Read User Reviews and Submit your own for I, Frankenstein

0

LizLemon44Jan 28, 2014

Lacks the entertainment factor of the typical junk month action/fantasy movie. Eckhart is less than compelling, falling in an awkward limbo between trying too hard and not hard enough. Same could be said about the film. It's horrible ifLacks the entertainment factor of the typical junk month action/fantasy movie. Eckhart is less than compelling, falling in an awkward limbo between trying too hard and not hard enough. Same could be said about the film. It's horrible if taken seriously, but it doesn't quite fit the fun criteria for cult film either. Too much cheering for the credits and not the film itself. Spend ticket money elsewhere!… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

8

ahlam_jMar 15, 2014

THIS MOVIE IS AMAZING. i love these kinds of movies. it has many features. seriously i advise everybody to watch it. it has all the elements. the actores did a great job.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

1

BogKidSep 30, 2014

Just caught "I, Turkey" on Blu-Ray. I was too smart to spend a buck on it i n a theatre. This movie is so bad that it isn't even funny/bad. Maybe it will go down in time as a museum of "OK" CGI. A new CGI effect seems to pop up everyJust caught "I, Turkey" on Blu-Ray. I was too smart to spend a buck on it i n a theatre. This movie is so bad that it isn't even funny/bad. Maybe it will go down in time as a museum of "OK" CGI. A new CGI effect seems to pop up every minute or so even if the plot (such as it is) does not require any CGI action. Pretty bad!… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

ViolettSep 2, 2014

I've read original book by Mary Shelley and the idea of this movie wasn't drawn from blank. Beginning was fine, but then ... gargoyles vs demons? Frankenstein incredibly powerful, crushing walls, and few seconds later he cant get himself upI've read original book by Mary Shelley and the idea of this movie wasn't drawn from blank. Beginning was fine, but then ... gargoyles vs demons? Frankenstein incredibly powerful, crushing walls, and few seconds later he cant get himself up by axe? Queen is good at first, then trying to kill Frankenstein, then good again? Plot has so many flaws, so I could not understand who is good and who is bad at the end. Frankenstein does not look like he is made from patches apart from some drawn scars and blackened eyes. Bad movie in total, really bad. 310 for special effects and my favorite mystical electricity theme.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

0

manofthemoonApr 1, 2014

Some graphic novels work as films and some don't. I, Frankenstein is the latter. A cookie-cutter copy of the likes of Underworld (Bill Nighy turns up for probably half a day's shooting and a nice pay check) with low quality SFX and a pacingSome graphic novels work as films and some don't. I, Frankenstein is the latter. A cookie-cutter copy of the likes of Underworld (Bill Nighy turns up for probably half a day's shooting and a nice pay check) with low quality SFX and a pacing aimed at 8 year olds. That films like this get funding is a sad reflection of what Hollywood execs think they can get away with. The fact that it bombed so badly at the box-office shows that they need to start upping their game. Mary Shelley would be spinning in her grave.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

Venomq7May 15, 2014

There is no soul in I, Frankenstein. This movie is nothing more but just another popcorn monster movie that was meant to give audience a fun time but it failed to produce.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

SolidJakeOct 13, 2014

While the main story concept is a bit odd (I'm still not convinced this needed to tie into Mary Shelley's novel at all)... the sequence of events and story direction were bold in some parts. They really weren't afraid to kill off characters,While the main story concept is a bit odd (I'm still not convinced this needed to tie into Mary Shelley's novel at all)... the sequence of events and story direction were bold in some parts. They really weren't afraid to kill off characters, which is sort of relieving. This movie keeps you watching, really unsure how each fight scene is going to play out. That was nice.

I think the art direction was this movie's main selling point, though. There were a few campy 'glowing eyes' effects here and there, and the buffy-style demon heads were a bit difficult to take seriously, but gargoyle transformations and flight cams were fantastic. The scenery was great, the full-moon lighting was pretty, and the supernatural death effects were some of the coolest I've seen onscreen.

