I, Frankenstein (2014) User Reviews

A Generally poorly received film I rather enjoyed.

[paulclaassen · 6/10 · 10 August 2021]

'I, Frankenstein' was very poorly received by critics, and at the box office. So, why did I enjoy it so much then?

Well, the visual effects, photography and make-up were good. There's demons, gargoyles, Aaron Eckhart, Bill Nighy - who is fantastic as always -, and scruffy and muscular Gideon (Jai Courtney), so why wouldn't I like this film? 'I, Frankenstein' is a twist on the classic Frankenstein tale. In fact, it deviates significantly from what we know about Frankenstein's creation - and I enjoyed this original idea of an age-old tale. Frankenstein's creature is named Adam by the Gargoyle Queen.

Yvonne Strahovski stars as brilliant scientist, Terra, whom I really enjoyed in the film. I liked her involvement - as a human - in a battle between creatures of good and evil. Despite's Adam's inability to show emotion, there somehow was a nice chemistry between him and Terra - not of romantic nature, off course. The film's final moments are action-packed with a bit too much CGI, but I nevertheless enjoyed it.

So, while critics hated the film, I rather enjoyed it, thank you! The ending leaves the door wide open for a sequel. Apparently a sequel was cancelled due to the film's poor performance at the box office. Sadly.

Would I watch it again? Yes.

I... didn't find it so bad.

[Quebec_Dragon · 6/10 · 24 January 2014]

I must admit that I enjoyed watching this supernatural action flick heavy on CGI effects despite its flaws. I wondered why afterwards. First, it seemed to follow from the book events and made a good point that the creature is not actually called Frankenstein. However, the "creature" itself, played by a strong Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent in Dark Knight) did not look like any previous incarnation. Mostly, it looked like a normal-sized, muscular, even handsome man with scars, not like a tall, grotesque, patchwork of a man as it should have been. So, the film following this trend of making "monsters" sexy bugged me, but the performance of Eckhart won me over. He might not have emoted much, as befitted the character who didn't learn how, but he certainly had the charisma and gravitas necessary. He didn't look the part but he acted the haunted, grim part very well.

So, the story starts not long after the end of the Frankenstein book by Mary Shelley at the end of the 18th century (1795). While burying his creator, Frankenstein, he find himself attacked by "evil" demons (who look like men, but with demonic faces sometimes) and rescued by, of all things, "good" gargoyles (who look human except when they're CGI gargoyles). The creature is brought to the gargoyle leader and quickly given a name, Adam. He's made an offer to join them in a secret war against the demons over humanity's fate. He declines and lives the next 200 years alone (would have been nice to see, but glossed over in a few minutes), defending against demons. Cue modern day, where his presence is revealed once more to the demons who are trying to bring back life to dead bodies for their own purposes.

So, instead of the overbooked vampires and werewolves, we have demons against gargoyles, plus Frankenstein's creature thrown in to act as wild card. I, for one, found that refreshing. However, the demons looked and acted like standard evil vampires, except when you saw their red eyes or their faces reverting to demonic. Except for their sophisticated leader, they were quite underwhelming and even boring from lack of personality. The gargoyles fared a little better, switching from medieval-looking, grey-tunic-wearing human warriors to big, winged stone gargoyles like you see on some old churches. They were supposed to be good (angels in disguise), but I liked their ambiguity. I didn't initially care for their obvious CGI looks, but they eventually grew on me, and who knows what animated gargoyles might look like anyway.

Foremost, this is an action flick, not really drama or horror, so it doesn't delve much on the inner psychological turmoils of Adam or his everyday "normal" life, nor does it try to scare or gross you out. However, the somber, tormented portrayal by Aaron Eckhart (mostly with his face and eyes) made him an interesting anti-hero. The action itself was peculiar. There were cool set pieces where tons of demons fought gargoyles around a very impressive-looking Gothic church. It had an epic feel to it, it was quite exciting, but you seemed distanced from the action because it cut things fast and the camera often pulled back. Also, there was a particular vibe as the numerous, weak demons were mostly slaughtered by the fewer, powerful flying gargoyles. It was usually one blow, one kill. On the other hand, you had one-on-one fights involving Adam that were very good for the most part. There were still quick cuts, but it wasn't abusive, sometimes lingering a bit on an angle, making for more involving and easier-to-follow battles. The musical soundtrack was better than expected with epic-sounding classical music and dramatic choruses.

Storywise, I found the concept interesting, the demons' motivation made sense, and it didn't hinder my enjoyment with too much obvious stupidity, except a few places where I thought things were just too convenient (like no civilians in the streets or the "secret" base of the demons being so close to the church of the gargoyles). The dialogue seemed awkward or cliché at times, but it was said with such sincerity that it passed through anyway except for a few chuckles from the audience. I liked watching the film, but I don't think I would have wanted to pay full price for it in theatres though. It was like a summer blockbuster but in the middle of the winter.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10 (Good)

I, watch

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 13 March 2016]

The Frankenstein origin story a bit tweaked. I'm guessing you're familiar with it, not only because of countless movies being made about it, but because of the original story too. Or maybe you just heard about it. This takes a more fantastical turn for it and tries to make it as entertaining as possible.

It's not a classic or anything that will be remembered as a great movie. It can be an entertaining watch though, if you let it. The lead character is interesting enough and the origin story or the story in general is told decently enough. It's a family movie so don't expect it to be too violent or too extreme in some regards. Just take it for what it is and try to enjoy it

Accept it for what it is...

