter.

Dr Victor Reed is a leading researcher in the field of human cloning, and as the movie begins, he is delivering the news that he has successfully cloned a baby girl that he names Emily. The board of directors are less than happy and bring up all of the legal and ethical concerns that are sure to arise. Dr Reed and his staff experience a social backlash after giving a news conference about their medical break through, and after their lab location is exposed, Dr Reed is forced to bring his experiment home, effectively placing his family and house keepers under house arrest as their estate is surrounded by angry protesters. As Dr Reed continues to study and experiment on Emily, pressures from his family and past begin to mount, coming to an enevitable grisly end.

The Frankenstein Theory (2013)

"The Frankenstein Theory" is a decent "found footage" piece that spends it's time focusing on the discomfort and helplessness of the characters that are trapped in a hostile, and yet beautiful, snow covered wilderness rather than trying to constantly scare the audience with cheap thrills. It's a lot like "The Blair Witch Project", beginning with historical background information and the reason for the documentary to be made before moving on to the journey itself which also included an interview with a slightly off witness. The main difference between the two films is that you do end up seeing the Frankenstein Monster at the end, hearing him huff and growl well before he enters the screen. I will admit that there were several moments where I found myself laughing out loud and I'm not sure if that was intended by the film makers or not....The character that plays Erik the Producer has some of the best reactions to the events in the film; just watch his face to see what I mean.


John Venkenheim is a college student working on his PH.D and is the focus of a documentary that he is paying for. He claims that a member from his family line is the basis for Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" story and that there really is a Frankenstein Monster, still alive and roaming the lower Arctic Circle. Most people don't believe him, including his girlfriend (who leaves him) and the college (who kicks him out). So now hie's forced to find physical evidence to prove to the world that he is right. So a friend from college, Vicky, arranges a film and becomes his interviewer and brings along Erik the Producer, Brian the Sound Guy, and Luke the Video Guy. They meet up with their guide Karl, and continue off into the Canadian Wilderness on snowmobiles. They make it to a yurt in the middle of nowhere, and this is where they begin to suspect that they may have found the area that the Monster is currently passing through. How will the Monster react to people trying to find it? Will John find the proof that he needs? Will anyone return home alive??

Favorite part - I love when a "Found Footage" film takes the time to chew the scenery and let the suspense and pressure build on it's own, using what's already there. I also love movies that involve snow covered landscapes, adding to sense of isolation and hopelessness.

Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

"Bride of Frankenstein" is often touted as being the ultimate horror sequel, while many consider the film to be superior to the original. It's difficult for me to pick which one is better because these films had a different style than modern movies. Overacting was the norm, the scenes were kept short and brief, and the scripts were overly scrutinized by various censorship committees. What I do know is that I appreciate both films and that director James Whale and his crew were able to mine useful parts from Mary Shelly's novel that they skipped during the first movie.

The movie picks up immediately after the events from the original film. The mob of angry villagers are satisfied that both Henry Frankenstein and his creation have been killed. After they disperse, the old man who's daughter was killed by the Monster demands to see the creature dead and while climbing through the debris of the burning mill, the man falls into the cellar. The Monster is there, still alive, and kills him. The Monster then wanders the countryside, being attacked from various hunters and mobs who don't understand that the Monster just wants to be treated with kindness. The Monster soon meets a blind hermit who shows that kindness and even teaches the Monster some simple words like "good" and "friend".

Meanwhile, the body of Henry Frankenstein is delivered to his estate where he is discovered to still be alive as well. While he's being nursed back to health, he is visited by Doctor Septimus Pretorius. The doctor convinces Henry to continue his research and help create a mate for the Monster. After their work begins, the doctor finds the Monster and brings him back to the laboratory, setting up the climax that will determine Henry's fate and that of his Monster.

Frankenstein (1994)

How appropriate or fair is it to compare a remake of a classic horror movie when the original film itself strayed from the novel? Such is the case when trying to compare the two best known versions of "Frankenstein". On one hand you have the timeless Universal classic that have us the image of a crazed mob with torches and pitchforks, and then on the other hand you have creator and creation chasing each other across the globe bent on destroying the other. These are two very different images but they both work extremely well. 

While this film is closer in nature to the novel, there are still several differences between the two pieces. The most glaring difference that the movie adds is the reanimation of Elizabeth and her subsequent suicide. The other details are small enough to be overlooked as many details are lost, ignored, or adjusted whenever a book is transformed into a movie.

The one thing I can't figure out is why so many people hate this movie. Why? Some say its because its too melodramatic but so is the book! Others took offense that Robert De Niro's role as the Creature, with most critics stunned as to why an actor who only does "mobster parts" cast in a period horror movie? (This is a question that I've read many times"). I like the film and enjoyed it immensely. Maybe it's because I was 18 when I first saw it and didn't know any better...or maybe I liked it because it is a good film. Yes, yes it is.

Author's Note - Remakes

Remakes are a touchy subject for many people. There are several that feel like they are nothing more than an excuse to cash in on a recognizable title without even trying to make a decent movie. Michael Bay is guilty of this with his attempts to reboot both the “Friday the 13^th” and “Nightmare on Elm Street” franchises.

Some remakes feel like the cast actually respect the original and just want to have fun making their version; these are fine because they feel more like plays whereas nothing new is usually added but some characters are fleshed out more or are played out with a different style. Some of these films actually use the original novel as source material more so than the original film production.

Then there are the very few where the cast, director and actors, are taking the original idea and are adapting their own interpretations. This approach works at times but can easily backfire as well. Just because your passion for the film and your ideas in how to fix it or make it better might not actually be the best for the project or the legacy of the original film.

While preparing for this theme, I’ve noticed that the opinions of people who saw the original versions versus those who are now just old enough see the remakes makes a large difference. Younger viewers are more accustomed to seeing CGI in almost everything, expect more violence and realistic gore than films from the 1970’s and 1980’s, and want to see cast members that they are familiar with. Keeping these notes in mind, I will try to write my reviews as neutral as possible.