If you like sweeping stories between good and evil, standard angels and demons fanfare, you'll really enjoy watching this movie. Just don't think about it too much.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

2

The3AcademySinsJan 15, 2020

Early 2000s CGI schlock at its absolute worst. This movie is almost unwatchable. It honestly gives me a headache. You can turn your brain off and get some enjoyment out of it. Overall though, I think Mary Shelley would be spinning in herEarly 2000s CGI schlock at its absolute worst. This movie is almost unwatchable. It honestly gives me a headache. You can turn your brain off and get some enjoyment out of it. Overall though, I think Mary Shelley would be spinning in her grave if she knew this existed.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

1

SlipperJan 24, 2014

This is one of those movies that don' t deserve to "live" in theaters. Lead actor, Aaron Eckhart is disaster ( my opinion) pale acting, lame CGI in one word complete garbage. Not worth watching.

10 of 14 users found this helpful104

All this user's reviews

0

ClassyDinoJan 24, 2014

This Movie was awful, if your looking for a movie that makes you puke due to low quality, badly scripted and poorly acted that was made purely to make money you just found the perfect movie.

10 of 14 users found this helpful104

All this user's reviews

3

ThegodfathersonJan 24, 2014

But what’s most frustrating is that the film never attempts to explore, exploit, or elaborate on Adam’s origins in the Frankenstein story, to the extent that it’s easy to occasionally forget the film’s entire premise while watching it. (InBut what’s most frustrating is that the film never attempts to explore, exploit, or elaborate on Adam’s origins in the Frankenstein story, to the extent that it’s easy to occasionally forget the film’s entire premise while watching it. (In fact, Eckhart himself disappears from the proceedings with surprising regularity, spending a good bit of time skulking around in the shadows, listening in on various supporting characters as they spout expository dialogue.) The film is also entirely devoid of humor, and so drably chaste that one can’t help but perk up at the slight glimmer of lust in Terra’s eye when she gets a look at the shirtless Adam’s stacked, stitched musculature in a low-lit bedroom. Alas, the size of this particular monster’s schwanzstucker goes totally unexplored. Director Beattie keeps his camera in constant motion throughout, though it’s sometimes unclear what effect he’s trying to produce. The relentlessly obtrusive score is matched in volume by the sound editing, which renders the rustling of clothes and the turning of pages in a book with floor-quaking resonance. The sets and other production design elements, however, are quite nice to look at when the camera holds still for long enough.… Expand

6 of 9 users found this helpful63

All this user's reviews

3

guipowJan 26, 2014

O filme é bastante clichê e com efeitos especiais repetitivos, enjoativos e entendiantes depois de meia hora de filme. O enredo é limitado e resume-se à guerra entre gárgulas e demônios. O final é tão mais decepcionante que o filme todo emO filme é bastante clichê e com efeitos especiais repetitivos, enjoativos e entendiantes depois de meia hora de filme. O enredo é limitado e resume-se à guerra entre gárgulas e demônios. O final é tão mais decepcionante que o filme todo em si. O romance poderia ser melhor trabalhado. Enfim, a produção é fraca. Só vale mesmo a pena pela cena Aaron Eckhart sem camisa, nada que uma busca na internet não resolva. Não recomendo. A versão 3D pelo menos parece ser mais interessante que a versão normal.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

4

NightReviewsFeb 13, 2014

I can just imagine what the pitch meeting for I, Frankenstein was like…It was probably a lot like, if not identical to, the pitch about a long feuding history between vampires and werewolves that have taken over the city’s underworld, with aI can just imagine what the pitch meeting for I, Frankenstein was like…It was probably a lot like, if not identical to, the pitch about a long feuding history between vampires and werewolves that have taken over the city’s underworld, with a love story thrown in there just for fun. Alas, from the producers of Underworld, with some of the same actors in Underworld, and with the exact same narrative of Underworld , comes…not Underworld, but I, Frankenstein. If you’re confused, stay with me.