[funkhouser10 · 24 January 2014]

Let's talk plainly here... A poodle could of seen this trailer and automatically knew this wasn't going to be Hollywood masterpiece. If you saw the trailer and then still bought a ticket, then you don't have anything to complain about if you hated this film. This movie is about Gargoyles, Demons and Frankenstein!!! I doubt the best movie minds of all time could of turned this plot into a well made movie. It's SCIENCE FICTION people, not every film can get an 8.0 on IMDb.

With all that being said, I have to honestly say that I enjoyed this movie. Maybe I enjoyed it because I didn't go into it with high expectations. Yes, the plot was OOOVEEERLY simple, but it did have pretty good special effects and there was plenty of action sequences. Also, I'm a fan of Eckhart, Nighy and Jai Courtney. I would love to go into detail and use all type of specific film lingo to review this movie, but I would be wasting your time. If you want to escape reality for an hour or two and your a true sci-fi fan, I recommend this flick. If your looking for a movie with Oscar potential, you should sit this one out.

Forgettable

[mwltrz-743-56021 · 3/10 · 24 January 2014]

I, Frankenstein is a January monster movie starring Aaron Eckhart in the classic role of Frankenstein's monster. Did you really expect a masterpiece?

I, Frankenstein is not a total mess. The film does contain some impressive special effects, as well as cast of reasonably well-known actors that help the audience to trudge through the incredibly predictable and uninteresting story. The events of the classic Frankenstein novel are hashed out in less than a minute, as Frankenstein's monster encounters a group of demons, followed by a group of gargoyles, neither of which seem to have any motivation for what they're doing. He's given the name, "Adam", wanders the world for 200 years (which passes in 2 minutes of movie time) and finds himself in the middle of the gargoyle-demon war in modern times.

The story that follows is one fueled by terrible pacing, unclear character motivations, and dry dialogue. The fast paced introduction to the film leaves little time to invest in any of the characters, and even Adam's motivation throughout the film is incredibly unclear. It is difficult to invest in a character who doesn't have a soul.

If you're a fan of the Underworld series, and can appreciate good special effects, you may find some enjoyment with this one. Otherwise, I would pass.

Not Worth A Rental

[didonatope · 2/10 · 23 January 2014]

To say that "I, Frankentein" was a waste of time would be an understatement. Much like "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters," "I, Frankenstein tries to re-invent a classic tale for the action audience with little success. Though to be fair, "Witch Hunters" at least had some moments of memorable silliness and creative set pieces. "I, Frankenstein" has neither, nor does it present its audience with decent writing or memorable thrills.

The plot itself is a mangled-up mess and a failed attempt to re-invent Mary Shelly's classic character. In this film, Frankenstein's monster (played by the seemingly disinterested Aaron Eckhart) somehow gets involved in an ongoing battle with demons and gargoyles after the events of the classic story. Everything from his backstory to the motivations of the demons and gargoyles is told in rushed exposition and gives absolutely no time for the audience to care about any of the characters. It doesn't help that the editing and pacing is extremely choppy, often skipping hours and years into the future with no reasonable transition.

In the span of what feels like five minutes, the film tells Frankenstein's backstory, introduces the demons and gargoyles, explains their ongoing war, shows a training montage of Frankenstein learning to use the gargoyle's weapons, and suddenly cuts from the 18th century to present day. Nearly all of this is done in cheap narrated exposition and it kills the possibility of the audience getting attached to the characters.

Now, I'm sure many people can overlook a lackluster script if a movie has "good action." Unfortunately, this movie fails in this department too. All of the fight scenes are bland and dull with redundant, badly executed CGI. Perhaps the most frustrating example of this is that every time a demon is killed on screen, it turns into a swirling fireball. This effect looked cool for about a minute and it quickly got stale, especially when the demons are dying left and right and the effects start to look like they've been copied and pasted.

The PG-13 rating also takes away the possibility of even a little gore to entertain the horror buffs. This is especially a shame because there are some very sleek and polished weapon designs that look like they could have been used for some good ole hack-and-slash fun.

Little effort seems to have been put into this film, and even a big-time star like Aaron Eckhart can't elevate the material. Here he seems dazed and bored, almost as if this film was just a project to waste some time. In fact, none of the actors seem interested, and with the exception of maybe two awkward line readings, there is nothing to laugh at either.

Like many films released in January, "I, Frankenstein," comes across as filler and it is not even worth a view on Netflix streaming. Between the poor script, the dull characters and the bad effects, there is next to nothing here worth enjoying. After watching this, I actually appreciated "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" more; at least it had some effort put in it.

The filmic child of a thousand monster movies

[bowmanblue · 5/10 · 1 June 2014]

It was fair to say that 'I Frankenstein' took more than its fair share of criticism when it first hit the big screen (or should I say when it was FINALLY release, as it was pushed back a couple of times prior to release). It could be considered a 'sequel' the classic Mary Shelley tale of a monster, created by science, who can't find his place in the human world. We're told (right at the beginning) through a particularly succinct voice-over, that Frankenstein's monster, here played by Aaron Eckhart, found his place in society by helping a secret order of Gargoyles to fight demons (please don't laugh). So, he spends a couple of hundred years whacking Satan's minions, which brings us right up to the present day.

