Amidst a busy week of caucuses and Presidential debates, America receives another blunt force reminder that lest we ever lose sight of our god-given kick-assness there will always be an action film depicting our sheer superhuman patriotic determination to take down all terrorists who threaten us.

This reminder comes in the form of London Has Fallen, the fast-paced follow-up to 2013’s Olympus Has Fallen. Though, while the inclination of action films isn’t necessarily toward truthfulness—and moviegoers’ patriotism not to be taken for granted—London Has Fallen puts American exceptionalism on so high a pedestal it’s practically the stuff of fairy tales. Audiences looking for explosions and quippy wisecracks won’t be let down, but this film will not be winning us points with our allies anytime soon. As a depiction of not only how two Americans (one of them the President) can take on a major terrorist cell, but how much more competently they do it without the help of the government officials of the country they are located in, London Has Fallen is a cartoonish action flick cashing in on the attachments its characters built in the previous film and layering on American bravado at the expense of all other nations.

Directed by Babak Najafi, an Iranian-Swedish filmmaker without much to his name, the film starts at a large wedding party in Pakistan. We meet Aamir Barkawi (Alon Moni Aboutboul), an arms dealer who advises his eldest son, who has recently offed one of their competitors, not to forget to take out their enemy’s family as well. Clearly this guy holds grudges. Next minute a drone attacks the wedding. Two years later, back in America, President Benjamin Asher (Aaron Eckhart) is two years into his second term and now very close with his Head Secret Service Agent, Mike Banning (Gerard Butler doing his best to stifle that Scottish accent), who saved his ass in the last film. Mike’s expecting a baby with wife Leah (Rhada Mitchell) and contemplating his retirement.

The unexpected death of the British Prime Minister urges the President to quickly fly off to London to attend the funeral. Banning and Secret Service Director Lynne Jacobs (Angela Bassett reprising her role) don’t like the unknowns involved in last-minute travel, but Banning’s the best of the best, and he accompanies the President to the UK. Those who’ve seen the last film (or even the trailer) will easily guess where the story heads. Barkawi has picked his moment to exact revenge for the drone attack that killed his daughter. One by one he picks off the world’s leaders as they arrive in London, destroying much of the city’s historical landmarks in the process.

His minions appear from the crowds in such high numbers it would indicate almost no one seen thus far in London is actually a citizen. The police aren’t who they seem. Motorcyclists emerge to chase down the President as Mike rushes him back to the helicopter. They aren’t in the helicopters long when missiles down them. The death toll and destruction is close to comic-book movie status. As London goes on lockdown, Mike and President Asher make their way through the streets—Mike’s apparent built-in GPS guiding them—eventually connecting with an MI6 agent Jacquelin (Charlotte Riley) who suspects a mole (there’s always a mole). Banning and President Asher continue to defeat the odds for the rest of the film.

Butler and Eckhart do have a sort of chemistry, the kind I imagine frat boys everywhere have, and watching them run around together keeps up the energy of the film. Butler’s double chin might indicate his skill-levels in sleep deprived continuous fighting shouldn’t quite be what they are in the film, but his extreme kills hold a certain satisfaction that allows one to forgive his appearance.

The film’s real faults are unsurprising. In a world where terrorism is so very real, one might think Hollywood would veer away from the hyperbolic terrorism oft depicted in action films. Whereas fairy tales use unrealistic monsters to make everyday life seem safer, these sorts of action films are starting to feel almost insensitive to the realities of the world. Barkawi is possibly the most successful terrorist ever, his recruitment efforts being apparently so amazing there is never a corner Banning runs around where he isn’t met with a ceaseless mass of terrorist drones attacking him.

Like in the first film, at one point Mike yells out “RPG,” which for the uninitiated stands for “rocket propelled grenade,” though for this weapons-illiterate viewer I’d just have soon thought he was proclaiming his entrance into a “role playing game.” The camera follows like a first-person shooter for much of the action, bullets whizzing by, explosions happening casually.

The British government and intelligence are depicted as barely capable, not only being completely oblivious beforehand that an attack is being planned, but consistently being told by the American government officials back in the U.S. what the sitch is. And as much as EVERYONE likes to see Morgan Freeman in governmental positions (here he’s now the Vice President), the whole suits-in-the-situation-room film tactic for solving major global crises just doesn’t hold up anymore.