I’m not sure if Lakeshore Entertainment thinks it’s audience is completely idiotic, but if they think ten years is enough time to put out the exact same movie, just reversing the gender of it’s hero, without anyone noticing, then they really need to get a new research and marketing managing team assembled. I’m not sure what to make of I, Frankenstein; whether its a directly revived spin-off of Underworld, or a gender-reversed narrative film gimmick, or an experiment for Hollywood to see how much of the same story they can visit over and over and still make a profit with, but the film is an exact carbon copy of writer’s Kevin Grevioux’s first writing credit.

The question as to why then becomes almost as clichéd and predictable as the answer, and goes back to Hollywood’s hidden yet not-so-secret January agenda, which also serves as this January film’s underlining motive–money. Underworld was a mild box office success almost making $100 million worldwide with a modest $20 million budget. But the series spawned numerous sequels (sometimes without Beckinsale) hauling in a respectable $455 million total worldwide on a $175 million budget overall, which isn’t bad for an unexpected tentpole franchise. Replace the aforementioned two species with gargoyles and demons, switch a leathered up Kate Beckinsale for a stitched up Aaron Eckhart with a hoodie and some eyeliner, and Bill Nighy for…well, Bill Nighy, and you have a hopeful, stylized and lame rehash of a beloved 2002 film.

The thing about the film is, in terms of atmospheric tone and stylized action, it delivers in a way that can only be expected of a January film. The action is large, epic and entertaining; the acting isn’t that bad considering, and the inconsistencies within the film are somewhat consistent. One minute, a demon is travelling at sonic speed and another he is running just like the rest of us humans, and it happens throughout the whole film. So the film can be applauded for being real with itself, but, in a season where originality is everything and creativity is king, the film never has a spark or stroke of imagination anywhere, which gives the film its biggest level of horror.

Caught in-between two sides of an opposing world, Victor Frankenstein’s monster (Eckhart) must live outcasted in a world where his entire world is a giant question mark. In a rare case where art imitates life, Eckhart has also been playing both sides of the feud between the independent side of Hollywood, as well as the mainstream side. One thing is for sure, you got to feel sorry for Mr. Eckhart. An actor who has worked so hard in his career and landed/delivered excellent roles throughout with Thank You For Smoking, Rabbit Hole, The Rum Diary and The Dark Knight, unfortunately, hasn’t been able to establish himself as a bonafide leading man and movie star with some serious star power and household credibility.

The film is flooded with up-and-coming action stars trying to make a name for themselves. From Miranda Otto, the princess of Aragorn in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, to Jai Courtney, the next generation’s John McClane in A Good Day to Die Hard, to Socratis Otto, the film will undoubtedly serve as a high-profile highlight in the resumés of many of these young actors. While the veteran actors, namely Bill Nighy, who delivers as if his eyes were closed and appears on screen fidgety, with a ‘been there, done that attitude’ can surely do without the inclusion of this film on his filmography. Nonetheless, a man’s got to eat and his career as a whole will never be discredited for a role he has already played before, even if it is with half the gusto.

Unfortunately the film never revives anything new and exciting to the genre or January films in general. Recycling old themes, plots and characters from films that appeared less than a decade ago, its a surprise that pop culture and mass media hasn’t already written this film off as a stitched up mess. In what was surely an unintentional use of dialogue, Otto’s character describes what it was like looking into the eyes of the monster for the first time, “not with a soul, but the potential for one”. I, Frankenstein can rest assured that it will live on as a plain example of Hollywood’s success at ripping the soul from classic English literature pieces, and instead of finding potential, adding the only thing it knows how, an “I”; an “I” for inconsideration for its source text and an overwhelming glossy and conceded Hollywood presence.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

0

theEdmanFeb 4, 2014

the script was written with a potato,the acting was like watching monkeys pee their pants and it was directed by a spork.this movie just pooped its pants all the way and we are the ones smelling the liquid feces that came out of this movie.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