So the bulk of the story takes place in an unknown modern-day city – once which doesn't appear to be occupied by more than a handful of humans. Or at least I assume that's the case, seeing as no one ever notices flocks of giant, stone gargoyles soaring through the sky, chasing down and murdering hordes of demons in blazing fire trails.

And that's about the size of it. Having watching the film (1 hour and 18 minutes worth – felt more like 1 hour and 40 minutes), I can only really see one major drawback – the dialogue. It's pretty awful. The film is dark and sombre and therefore requires some heavy dialogue to match. However, the writer just didn't seem to be able to make it sound anything other than totally forced and cheesy.

And that's about its only real flaw. I'm guessing that the main reason it bombed at the Box Office is because it's absolutely nothing that we haven't seen before. If you've watched some or all of the following: Blade, Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, Underworld, Van Helsing, Ghost Rider, or Soloman Kane then you've basically seen I Frankenstein. It offers nothing that you haven't already seen before. The Matrix was released over fifteen years ago. It contained 'slow-motion' fight scenes and everyone was in awe of them. Now, we know what it looks like when our hero pivots through the air, slaughtering baddies mid-flight. It's not as amazing as it was. I Frankenstein contains many moments like this – ones that, once upon a time, would have seemed amazing. Yet, it's all been done before (and with better dialogue).

Bill Nighy plays the baddie, but he's basically playing the same character he does in all his films (in fact... he could almost be 'Viktor' from the Underworld franchise).

Ultimately, I Frankenstein isn't terrible, it just isn't anything that you'll actually be bothered about seeing again, nor is it anything you'll probably remember by this time next week.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

Fine Entertainment

[EdgarST · 7/10 · 31 May 2014]

I definitely saw another movie than the one seen by those who have given this two stars or less, or who complain that they have not seen anything worst than this. Well, they have seen very little or perhaps they have not realized how often they are fed with very bad movie junk, under the disguise of art or top entertainment... As I enjoyed the films animated by Ray Harryhausen, with their cyclops, harpies, Medusas, fighting skeletons, or giants as the unforgettable Thalos (from Jason and the Argonauts), what I saw I enjoyed very much -except for the score, which has become a plague in almost all American cinema of today, a mixture of pastiche sounds inherited from Jerry Goldsmith and all the others, plus the obnoxious little rock number for the end credits. The tension falters a bit in the very last moment, when the thousands of corpses are about to be reanimated, but for the rest it was fine airhead entertainment. If you are looking to have a good time with another fable of the struggle of agents of Good against the Evil, with no romance out of place (between the monster and a scientist?), efficient special effects and the fast rhythm of American (or Australian, for the case) adventure film, watch it, and leave Malick, Weerasethakul or Sorrentino for another time. (P.S. I did not see Mary Shelley's name in big letters in the end credits, so if it is there somewhere, I guess one has to look for it with a magnifying glass, among the endless list of line, executive, associate and whatever producers).

Dead on arrival.

[shawneofthedead · 3/10 · 22 January 2014]

There's something to be said for big, dumb blockbusters featuring immortal creatures of the undead, gargoyles, demons and a whole lot of CGI. That's especially true now, during awards season, when the cinemas are otherwise crowded with Important Movies that might be worthy but difficult to watch. I, Frankenstein even lurches into cineplexes with a bit more credibility than is typically attached to C-grade movies: usually reliable character actors Aaron Eckhart, Miranda Otto and Bill Nighy have signed on to rain hellfire (or something) down on one another. It's a shame, then, that the overly dour film wastes rather than benefits from their talents.

Forced into a shambling semblance of life, Victor Frankenstein's dark, brooding creation (Eckhart) stalks bitterly through the centuries. He's hunted mercilessly by the forces of evil - flame-streaked demons led by the nefarious Prince Naberius (Nighy). On the side of good are the gargoyles, a peaceable clan who enjoy the blessing of the heavens and are led by the beautiful Queen Leonore (Otto). Bequeathed the name of Adam by Leonore, Frankenstein's creature soon discovers that he is the factor that could tip the scales in the immortal battle between the demons and the gargoyles.

I, Frankenstein is entirely too grim for its own good. Kevin Grevioux's screenplay, adapted from his graphic novel of the same title, marches forward in workmanlike fashion. Plot 'twists' can be seen coming from miles away - see the sassy blonde scientist (Yvonne Strahovski) directed to investigate Adam's origins grow increasingly fascinated with her science project! There are precious few shades of complexity to be found in the film, the characters never really breaking free of their archetypes - beyond the fact that the good guys morph into huge, stony, winged gargoyles that aren't particularly pleasing to the eye. Fiery explosions and bone-crunching battles abound, but they never amount to very much in emotional terms.

The unexpectedly good cast liven things up a little, though not by enough to drag I, Frankenstein out of the doldrums. Eckhart storms stoically through the film, a singular grave expression carved into his features like so much rigor mortis. Nighy seems to be having fun even while phoning in his performance. As for Otto and Strahovski, both actresses are competent but largely colourless in their roles.

Genre flicks like this one don't usually have to check a lot of boxes to be fun nights out at the cinema. The Underworld franchise - from the same producers - proved just that, spinning its surprisingly rich tale into four films that haven't been critically successful but have nevertheless cultivated their own fans. On the strength (or lack thereof) of the gloomy, predictable I, Frankenstein, it seems unlikely that it will kickstart a new franchise in quite the same way.