Many could find themselves enjoying London Has Fallen, but one has to wonder if they should. By taking out other world leaders, Barkawi insinuates they are the U.S.’s “family,” a fair depiction of U.S. allies, but the casualness with which they are killed and the disrespect paid to Britain plays into an oft-used tone for action films: America is the best. Just as Mike Banning asks his MI6 friend at one point in the film about civilian losses and she remarks they are unfortunately high, as though she’s remarking on a price increase on her favorite shampoo, so is it impossible to have any real feeling for the film or its outcome. There’s nothing less patriotic than desensitizing terrorism and in an age of globalization, London Has Fallen feels stale and outdated.

In I, Frankenstein, director Stuart Beattie (Tomorrow, When the War Began) and screenwriter Kevin Grevioux (Underworld series) continue the story Mary Shelley started 200 years ago, as we find out what happens after the events of Shelley’s original version. Starring Aaron Eckhart as the soul-less monster, the film lets Frankenstein play in a genre we’ve never seen him in before: action.

Beattie is mostly known for his work as a screenwriter, having penned such blockbuster hits as the Pirates of the Caribbean series, Collateral, and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. Grevioux, who’s created the I, Frankenstein and Underworld franchises in both film and comic book form, also acts in both films.

Beattie and Grevioux talked to us in separate phone conversations about what has caused the Frankenstein character to endure for hundreds of years and what he means to them personally, what they’ve added to the mix for their modern interpretation, casting Aaron Eckhart, getting “clobbered” with sticks, and more. Below is our chat with Beattie, followed by our conversation with Grevioux.

I, Frankenstein opens nationwide this Thursday with 10pm screenings.

You’re film is a fresh, modern interpretation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, but what do you think is at the core of her original creation that’s made him such an enduring character?

Stuart: It’s the fact that he’s alone and want someone to share his life with. He wants someone to love, someone to share his life with. It’s the one thing we all want, really. I think that’s what makes him such an engaging character that’s lasted hundreds of years. It’s a universal condition, to want to connect with someone. He represents that better than any other literary character, because he literally is the only one of his kind. There literally is no one else like him, that can understand what he’s going through. Your heart bleeds for him. You can relate. You can say, “Yep. I’ve felt like that.””

How do you personally relate to the character? Were you a fan growing up?

Stuart: I’ve felt alone, I’ve felt misunderstood. I’ve felt that I’ve got all this love to give and no one to give it to. All those things. Fortunately I don’t feel them anymore, but I can remember when I did! (laughs) I have a full life, but it’s something everyone goes through at some point in their lives, some more than most, you know?

I can relate to that, for sure. How important was it to retain that theme, that layer of Mary Shelley’s character, in your film?

Stuart: Oh, that was everything. I mean, everything. That’s why I took this film. You can’t call it Frankenstein if you try to change that. When they did try to change it, I would say, “Okay, but you can’t call it Frankenstein anymore,” and I would win those arguments. It’s the idea that you can make an action film with a really complex, rich, relatable character at the center of it. You don’t often get the opportunity to do that. Character is always the first thing to get sacrificed in an action movie. Here, I felt like the film had a good chance of staying with this great character. That’s how we got Aaron Eckhart, and that’s why people are responding to the film so positively. They really see that there’s this great, powerful human story in the middle of it all.

It’s always been a great character and a great story, but now you and Kevin Grevioux have thrown a few new things into the formula. You’ve put him in the action movie arena and retained the intelligence we saw in Shelley’s version, but has been a bit lost in more recent monster flicks. 

Stuart: I was trying to figure out where he is at the end of Mary Shelley’s story. Basically, he’s a monster, right? He’s a corpse that’s been brought back to life, and he hasn’t got a soul, so he doesn’t have his humanity yet. That’s an interesting next chapter, showing how that monster earns his humanity, how he becomes a man. I though that was really compelling. To me, the best part about humanity is that self-sacrifice for a higher purpose. It’s all those people who give up the comforts of their lives to help others, to defend others, to protect others. That, to me, represents the best of mankind. We put the monster on this course where he’s going to have this choice of either getting what he wants, which is love, or giving up the love in order to protect mankind. Mankind has been nothing but horrible to him for his entire existence, starting with his father, of course. That, to me, is a really interesting place to take that character. That, in my eyes, would earn him a soul.

There are all of these complex layers to the character, which I’m sure led you to Mr. Eckhart. Do you remember ever seeing a particular performance from him where you thought he’d be perfect for this role?