10

GamerguyboyFeb 7, 2014

I liked the dubstep soundtrack, nice acting, unique effects, epic scenes and cool actors I rate it a 10/10 must watch movie of the year 2014 best thing ever

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

0

RuPaulJan 24, 2014

While reminiscent of Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and Abraham Lincoln, I Frankenstein lacked almost all the humor, wit and self deprecation so well delivered in its predecessors. I don't think I laughed or felt engaged once. I made itWhile reminiscent of Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and Abraham Lincoln, I Frankenstein lacked almost all the humor, wit and self deprecation so well delivered in its predecessors. I don't think I laughed or felt engaged once. I made it through, but this film didn't even achieve B movie bad, there was something about it that made it feel like it was trying too hard instead of the proper thing, which is to come off as trying not hard at all. Eckart, a decent actor, was an acting equivalent to a wet noodle, taking himself way too seriously. I almost wanted to ask him if he looked at the title of the movie before choosing to play his character without winking at the camera once. Unfortunately his six pack looked like it could throw a harder punch than the actor himself. I honestly missed Jeremy Renner and Gemma Artertons sarcastic silliness from hansel and gretel, whose subtle eye rolls now seem to be the perfect way to sell a good time in this kind of film. Maybe I'll be less bitter about this movie as time passes, but for now I'm seriously pissed I wasted those hours of my life on this listless fantasy reboot.… Expand

5 of 8 users found this helpful53

All this user's reviews

0

GraceRJan 24, 2014

Wow. Miranda Otto deserves an oscar for the way she delivered some of the worst writing in the history of film, but most likely she will win a razzie instead. Eckhart deserves one for relying on his (gross) vein-popping muscles to sell campyWow. Miranda Otto deserves an oscar for the way she delivered some of the worst writing in the history of film, but most likely she will win a razzie instead. Eckhart deserves one for relying on his (gross) vein-popping muscles to sell campy fun rather than actually selling campy fun. The only person who seemed like they wanted to movie to be over faster than me was him. Yvonne is beautiful, and is bound to turn heads, but certainly not for any acting she did here. Here's to hoping she can dodge all the tomatoes in the meantime. The action was lame and completely phoned in-just plain boring is probably the nicest thing I can say.

Ultimately it's a failure on all fronts: script, effects, plausibility, action, pace, tone, dedication, direction, and performances (major Aaron Eckhart fail of all things). It's not even fun for chrissake, and not deserving of cult status as the more recent fantasy reboot entries have been. Where is Bruce Campbell when you really really need him?… Expand

5 of 9 users found this helpful54

All this user's reviews

8

Luxangel7Jan 28, 2014

I really don't understand all this bashing going on.

Saw the movie yesterday, and the actors did a good job of portraying their roles, the effects were really great, especially the transition from gargoyle to human and vice versa, theI really don't understand all this bashing going on.

Saw the movie yesterday, and the actors did a good job of portraying their roles, the effects were really great, especially the transition from gargoyle to human and vice versa, the story was the good vs. evil plot we were promised, and the movie's pacing was just right.

I gave this movie an 8 out of 10. It's by no means perfect, but the only thing about this movie that was really bad (at certain times) was the writing. There were several instances where I thought it was cheesy, amateurish, and just generally poor.

I vividly remember several times where cool or moments with high potential were essentially ruined because of atrocious word choice and writing direction.

The worst offender was at the end when Adam / the monster is giving his final "super hero on a roof speech". I felt like the writer, whoever it is, just kind of had a brain fart or something.

Anyway, it's a good movie, excellent good vs. evil action flick to pass the time. But it is important that you do not go into it expecting some sort of epic Lord of the Rings quality reinvention of the Frankenstein tale, because this is not that.

This is a well made good vs. evil action flick with Frankenstein as the main plot device, with good actors, good special effects, good pacing, and good soundtrack, with good fights/action scenes.