Highly Derivative What's New?...Frankenstein Monster As Superhero

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 7 June 2014]

Anything is Possible in Comic Books and Thanks to CGI, Now Anything is Possible on the Big Screen. Visually Speaking. This is an Entertaining Good Looking Goth with Gargoyles Standing (or crouching) in for Vampires and Demons Replacing Werewolves.

But, if You are a Fan of this Type of Thing it can be Entertaining in a Pop Art kind of way. The SFX that are at the Heart (one could say heartless) of these Monsterfests have a Certain Clichéd Look. These Computer Artists Love Their Blues and Greens and for some Unfathomable Reason also Love to Wash Out Color.

That may be a way to be Cynical, you know, Dark. But here it is with this Frankenstein's Monster as Superhero Movie. It is Mildly Entertaining and its Short Running Time Thankfully does not Wear Out its Welcome. Sometimes the Dialog can be Unintentionally Humorous, "You are the first, I'll call you Adam." Sheesh.

When in the Last Scene the Monster Stands Atop a Building (Gotham/Metropolis) and Strikes the Pose, a Staff in Each Hand, and a Voice Over Proclaims (paraphrasing cliché) "I, Frankenstein am here, bring on the bad guys" with Swelling Exit Music, it is just Priceless. Are there Any Openings in the Avengers or the Justice League of America?

It's Shocking Movies This Bad Can Get Made

[matthewssilverhammer · 1/10 · 5 February 2014]

The trailer for I, Frankenstein says it all. Does the dialogue look stupid and clichéd? Yep! Does the action look boring and uninspired? Yep! Does it look like it was made BY middle schoolers FOR middle schoolers? You got it! Nothing will surprise you here. It hits every predictable beat and hits them with the grace and subtlety of a cow walking a tightrope…awkwardly and dumbly. The characters are rote and predictable, the makeup and cg (while not bad) is leftover from "Star Trek: The Next Generation", and the entire viewing experience is laborious and forgettable. Set in modern times, Frank is over 200 years old and gets caught in the middle of a war going on between gargoyles, demons, and other fantastical characters. Clearly this isn't Karloff's Frankenstein; it's more in the vein of stylized Gothic action films like Underworld or Blade. Gone is the stumbling, sympathetic horror of the Mary Shelley; instead we have a Batman-wannabe shooting for mysteriously cool and coming off as just lazy and unrelatable. Poor Aaron Eckhart is still trying to find where he fits in Hollywood, and this isn't it. Fun game idea: see how long you can stay awake through this movie. Sure, there are copious fight scenes and mildly complex characters but no rational explanation for anything plot-wise. It may have helped if the filmmakers had their tongues more firmly planted in their cheeks, but instead we are left laughing AT them instead of WITH them. With so many great things in theatres right now, don't waste your time on this.

Doesn't deserve the overwhelming negative reviews

[helmutty · 8/10 · 27 January 2014]

With a miserable 5% on Rotten Tomatoes, it seems like I, Frankenstein is one of the worst movies in 2014 and it is only January. The abysmal rating made me lower my expectations and surprisingly it is a solid entertainment. Sure, it doesn't impress on any level but for a January movie, it is an entertaining one.

The story: The story is as generic as a Direct-To-DVD movie can be. The Frankenstein's Monster, Adam, is caught in a battle between Gargoyles and Demons. Many decent action and 'dramatic' scenes are squeezed into the brief runtime of 1 hour 32 minutes. Thankfully the pace moves briskly without becoming boring. However, the short runtime also poses some problems such as skimping on characters' development. But it is expected as this is a mindless action movie which relies more on action and CGI than story and characters' development. Acting wise is okay, nobody impresses. Bill Nighy is playing his usual self as a villain. Aaron Eckhart has nothing much to emote as an emotionless monster except fighting and showing off his body. The rest didn't particularly stand out. Music is surprisingly good and fits the tone of the movie.

3D: For a post-converted 3D movie, it looks good. There is a good depth between characters and backgrounds. It is also effective when it comes to action scenes especially the flying of Gargoyles and the bursting of the demons.

Overall: It is obvious that I, Frankenstein tries to follow the success of the Underworld movies. On its own merits, it provides an entertaining watch with decent special effects and action. I guess it could do better if it is released straight to DVD. It may not be great but for a January movie, it is a decent watch with decent 3D.

Frankenstein in the Underworld, fighting his Demons (and Gargoyles)

[s_campanale · 7/10 · 30 January 2014]

The "Underworld" series were critically mauled yet also successful B- Movies that delivered the cheap undemanding thrills required and also took their dystopian fantasy stories refreshingly seriously, creating a complex web of ancient and modern tragedies and the dilemmas and conflicts they created, to be resolved in bloody epic battles.

After Len Wiseman's aborted attempt to restart a series that had already played itself out entirely by film 2 (film 3 was just a prequel) two years ago, the rest of the team has gone on to a 'spin-off' happening within the same universe but with different players.