Stuart: It’s going to sound weird, but Erin Brockovich. He was just amazing. In every performance he gives, he’s one-hundred-percent there, whatever it is. That was it, more than anything else: knowing that that was his work ethic. I needed someone who could completely commit to this character. Everyone has their own preconceived notions [about the character, but I needed] someone who could write their own notion and make you believe that it was him on screen. It’s a short list, but fortunately, Aaron was available and responded to the script. Throughout the shoot he was amazing in his dedication to the character. He was so prepared. We had nine weeks and 36 million dollars. It wasn’t a lot to make this kind of movie, and without someone like Aaron leading the way and showing us how it’s done, we would have never gotten through it.

In terms of action, the movie looks pretty spectacular. Can you describe your style of shooting action? Also, what’s Frankenstein’s fighting style?

Stuart: (laughs) The first thing is, I hate those action movies which have sequences with a bunch of close-ups. Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. It drives me nuts. I lose all sense of geography, and it’s just infuriating. For me, right from the start, I said let’s pull the camera back, shoot the actors head to toe, put the camera on the ground, and let the actors do their fights. That was the style that I wanted to shoot the movie in, and I made everyone very aware of it. (laughs) We went through six months of training to get the actors and stuntmen to a place where they could do these fights realistically and really be trying to kill each other. That’s the only way to really sell it, but to do it in a way where everyone is safe took a lot of work. From the get-go, I said the camera was going to be back low and wide, and people are going to see these fights. To me, that’s half the fun of seeing this movie. It’s really Aaron Eckhart swinging those sticks around, you know? If he misses or if he misses the block, he’s getting clobbered, and it’s nasty. I got clobbered with one of those sticks, and it’s not fun!

That was one part of it, but another part was to say, “No car chases. No shootouts. Just fights.” Those things have been done in action movies to death, and to try and find different kinds of action…(pauses) that’s where Kali stick fighting came in. It’s this wonderful martial art that’s incredibly cinematic, and it had never really been done in a Hollywood film since Rambo, which is where I first saw it. I wanted to shoot it in a way where you could see it.

What was your research process like? Did you pull from the Hammer films?

Stuart: Oh, yes. I looked at every Frankenstein film ever made. Every mini-series, everything. I watched them all. There are some good ones, there are some bad ones, there are some great ones, but they’re all the same kind of story. In my mind, doing something completely different and telling the next chapter was the right thing to do. The Mary Shelley story has been told so many times, and it doesn’t need telling again.

Why is now the perfect time to put out another iteration of it? We haven’t seen one in 20 years.

Stuart: I think because we haven’t seen one in 20 years! (laughs)

Touché!

Stuart: (laughs) Look, it’s fresh. It’s different. There’s a whole generation of kids who know what Frankenstein is, but have never seen a Frankenstein movie. That’s terrible, and we need to change that. This is a different kind of Frankenstein, and it feels like the right time to reinvent him. The Danny Boyle play is out there, which you can see too, and it’s a story that will always be told.

[Following our phone conversation with Mr. Beattie, we switched over to Kevin Grevioux]

I asked Stuart this: What is it about the Frankenstein character, at its core, that’s made it endure for 200 years?

Kevin: I think it’s a combination of things. I think at his core, Frankenstein is us. It’s something we can identify with. None of us asked to be brought into the world. Whereas we’re taught right from wrong from our parents, he was not. He actually holds Victor Frankenstein’s feet to the fire when he says, “I’ve read the bible. I saw that God never abandoned Adam. He gave him his moral compass. But you. You abandoned me and left me to my own devices. So, what I am is because of you.” I think that people understand that tragedy, because nowadays, we see what happens to abandoned children. We see them act out. I think that’s something we can identify with.

It’s also a story of perception. Here he is, chased and hated by villagers, just by virtue of the fact he exists. He can’t help what he is. That kind of buys into the idea of, are we who people perceive us to be, or are we who perceive ourselves to be? I think that’s why the concept has endured for so many years. He’s misunderstood.

That’s been at the core of the character from the beginning, but now you’ve created this new world for him to inhabit. Talk about the world-building process for this franchise.

Kevin: I remember thinking after Underworld, I was going to handle things differently. I lost control of that franchise. For this one, I wanted to create it from the ground up. I promised myself I would never write another naked screenplay again. I remember when Lakeshore heard about the script, I wanted to make sure they understood exactly what it was I was creating. What I did after I finished the screenplay was create some graphic novel pages. It was unfinished at the time, but I wanted to make sure they got it. When I handed the screenplay to them along with the pages, they immediately understood what I was trying to do, when before they didn’t. Because of that, I had the basis on which to build and expand this universe even beyond what the movie can do. You know, you’re working with budgets when you’re doing films. With comic books, you have a chance to really build the world out and have a mythology we’ve not seen before.