But with generally 6/10 writing and in some places 3/10 writing.

I wrote this as objectively and honestly as I can so hopefully if someone is reading this trying to decide whether to watch it or not it can prove helpful.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

4

Movie1997Jan 25, 2014

I guess the only good thing I can say about this movie is that it didn't suck as much as I expected. There's joy to take in this movie, yet at the same time, there are bad elements that are predictable, typical or even unconvincing. Overall,I guess the only good thing I can say about this movie is that it didn't suck as much as I expected. There's joy to take in this movie, yet at the same time, there are bad elements that are predictable, typical or even unconvincing. Overall, it's a movie no one will remember. I give it a C-!… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

4

TheQuietGamerMay 23, 2014

Not as bad as it could have been, maybe not even as bad as you would expect, but bad nonetheless. The goofy plot about gargoyles, demons, and the frankenstein monster never interested me and remained boring. Visually it's similar to theNot as bad as it could have been, maybe not even as bad as you would expect, but bad nonetheless. The goofy plot about gargoyles, demons, and the frankenstein monster never interested me and remained boring. Visually it's similar to the "Underworld" series, so expect the same dark and almost dirty world that is filled with sub-par CGI. Not even the action which could have held a certain goofy charm to it maintains any form of excitement. I could see fans of the Underworld series getting a kick out of this as, considering it's ties, bares many similarities. As for those who are not fans this is a totally skippable movie, because the sub-par nature of it all will just make it feel like a complete waste of time. I know that's how it felt to me.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

10

samarathenymphFeb 18, 2014

An enjoyable movie on par with the Underworld series. The weakest part of the movie is probably the script, with a few cringe-worthy lines in the beginning. There simply wasn't enough time for development and getting to like the mainAn enjoyable movie on par with the Underworld series. The weakest part of the movie is probably the script, with a few cringe-worthy lines in the beginning. There simply wasn't enough time for development and getting to like the main characters.I thought Aaron Eckhart and Yvonne Strahovski actually did a really good job with the material. The CGI effects were pretty standard fare for today's movies, nothing spectacular, nothing awful. One or two good fight scenes, and a few weak ones.

Things I liked especially:
1) Not a bunch of corny 1-liners that so many action movies feel the need to throw in constantly. There were only a couple of basic, funny lines, and I think this worked best with the theme.

2) The victorian era/modern era hybrid type setting for the city, and the rooms for the various scenes.

3) Yvonne Strahovski as Terra. Nice to see a competent actress playing a character in this type of movie and not being overly-sexualized. Some people want to complain about her being in a skirt in the beginning, but that fit exactly with the fact that she was giving a formal presentation to her boss. No heels, subdued makeup, and the skirt wasn't that short. She represented humanity well.

The movie could have been better of course, and I for one would like to see a sequel, but it looks like there is no chance of that now.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

10

billylenzFeb 18, 2014

Taken as the movie was intended, a simple supernatural good vs evil romp, it does a great job. It stays true to it's roots and doesn't try to use flippancy and comedy to mask weakness like so many other movies try to do and fail.

Aaron isTaken as the movie was intended, a simple supernatural good vs evil romp, it does a great job. It stays true to it's roots and doesn't try to use flippancy and comedy to mask weakness like so many other movies try to do and fail.

Aaron is his usual stoic hero and plays his role well. The rest of the actors are more wall dressing but do lend credibility to their roles as well.