Like the 'Underworlds', this is the creation of Kevin Grevioux, the hulking gravel voice actor who proves that brains and brawn can co- exist. The idea is painfully simple, immediately after the end of Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein's monster is sucked into a war between demons (from Hell obviously) and Gargoyles, who are actually soldier angels who fight them and protect mankind disguised as…Gargoyles (yes) Giving the reanimated finger to the Gargoyles and their Queen Leonore, he kicks his heels for 200 years until the Demons start stalking him again. Their leader, Prince Naberius, disguised (originally enough) as a rich businessman, is funding research by Professor Terra and her assistant into the reanimation of dead flesh with a view to creating soul-less bodies for all the vanquished Demons to return to Earth in to do battle. Caught between the two sides, he gets more and more peesed off until he hooks up with Terra and prevents his creator's journal from being used to bring about the Demon-clypse. Most of this is achieved by fights in alleys, disused buildings, lane, dank alleys a cathedral and an impersonal high rise tower lab. That's it plot-wise, since most of the film is about 'atmosphere' and 'action'.

The action is run of the mill, and director Stuart Beattie lacks Wiseman's skill in creating interesting visual excitement. The Demon warriors mostly look like the same 'grunge skater kids that explode when killed incredibly easily in their dozens' from 'Blade' and like people wearing crap rubber masks when in Demon form. The Gargoyles on the other hand look like cast members from "Clash/Wrath of the Titans" looking for work, before they become rather silly looking rubbery Gargoyles. With modern technology there are of course plenty of ways that inventive and innovative living Gargoyles can be created on screen, but sadly this film doesn't use them. However there is plenty of action and fighting and chasing around and it is never boring, which is important. The atmosphere is better, and like its father series, is dark and gloomy and set in some time-less Eastern European city that's conspicuously free of people most of the time. (ditto with 'Underworld', but since these are meant to be secret wars going on out of Human sight, it makes sense they take place away from hubs of Human activity. And it's cheaper than casting extras of course.)

Aaron Eckhart no less plays the Monster, dubbed 'Adam', as a surly angry guy with reasons to be so. Eckhart has excelled in portraying tortured souls, and here is another one to the list. However anyone expecting pain and pathos won't find it here, his existential angst is entirely internal. Being shot in Australia, most of the rest of the cast are Antipodians we have seen here and there. Yvonne Strahovski has nice legs and a pretty face, though how convincing such qualities are for a supposed leading electro-resuscitation expert is anyone's guess? Miranda Otto, she who was Eowyn, is suitably regal as Gargoyle queen Leonore and brings the necessary gravitas required. Jay Courtney, he of 'Jack Reacher' and 'Good Day to Die Hard' fame, takes a smaller role as Gideon, Leonore's number 1 Gargoyle who acts more like number 2 throughout (Well Angels can be assholes too I guess) 'Underworld' veteran Bill Nighy is naturally back as Prince Naberius, though he tones down the over-dramatics this time since he is meant to be undercover as a dull businessman, which is pretty much how he is for 90% of the film, while series creator Kevin Grevioux plays a large hulking black henchman (surprise!) but it at least shows he is not above typecasting himself.

It has been brutally savaged by critics, which at least shows it is truly part of the 'Underworld' universe. If you are looking for a cheap, un-demanding B-movie with some action and intrigue between slumming serious actors and rubbery CGI bendy toys then this is fun and entertaining. Obviously anyone expecting more should know they won't get it.

Not I, Frankenstein

[drjgardner · 3/10 · 25 January 2014]

I, Frankenstein (2014) is a sad excuse for a Frankenstein film, and this genre, the Frankenstein films, have seen more than their fair share of bad films. The James Whale 1931 and 1935 versions remain the best, with a nod to the comedic versions (Young Frankenstein, and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein) and perhaps the 1942 "Son of" which had a great performance by Lionel Atwill as the Inspector with the wooden arm.

This latest travesty has almost nothing to do with Frankenstein per se. Aaron Eckhart is hardly the hulking figure, and we are missing the joys of an Igor or a Baron. Instead, this one is more like "Frankenstein vs the Creature from Blood Cove" (2005) or "Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster" (1965). The creature, in a very modified manner (smaller, talking, with existential questions no less) is the lynch pin in a war between demons and angels. There are some nice special effects along the way, especially with the gargoyles, which is what earns this film a 3 instead of a 2 or less. It's always good to see Bill Nighy (best known as Viktor in the "Underworld" series, but also for "The Constant Gardener" and "Love Actually" among others) and nice to see Yvonne Strahovski making the transition from her TV series ("Chuck" and "Dexter").

But Frankenstein fans beware. This one will disappoint.

For better or for worse, this action-heavy, plot-light fantasy is an unabashed attempt at replicating the success of the 'Underworld' franchise

[moviexclusive · 22 January 2014]

Where before it was vampires versus werewolves, it is the battle of the gargoyles and demons that takes centrestage in the fantasy action thriller 'I, Frankenstein'. Based on the Darkstorm Studios graphic novel by one of the creators of 'Underworld', it tells of its titular character's struggle between good and evil in the midst of an all-out, centuries old war among two immortal clans of superhuman creatures. But as exciting as that may sound, you'll quickly find that the burden of 'Underworld' hangs too heavily like an anchor around its neck.

Indeed, you had better take the tagline at the top of the poster which reads 'from the producers of 'Underworld'' seriously. Too faint-hearted to mess with a formula that has worked for four films now, the same team of producers and 'Underworld' co-creator Kevin Grevioux have simply applied the same to their unabashed attempt at replicating its success. And that is precisely what co-writer and director Stuart Beattie has done in his sophomore feature film, which plays like an equally dark but less sexy clone of the decade-old franchise.