What’s interesting to me about this is, over the past decade, what you see is comic books being adapted to film. Here, you’ve got the film–you wrote the screenplay first–and you’re using the graphic novel as almost a proof of concept that the franchise can survive the market.

Kevin: Exactly. That’s what you do. I think as a creator you need to do whatever you can to make sure you get your stuff out there and it works. One of the most horrific things I’ve experienced as a writer is when you’ve written a screenplay you think is good–and it may be–but if no one bites, it dies. That’s no good. What you have to do is take your screenplay and adapt it. That’s what Steven Niles did. A lot of people don’t know that. He tried to sell 30 Days of Night as a movie first, and it didn’t work. What did he do? He turned it into a graphic novel, and they bought his screenplay after that! To me, that’s brilliant. That’s what you do.

I want to talk comics for a bit. You operate in that world as well, writing comics for Marvel and IDW. I love comic books. What can you say to people who aren’t into them what comic books can do that films can’t. Why should they check them out?

Kevin: I think that comic books are more pure. I think they represent the purity of the creator’s idea. That’s why I think people should always read them. With movies, you’re going to be limited to other people’s visions and understanding of your work. Comic books are you, unadulterated. I think that’s what people should understand. Plus, just from a budgetary standpoint, you can do anything in comics. With movies…man. (laughs) You need millions of dollars, like with I, Frankenstein. I can write the screenplay, and I can make the graphic novel, but making a movie? I’m a couple of bucks short.

The cool thing about your situation is, there are a lot of screenwriters out there, making fantastical worlds like the one you’ve made for this film, but you’re one of the very few who get to be in the movie and step into the world you’ve created. That must feel incredible.

Kevin: It’s fun. I realized a long time ago that, if you want a career, you’re going to have to make your own career. You have to create your own work. I see actors asking people for jobs, auditioning endlessly. Create your own! Look at what Sylvester Stallone did. Personally, I think he’s one of the great cinematic heroes of the last era. He said, look: I want to be an actor, but I’m going to write my own vehicles and put myself in them. They worked like a charm. Spike Lee and Quentin Tarantino have done the same thing. When you’re on set and you look at your creation come to life…that’s a great feeling.

That’s in line with what you mentioned earlier, that purity of vision.

Kevin: Exactly.

You’ve put Frankenstein in the action genre, one that he’s never inhabited before. How versatile do you think he is? Do you think the character could work in other genres?

Kevin: You know what..I think so. It depends upon the approach you take. I think almost any character can be adapted. Look at what they did with Abraham Lincoln! That was cool. I half rolled my eyes when I first heard of that concept. I thought, if some studio bought it, it could probably work. Sure enough, I bought the DVD, and that bad boy was good! (laughs)

What does Frankenstein mean to you personally?

Kevin: I’m going to be a little simplistic here. I could give you an existential answer. The more fun answer is: Dude. To me, seeing House of Frankenstein where you have this three-way conflict between Dracula, the Wolf Man, and Frankenstein…there you go. You know what I’m saying? There you go. What happens if you expand that? Underworld did the same thing. What if you remove Frankenstein, and we have a race of vampires against a race of werewolves? It’s cool! I think, really, it’s as simple as that when it comes to creators. I think it’s fun. I’m one of those individuals who’s ecstatic that we have Marvel Studios now, bringing these characters to life, characters I loved as a kid. I remember being in Walmart last year, and I saw a kiosk with a picture of The Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America. I remember saying to myself, man…I don’t believe they’ve made a movie of the Avengers…and it doesn’t suck! I cannot believe that! I never thought that day would come. I’m an old man. I remember that Spiderman TV series. (laughs)

Rabbit Hole is a raw and painful filled domestic drama that was based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning play by David Lindsay-Abaire. Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart put on great performances playing characters that have flaws and vulnerabilities. The story is one that is found on day-time television daily, but none are nearly as well done as this.

Rabbit Hole is about a young married couple who are trying their best to cope with the fact they had lost their 4-year-old son, Danny, who had chased their dog into the street and was hit by a car. The couple find it difficult to talk about the subject to each other, let alone friends and family. So instead, they avoid bringing that subject up, which we all know is never the best solution but it is the easiest.

Admitting you have a problem is always the first step, this is something Becca (Nicole Kidman) does not understand. When she and her husband Howie (Aaron Eckhart) go to a support group for parents that have lost their child, it becomes apparent she is ignorant about the situation. She has this sort of passive aggressive attitude about losing her child but eventually she lashes out at a couple who claims God took their child because He needed another angel. Her argument, which is valid but obviously highly inappropriate, is why did He not just make another angel if He needed one?

