Mary Poppins Returns
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No consensus yet.
No consensus yet.
All Critics (24)
| Top Critics (8)
| Fresh (13)
| Rotten (11)
| DVD (1)
Without going into too much more detail, suffice it to say that the film was a disappointment to a horror geek who stumbled in for what looked like it could have been a nice, bloody midnight treat.
If the film had played up this type of satire-friendly theme and offered a little humor to balance its initial wartime realism, Frankenstein's Army might have been sufficiently re-watchable to attract a small cult following.
It's a bravura if deeply silly demonstration of what clever moviemakers can do on meager resources.
There's little more in the way of plot, but that's no problem. "Frankenstein's Army" is funny and original, with innovative costumes and set designs.
Narrative depth may be in short supply, but the energy, invention and humor are bracing. And let's face it: Sometimes cheese tastes good.
Frankenstein's Army is a ludicrous World War II horror flick bogged down by its found-footage gimmick, which is compromised and contradicted so often that it becomes a distraction.
Stitched together from the corpses of various horror trends, this well-intentioned creation struggles to come to life.
There are some nice ideas at work in Frankenstein's Army and the monsters look great, but the 'found footage' conceit brings little to proceedings and for a horror movie there just aren't enough scares.
Boisterous and bombastic, the film wastes no opportunity to indulge in grossout body horror or a thunderous music cue and still, those elements may seem tame in comparison with the extreme plans of Frankenstein.
The characters are all boring and interchangeable, and you don't really care if any of them live.
Just feels like great potential was wasted on a movie interested in gore and shock value over atmosphere and genuine terror.
We never care about any of the soldiers. What we do care about are the monsters, and with good reason: They're pips.
Found footage films have always been hit or miss. It's certainly a refuge for lazy filmmakers, who want to make a movie for cheap or they can't afford top-notch cameras. But if done right, it can lead to some really cool and unique experiences. Films like Rec, Troll Hunter, The Bay, and Chronicle prove that when done right, it can be a really effective tool. In the case of Rec, it actually led to a far more intense experience full of great scares. But for the lazy filmmakers, the use of the found footage style can lead to some really nauseating scenes and it ultimately becomes a very annoying and tedious experience. So where does this film fall into? I think it's the first WW2 found footage film, as far as I'm aware, and I think it falls into the middle. I do think that the found footage style was chosen because of the fact that the budget simply wasn't there. I don't think the camerawork is as nauseating as in the absolute worst of the genre, but it's not the best as I don't really see how, other than for story reasons, how the style really benefits the film or it makes the scares that much more intense. It just doesn't, at least in my opinion. The budget that wasn't spent on actually getting decent cameras went to, probably, the best part of the film. And that is the design of the monsters that Frankenstein constructs. If anything, the film is more of a showcase for those monsters than it is a film that wants to tell a story about the monstrosities that the Nazis did during the war, even if this is a very exaggerated version of that. I just think whoever came up with this movie had a lot of sketches for great monsters and he needed a way to get those monsters on screen. And what better way to get them on screen than tying them to experiments the Nazis were doing in order to create stronger soldiers than was available at the time. The problem with these monsters, while the designs themselves are really freaking cool, because the budget really isn't there and what WAS there was spent on the monsters, don't really look like the monstrosities they're supposed to be. They don't look like a disturbing melding of man and machine. The product of the mind of an insane man given the freedom to experiment with live human samples as he saw fit. Much like sci-fi films of the 50s, where it was obvious that it was a man in that alien costume, the same principle applies here. You know that it's a man, or woman, underneath that costume so that, to me, certainly takes away from how scary they come across. I can't even begin to describe the monsters, let's just say that they're still, budgetary limitations aside, pretty damn cool to watch. I just wish that the film's story was a little bit more compelling, because it feels like there's no reason for what's going on here. It's just a showcase for one guy's creativity. And I think that's fine, but the story definitely needed to be a little more compelling, particularly when the scares aren't really there. And there's not much gore either. Still, this film falls into the middle of the found footage genre. Not as bad as it can be, but nowhere near as close as the best of the genre. It's a decent film to watch if you have 80 or so minutes to waste.
'Frankenstein's Army'. Big Daddys and the like from BioShock with a much shakier cam than the game offers. Didn't work for me.
View All Quotes