Like 'Underworld', the lead protagonist finds himself an outsider caught between two warring factions. Whereas Selene was a human turned vampire who found herself falling in love with a Lycan (or werewolf in short), Adam (Aaron Eckhart) is here a monstrosity borne from Frankenstein's laboratory who finds himself wanted by both the gargoyles and the demons. A freak of nature not of Nature's making, Adam is also thought to be soulless, and therefore a perfect living example of the 'walking dead' whom the demons hope to create by summoning the souls of the damned to inhabit the walking warm bodies on Earth.

By virtue of being an outsider, either protagonist soon realises that he or she can trust neither side. While Selene discovers the ones who killed her family were in fact her own coven of vampires she now calls family, Adam is during the course of the movie betrayed by Gideon (Jai Courtney), the leader of the gargoyle army, and no less than Leonore (Miranda Otto) herself, the angel whom Gideon and his army protect and whom serves as their spiritual link with God. Indeed, both narratives unfold such that their lead protagonist finds himself or herself isolated on either side and is therefore forced to be his or her own best guardian.

That personal battle also has to take place against a much larger canvas in which one side is plotting an ambitiously nefarious plan to once and for all wipe out the other side. In 'Underworld', it is the Lycans who plan to use a human to wipe out the Vampire Elders; while in 'I, Frankenstein', it is Prince Naberius (Bill Nighy) who intends to use Adam himself as a specimen to bring to life an army of corpses to overrun the gargoyles and thereafter exterminate the human race. Is it any surprise that our protagonist will eventually choose to be on the side of good, rather than a blind follower of either faction?

Even if these similarities don't quite register by virtue of the fact that either movie did not have a compelling story to begin with, there's no escaping that the art design of 'Underworld' and 'I, Frankenstein' are strikingly similar. For one, both unfold largely against dim and grim surroundings of moonlight and shadows. For another, there is a distinctive choice to ensure that the entire movie is cast in shades of black, grey and otherwise very dull colours. Yes, there's no escaping the self-seriousness of 'Underworld' or 'I, Frankenstein', which approach their apocalyptic doomsday scenarios with the utmost solemnity.

And yet, their mode of storytelling is first and foremost to ensure an endless stream of VFX-heavy action sequences clearly intended at an attention-deficit audience. More so than Beattie's repertoire of summer blockbusters (think 'Pirates of the Caribbean' and 'G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra'), this clearly eschews plot and character moments over gargoyle-versus-demon action, so don't go in expecting anything more. That being said, it also sees Beattie going bigger than he's ever been with the setpieces, and some of them - such as a daring raid on gargoyle soil by an army of demons - are quite a visual spectacle to behold, particularly in the contrasting use of light and fire whenever a gargoyle or demon is killed.

As is to be expected then, none of the roles call for much from their respective actors - except maybe for Eckhart to look the most buff we've ever recall seeing him been on the screen. Bill Nighy should certainly know - he who plays the chief villain here was also the key baddie in 'Underworld: Evolution'. Certainly, he should be distinctly aware of the intention to recreate the success of the 'Underworld' movies by essentially rehashing the same formula with a different set of monsters. You'll be advised too to toss aside what preconceptions you may have based on Mary Shelley's novel or even Boris Karloff's monosyllabic screen icon; this 'I, Frankenstein' is more 'I, Underworld' than anything else

Treads Very Familiar Ground

[3xHCCH · 5/10 · 23 January 2014]

"I, Frankenstein" is set in 1793, after Victor Frankenstein dies while going after the very monster of his creation who killed Mrs. Frankenstein in a fit of passionate rage.

The Frankenstein monster's (Adam Eckhart) unique state of being an invincible being without a soul makes him target for the Demons and their leader Naberius, who plans to conquer the world with more reanimated demonic humans.

On the other hand, the demons' nemeses, the Gargoyles, under their Queen Leonore (Miranda Otto), aim to foil this diabolical plan of world domination by protecting Frankenstein's monster, whom she has baptized with the name Adam, and Frankenstein's journal where he wrote the reanimation process in great detail.

200 years later, in the present time, Naberius, in his human form Charles Wessex (Bill Nighy), employs renowned human electro-physiologist Dr. Terra Ward (Yvonne Strahovski), to assist him in carrying out his nefarious scheme.

So this graphic novel turned film is another one of those fantasies where good creatures battle with evil creatures who are out to control the world. This novel's author Kevin Grevioux also writes the script of this one. You can expect similarities with "Underworld" which was also by Grevioux. Grevioux himself appears as the burly head of security in the film.

The Demons are obviously evil the way they looked. The Gargoyles may look good in their usual form, but when they are in their winged form, they turn into stone-faced flying, well, gargoyles. It is just strange and atypical that supposedly good beings will take on an ugly look.

Aaron Eckhart and his characteristic strong cleft chin makes a good stoic Adam. He did not have to express a whole lot of emotion except angst and rage. He does not really look like the grotesque monster as how Robert de Niro was made up to look in Kenneth Branagh's "Frankenstein" film based on Mary Shelley's book. Eckhart's "monster" is just a very buff guy with long scars over his face and body.

Bill Nighy does not do anything spectacular as Wessex, just the typical British bad guy. His Demon form is not really as grandly demonic as you would expect. His minions had stronger demon forms than him.