Going to the support group was only one way they attempted to cope with situation. Howie brings up the fact they have not had sex for eight months now and maybe a new baby is what they need. Becca does not go for that idea but does realize something drastic needs to change.

Becca seems to avoid eating with others frequently, this may be due to the fact she knows the subject will eventually come up about Danny. At the very beginning of the film, a neighbor asks if she wanted to come over for dinner, to which she pretends she already had dinner plans. In a scene shortly later, she rejects her own mom’s offering of cake after her sister refused her offer of Danny’s clothes for her newborn.

As a school bus passes Becca one morning, she gets a glimpse of a boy who we can assume she thinks is her kid. Even red-lights do not stop her in following the bus as she eagerly wants to get a better look. He eventually gets off the bus and enters his home, but that is not the last time she follows that bus. The next time the boy gets off the bus he is off to return a book to the library. She not only follows him into the library but even checks out the same book he returned. The book was appropriately titled, “Parallel Universes” which is both ironic and fitting. Is she just latching one to someone who represents her lost child?

One of the best scenes of the film comes in at about the half-way point, when the two finally explode. It is an incredibly emotional and powerful scene where the stop holding in all the things that have been bothering them. They talk about things that they have avoided to speak about in the first place, mostly pointing fingers on the cause of their child’s death.

The result of that fight puts in perspective how differently the two deal with the loss. Howie is trying to hold on to the memories of Danny. He relishes old videos he took of him and keeps his car-seat in his car. On the other side, Becca is trying to get rid of the things that remind her of Danny. She dreads seeing his fingerprints on the glass door or school paintings that were done by him up on the fridge.

What they do have in common is they both wrongfully take the blame out on other people. They do this both physically and vocally. The scenes these take place are done well enough to evoke emotion as you start to feel for them.You start finding yourself rooting for these characters as they expose themselves with their raw emotional outbursts.

Another thing they share in common is each of them has their own secrets. Howie smokes pot with a lady from the support group and Becca is spending time with the boy she follows from school. Both end up finding out about each other’s secrets and realize it was yet another way of them dealing with the pain.

They both tried so hard to change their lives in hopes that the pain would just go away. They found out that does not work. The moral of the story is that it does not go away, you will carry the memory around. It is something that you just need to accept and try to move on with in life.

Kidman and Eckhart do nothing short of spectacular work here. The interactions between them seem as natural as they would from a young married couple in their situation. Where they excel most at are the most difficult parts, subtle details. The way Kidman’s character seems so passive before she snaps slightly. Her performance led to a well-deserved Oscar nomination for Best Actress as well as a Golden Globe nomination.

For me, the best part about Rabbit Hole is how it showed each of the characters coping differently yet at the same time how similar their behaviors were became. Not only that, but showing the characters putting on their brave face but then also exposed with their guard down was fantastically done. Because the general story is not at all interesting, Rabbit Hole is surprisingly better than you might expect.

You know it’s a good movie when you have such high expectations for it and after seeing it, it surpasses what you expected. In fact, it made me want to go see it again in the theater, something I never do. Thanks to the brilliant director, Christopher Nolan, The Dark Knight is easily one of the best superhero movies of all time.

This relatively long movie (2hr 30mins) flys by so quickly due to the non-stop action and fast scenes. You don’t get a chance to breathe. It’s the highest rated movie currently on IMdb’s website (granted it’s only been out for a week). This movie follows the previous Batman movie Christopher Nolan directed, Batman Begins, in that it is not your typical superhero movie. It is much more realistic and believable. Much as the title subtly states, this movie has a dark mood to it. It’s chaotic and mesmerizing.

I’ll say it now, I will be completely surprised if Heath Ledger doesn’t win an Oscar for his role. The Joker is played absolutely perfect. You honestly get the feeling that the character is an unbalanced maniac. Christian Bale was solid as well. Some parts had me wondering how it kept it’s PG13 rating. The storyline is incredibly fluid and logical. My only real compliant about the movie is a small one. There are some scenes where Batman’s voice sounds like an incomprehensible gurgled mess. It’s a small flaw that thankfully doesn’t appear frequent.

I haven’t seen a better movie more recently than The Dark Knight since There Will Be Blood. Although it’s a completely different kind of movie, it falls just short of a masterpiece for this genre. Highly recommended.