If you are expecting a super blockbuster you will be dissapointed (and you were foolish to begin with) but if you are looking for a good popcorn flick this movie will satisfy.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

3

cmykJan 29, 2014

Even while keeping in mind the genre and target audience of this movie, it's yet another letdown in today's theatre. Clunky dialogue, ambiguous purpose, and a profound inability to make the audience care. Neat visuals, but like everythingEven while keeping in mind the genre and target audience of this movie, it's yet another letdown in today's theatre. Clunky dialogue, ambiguous purpose, and a profound inability to make the audience care. Neat visuals, but like everything else this movie has to offer, it's superficial at best. If you're not particularly invested in a specific aspect of the movie, I would recommend waiting for it to be offered at online steaming sites/rental than to pay high fees at the cinema.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

2

Leo9127Feb 3, 2014

I really wasn't expecting much from this, but to be honest this exceeded my expectations, but then again my expectations were low, still the CGI is awful, the story while original, just becomes a series of boring cliches, and even with AaronI really wasn't expecting much from this, but to be honest this exceeded my expectations, but then again my expectations were low, still the CGI is awful, the story while original, just becomes a series of boring cliches, and even with Aaron Eckhart trying his best this is still a lame, generic, crappy movie.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

1

FilmVirtueMar 12, 2014

It's really, really bad. I mean that. It's just bad on so many levels. When I mean bad, I mean "REPETITIVE AND BORING" I, Frankenstein was just too dull for me to actually enjoy it. Oh, And did I mention it was Bad?

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

7

LamontRaymondJan 24, 2014

The film is much more entertaining than it has any right to be. Aaron Eckhart does a really nice job in the lead role - he clearly doesn't mail it in like Jeremy Renner did in that Hansel & Gretel piece of garbage. And Yvonne Strahovsky is aThe film is much more entertaining than it has any right to be. Aaron Eckhart does a really nice job in the lead role - he clearly doesn't mail it in like Jeremy Renner did in that Hansel & Gretel piece of garbage. And Yvonne Strahovsky is a budding star - I have no idea why casting directors aren't putting her in the A-list roles. Had she been a bit younger, she would have been great in The Hunger Games - though she might be a hair good looking. The story in iFrankenstein is solid, and it never flags or loses your attention. Bill Nighy is terrific baddie. The negatives? The demon masks look like they were made from recycled rubber chickens, and the gargoyle effects aren't much better. Ironically, the movie could use a touch more humanity. And there's a real homage to The Matrix here, and even though the plot point is a stretch, it's no more of a stretch than the theory of The Matrix. Overall, I got my money's worth. I'm a little surprised they didn't screen this for critics.… Expand

7 of 15 users found this helpful78

All this user's reviews

0

TVJerryJan 29, 2014

It's still January and this already qualifies as the worst movie of the year! Aaron Eckhart plays the classic monster all buffed up 200 years later. There's some narrative blur about gargoyles and demons fighting over the fate of humanity,It's still January and this already qualifies as the worst movie of the year! Aaron Eckhart plays the classic monster all buffed up 200 years later. There's some narrative blur about gargoyles and demons fighting over the fate of humanity, but it's a jumbled mess. The action is just as confusing and the design looks like a dark, unoriginal video game. The only thing to recommend this movie is one scene with Eckhart shirtless, but I've included it in this review, so you can spare yourself the agony.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

10

oswaldferreraFeb 18, 2014

The film is much more entertaining than it has any right to be. Aaron Eckhart does a really nice job in the lead role - he clearly doesn't mail it in like Jeremy Renner did in that Hansel & Gretel piece of garbage. And Yvonne Strahovsky is aThe film is much more entertaining than it has any right to be. Aaron Eckhart does a really nice job in the lead role - he clearly doesn't mail it in like Jeremy Renner did in that Hansel & Gretel piece of garbage. And Yvonne Strahovsky is a budding star - I have no idea why casting directors aren't putting her in the A-list roles. Had she been a bit younger, she would have been great in The Hunger Games - though she might be a hair good looking. The story in iFrankenstein is solid, and it never flags or loses your attention. Bill Nighy is terrific baddie. The negatives? The demon masks look like they were made from recycled rubber chickens, and the gargoyle effects aren't much better. Ironically, the movie could use a touch more humanity. And there's a real homage to The Matrix here, and even though the plot point is a stretch, it's no more of a stretch than the theory of The Matrix. Overall, I got my money's worth. I'm a little surprised they didn't screen this for critics.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

10

colorlessJan 24, 2014

I guess based on the reviews people expected this to be a comedy. Weird. It seems like either those people didn't watch the trailer or the name Frankenstein makes them think of a comedy.