Miranda Otto plays the regal Leonore as well as she could, though her role does not really demand too much of her. The young, beautiful and svelte Yvonne Strahovski would not really be the way you'd imagine "an eminent electro-physiologist" to look like. But hey, this is a graphic novel, so fan boys need a pretty face to make them happy.

Overall, this is just one shallow, popcorn flick. It may be entertaining for those who do not expect too much. I did enjoy the "arnis"-inspired fight between Adam and a demon. That was the best fight sequence in the whole film.

Its messages of sacred duty, higher purpose and good vs. evil, with common-looking CGI effects, may have already been seen too many times in various dark fantasy films in recent years. The way they ended this film, it seems to be hoping for a sequel. I am not sure it will get one.

Calling this movie terrible would be a compliment to it

[sphilli8 · 1/10 · 17 February 2014]

I probably made it through about one third of the movie before walking out. The acting or writing is terrible...the dialog that comes from the characters is laughable. It's as if they turned over the script writing to an average 12 year old and said, "have at it." And then there's the plot...once again I have to say it was awful. I believe the creators of this piece of crap were trying to create something similar to the movie Underworld...even went to such lengths as to grab some of the the Underworld actors. However, Underworld was decent and this isn't even worth spending a dollar to watch via red box or to stream it with netflix.

Frankenstein's dismembering

[matheus_cardoso_martins · 1/10 · 25 January 2014]

A film based on one of the most famous horror stories ever created, which is based on a human being created from corpses, whose give life to a monster without divine grace. Seeking answers about his creation and his aspects that differentiate it from a human being, in the middle of a battle between demons and gargoyles.

Despite having a base for a rich script, the movie falls by shallow story and by visual effects of low quality, almost always seen in blots of light by the rise and demise of gargoyles and demons.

The story forgets the protagonist and directs attention to the battle waged for centuries between angels and demons, becoming irrelevant to Frankenstein and also to the public. The development of both stories is superficial and that is where the movie falls apart.

As if that were not enough, the acting is also one of the weaknesses in the film, whereas the characters fail by excess expressions. Aaron Eckhart delivers one of his worst works, with expensive and unnecessary looks, as almost all other actors.

The relationship between Frankenstein, gargoyles, demons and humans makes the viewer laughs, due to lack of consistency of all. Does not a human get unimpressed to discover "supernatural" creatures? Frankenstein falls in love with a human? A soldier would risk the lives of an entire army and humanity to save a single leader? Yes, all this happens naturally in "I, Frankenstein".

The cinematography, although at first it is a bit puzzling, keeping the same dark color gamut with flashes of lights during battles, it becomes cloying and low quality visual effects do not contribute to a good 3D. With depth and immersion, 3D is one of the few positive points of the film.

Thus, Stuart Beattie, director and writer, gives us one of the worst movies of this year, where neither the effects nor the actors and much less script honor the legend of Frankenstein.

Beautiful, passionate film-making.

[Dragonsouls · 7/10 · 21 May 2014]

I, Frankenstein was one of those badly rated films that I automatically deemed as under-rated because I knew it would be a love or hate it film. Despite the bad reviews, I still had high expectations after popping in the DVD and I expected a very thought provoking, well-acted, and well-written story. I was right.

This is a film that most fans of mythology would enjoy, because the mythology of this film is tied with religious history. The result is a film that makes you wonder about the context and deeper meaning of the Frankenstein character. A fantastic idea! You don't have to be a Frankenstein fan to enjoy this film, and in fact, most Frankenstein fans might feel a bit let down because the character was completely re-imagined. I myself welcomed this...despite being a Universal monster purist.

Along with the solid acting, by an extremely talented cast, I also thought the action was beautifully choreographed in this film. There was a little bit of wire-work and Asian inspiration. I thought the CGI was not over-used and the best thing about the film were the beautiful sets. Just like Underworld, the sets in this film made for a beautiful atmosphere, and I, Frankenstein was a reminder that Science Fiction/Horror is best told in the form of a B-Movie !

Atrocious. Ghastly. I wanna throw something.

[nataliey95 · 1/10 · 31 January 2014]

I'd like to give a -1 but unfortunately for me and many others out there, IMDb doesn't even offer a 0. Not only was "I, Frankenstein" a complete waste of my money and time but its heinous and shameful excuse for a film has rendered me into a conniption. I am filled with rage and regret, my friends.

The plot seemed as stale as 50 day-old bread and its stilted dialog and horrible (horrible!) adaptation of a great classic is an abashment to the film industry. There were just SO many things wrong with this movie that I can't even put into coherent words without cringing uncontrollably. I felt almost very ashamed to have been one of the many who have contributed to their $26 mil box office sales. They shouldn't even HAVE a box office sales of $26 mil.

I fell asleep for two-thirds of it and when I awoke I was outraged and shocked I still had 15 minutes left to endure. That was 9 hours of my life I'm NEVER gonna get back.

Wait, the movie was only 92 minutes long? Sorry, felt longer.

Adjust your expectations

[Jerghal · 7/10 · 4 May 2014]

If you see the film you can't help but think how much the visual style resembles 'Underworld'. Story wise it leans more towards 'Van Helsing'. I guess those bad memories are the reason it failed to make any money. I personally thought it wasn't too bad: good VFX, decent action, nice production design. Okay, so they story is somewhat nonsensical but it isn't a drama but rather light popcorn entertainment. Ackhart's performance is functional but nothing worth of any award. They also were smart enough to keep the length at a snappy 92 mins and not drag it out to 130 mins like Van Helsing did. Maybe not cinema material but I can see this doing solid business in the video rental circuit.

poor is not the word

[mickbright · 1/10 · 1 March 2014]

if by ten minutes in to this hash of several different films your not convinced to either walk out of the theatre or press stop on the DVD then please stop reading.

