Read Mixed User Reviews for I, Frankenstein

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

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

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

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

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.