Watch if you're looking to be entertained.

5 of 25 users found this helpful520

All this user's reviews

9

santiagodracoJan 24, 2014

Taken as the movie was intended, a simple supernatural good vs evil romp, it does a great job. It stays true to it's roots and doesn't try to use flippancy and comedy to mask weakness like so many other movies try to do and fail.

Aaron isTaken as the movie was intended, a simple supernatural good vs evil romp, it does a great job. It stays true to it's roots and doesn't try to use flippancy and comedy to mask weakness like so many other movies try to do and fail.

Aaron is his usual stoic hero and plays his role well. The rest of the actors are more wall dressing but do lend credibility to their roles as well.

If you are expecting a super blockbuster you will be dissapointed (and you were foolish to begin with) but if you are looking for a good popcorn flick this movie will satisfy.… Expand

2 of 12 users found this helpful210

All this user's reviews

0

Pauly-IraqVetMay 15, 2014

thank god for red box, since this only cost me 1.34. what a piece of garbage - turned it off after ten minutes and i feel like they owe me my ten minutes back.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

LeZeeMay 26, 2014

The fusion between the ancient characters in the modern world is not a
new, at least for the newer generation. This is the way it became in
the present era which makes viral and collects more revenue. We can say its a new trend in cinemaThe fusion between the ancient characters in the modern world is not a
new, at least for the newer generation. This is the way it became in
the present era which makes viral and collects more revenue. We can say
its a new trend in cinema making. As we know that all the movies based
on similar fashion had not seen success, but still filmmakers are eager
to gamble in this particular path. So that is where the character
Frankenstein comes through this movie.

Pretty much excited to see Aaron Ackhart in a lead role who was one of
the most notable supporting actor of our time. It was a one liner
story. Centuries old war between angels and demons continued till the
present time, which brings along the soulless creature Frankenstein who
caught between them. So what is his role in the battle of immortal
giants is what the movie reveal in the rest of the portion.

I can say quite a good concept was wasted for nothing. The graphics
were good but too much of dark shades ruined the quality. Development
either for characters or the story was never looked improving. It kept
falling every minute and confused the audience. In the end it was badly
written and directed. The director had no much experience to carve a
huge and popular character like Frankenstein. As expected, it went
straight to the garbage, but watchable only for Aaron Ackhart. That
means not he's awesome, his stunt sequences were below par.

Not too far from now to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Victor
Frankenstein. So I guess this is the right time to tribute him and his
creator. After seeing this movie I felt, is that it?, done and dusted.
Please somebody make a fine movie based on character Frankenstein. He
deserves better that this. Hoping to see some big names around cast and
crew.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

chrisjones914Jul 28, 2014

There are many reasons to absolutely hate I,Frankenstein! However, If you can look past those reason and focus completely on the title character, then you will find an interesting character study that takes place in a very cool worldThere are many reasons to absolutely hate I,Frankenstein! However, If you can look past those reason and focus completely on the title character, then you will find an interesting character study that takes place in a very cool world surrounded by even cooler action!… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

8

LeadGooseJan 27, 2014

An enjoyable movie on par with the Underworld series. The weakest part of the movie is probably the script, with a few cringe-worthy lines in the beginning. There simply wasn't enough time for development and getting to like the mainAn enjoyable movie on par with the Underworld series. The weakest part of the movie is probably the script, with a few cringe-worthy lines in the beginning. There simply wasn't enough time for development and getting to like the main characters.I thought Aaron Eckhart and Yvonne Strahovski actually did a really good job with the material. The CGI effects were pretty standard fare for today's movies, nothing spectacular, nothing awful. One or two good fight scenes, and a few weak ones.