This is truly one of the worst films I have seen in some time, the premise isn't that bad, we all remember van helsing, ridiculous plot however very entertaining this my friends is not in the same vein.

Bad acting mediocre special effects and a story cobbled together by a twelve year old, someone owes me 89 minutes of my life back.

The lead is poor his love interest is ridiculous, the only saving grace is Bill Nighy who's smug face throughout the movie shows how much money he must have received from the dial a performance.

watch this film by all means, however make sure you've got something more fun to do just in case, I don't know like cleaning the toilet bowl with your toothbrush.

A humanized version of an iconic Hollywood creature.

[PWNYCNY · 8/10 · 29 January 2014]

Stop beating up on this movie. It does not deserve such shoddy treatment. This is not a bad movie. It's part sci-fi, part horror, with the emphasis on the former. The Frankenstein creation is humanized. There is nothing wrong with that. The movie successfully places the creature in the present. He even has a name. Aaron Eckhart delivers a wonderful performance as the first artificially created humanoid. He gives his character depth. This movie is not a ripoff of the original movie. True, the story is contrived, but it is also entertaining. The forces of good and evil are clearly defined and their struggle for supremacy plausible within the context of the story. The movie asks the audience to accept as a premise that there are metaphysical forces at work that are not readily discernible. For some, that may be a bit of a stretch, but remember: it's a movie. The movie is entertaining, well-acted, has good continuity and a briskly paced story. This movie is worth watching.

Entertaining Adventure

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 30 January 2014]

Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Aden Young) dies frozen to death and the creature (Aaron Eckhart) buries him at the cemetery of his family. However he is attacked by demons but he kills one of them and Gargoyles save him and take him to a Cathedral where the Gargoyles Order gathers. The Queen of the Gargoyles Leonore (Miranda Otto) keeps Dr. Frankenstein's journal together with the treasures of the Order and gives the name of Adam to the creature. Then she explains to Adam that there is an ancient war between the Gargoyles that are angels and demons under the command of the Prince Naberius (Bill Nighy). She also invites Adam to join the Gargoyles in the war against demons, but Adam prefers to isolate in a remote place.

Two hundred years later, Adam returns and finds a modern society. Soon he learns that Naberius has the intention of creating an army of soulless corpses to be possessed by demons. The scientist Terra (Yvonne Strahovski) is researching a process to create life and Naberius is seeking Dr. Frankenstein's journal to help Terra and raise his army.

"I, Frankenstein" is an entertaining adventure of Frankenstein in the middle of a war between angels and demons. This 3D movie has top-notch special effects and explosions without being special. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Frankenstein: Entre Anjos e Demônios" ("Frankenstein: Between Angels and Demons")

Leave Frankenstein, I want the Gargoyles

[isabelle-frater · 2/10 · 10 February 2014]

I really can't remember what I expected from this movie. I'm pretty sure it wasn't what I got though. I checked the trailer again, and I think I wanted a movie that had good visuals, solid action, and some sort of a fantasy-based story line. I sort of got it, but it all fell flat. The background is basically a snippet of Christian mythology. It reminded me how much people forgot about the rich mythical background that Christianity had in the Middle Ages. Back then it had a rich story background, with angels, demons, spirits and the like. I'm not a Christian, but I love good fantasy stories, and myths to me are that. However, the talk about god and things just felt awkward. I live in a country where there are a lot of atheists, and all the god talk made a lot of people snicker in the theater. The gods in Percy Jackson felt more rational. The visuals were well done. Seriously, people turning into gargoyles looked cool. The way demons and gargoyles died was spectacular. The real problem was the story. It would look good on paper, but the execution was just lame. There didn't seem to be an emotional background. I couldn't connect with the characters at a deeper level. The whole story was rushed to make space for the action scenes. I wouldn't mind some mindless action, but I would like to at least care for the main character a bit. Maybe if he died at the end it would have been more interesting.

The actors are okay. Aaron Eckhart was a good, stoic Frankenstein's monster, who was named Adam. Couldn't care much for his plight, though. I did understand that in a way it's about what it means to be human, and that in spite of being so different, he still has good in him, but that was about it. Yvonne Strahovski was playing the romantic interest, but there was 0 chemistry, or any feeling of love between them. Miranda Otto's character, Lenore was an interesting character, but a bit inconsistent. I didn't get the conflict between her and Adam. I mean, they didn't have one, then suddenly they did, and again suddenly, it was all forgiven. It just felt like a really silly plot twist. Maybe it would have made sense if it had more of a build-up, or background, or something, but it didn't make sense the way it was done. A silly little thing that bothered me was that I couldn't remember where I had seen the actress playing Keziah (Caitlin Stacey - looked it up). She played Kenna in Reign, if anyone was also having this problem.

Overall, the movie wasn't really enjoyable. What failed it was the story. While it had all the elements that could be good, it was a let- down. I'm only giving it two stars, because the visuals were good. What I would like to see is to leave Adam out, and just make a movie about the gargoyles.

Cross-posted at http://unapologetic-reviews.blogspot.com