Things I liked especially:
1) Not a bunch of corny 1-liners that so many action movies feel the need to throw in constantly. There were only a couple of basic, funny lines, and I think this worked best with the theme.

2) The victorian era/modern era hybrid type setting for the city, and the rooms for the various scenes.

3) Yvonne Strahovski as Terra. Nice to see a competent actress playing a character in this type of movie and not being overly-sexualized. Some people want to complain about her being in a skirt in the beginning, but that fit exactly with the fact that she was giving a formal presentation to her boss. No heels, subdued makeup, and the skirt wasn't that short. She represented humanity well.

The movie could have been better of course, and I for one would like to see a sequel, but it looks like there is no chance of that now.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

1

atatyuFeb 5, 2014

No topic, no humour, no plot. Two hours of meaningless action and dissapointment. If you want to lose 2 hours this movie is for you. This entire movie is only a reason to eat popcorn.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

brentwshelton1Dec 28, 2014

OK, overlooking the fact (for those of those that have actually read it) they totally rewrote the ending of Shelly's Frankenstein yet kept a piece here and there where it was convenient for the back-story, the creation of a whole unnecessaryOK, overlooking the fact (for those of those that have actually read it) they totally rewrote the ending of Shelly's Frankenstein yet kept a piece here and there where it was convenient for the back-story, the creation of a whole unnecessary mythos of the "Order of the Gargoyles" (Why not just use/call them angels???), and the complete and utter absence of ANY pedestrians and/or car traffic in nighttime London (the better, I guess, to keep the "secret war" - "secret" i.e., all the hordes of gargoyles flying around fighting demon hordes (alternating blue explosions headed to heaven and fiery explosions headed to......the other place, AND the complete lack of emergency vehicle response to (or even car alarms for that matter) to huge explosions, building collapses, etc. OVERLOOKING all of that, the fact that you can now watch this very average, play by the numbers, action pic on Netflix (for a bargain price once you average in everything else you watch in a month on that site)....this is an OK way to while away a couple of hours for an average bout of average escapism.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

2

Gamer24sevenJul 11, 2014

Crummy Underworld copy that fails to deliver on one point besides good picture and sound quality. I'll put it as straight as possible. I, Frankenstein is among the worst I've seen in years. Actually you do not need to read more, it is enoughCrummy Underworld copy that fails to deliver on one point besides good picture and sound quality. I'll put it as straight as possible. I, Frankenstein is among the worst I've seen in years. Actually you do not need to read more, it is enough that you trust me when I say you'll never, never see this movie.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

DCEdmondsNov 13, 2014

"I, Frankenstein" 10 Scale Rating: 4.0 (Bad) ...

The Good: As silly as it sounds, this actually wasn't a bad idea and there is a sold story behind it. I was shocked to see Aaron Eckhart accept a role like this, but he was up to the task"I, Frankenstein" 10 Scale Rating: 4.0 (Bad) ...

The Good: As silly as it sounds, this actually wasn't a bad idea and there is a sold story behind it. I was shocked to see Aaron Eckhart accept a role like this, but he was up to the task and made the most of it. Bill Nighy, as usual, was fantastic. He played the main villain in the film and was at his diabolical best. At times, the effects and make up were top notch ...

The Bad: ... but most of the time, it wasn't. Several scenes looked like cartoons or CGI from it's earliest days. It was also odd how accepting the lead actress was that Frankenstien's monster is real. She's a scientist working on bringing people back from the dead for a shady company, who comes across as rooted in reality. Yet, when told of our hero, she just sorta jumps in feet first and accepts everything. It was a put-off. Lastly, Jai Courtney was awful in this and to be brutally honest ... he usually is. Overall, I was hoping for something somewhat silly, but a fun horror/action flick. I didn't get it.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

Acher4Feb 5, 2014

This is not a bad movie but it could have been so much better. Truthfully, it was a fun movie to watch though.
I hope they make a sequel, because I am sure if they do, it will be better and more story wise interesting.