I, Frankenstein (2014)

Best movie of this year hands down!

How sad is this?

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

I just saw the movie and it s so far from the shelley book. Aaron remains handsome although he has scars but that s the only interesting point. Was it necessary to add vampires and creatures of evil. Mary Shelley wanted to underline the loneliness of the creature and to explain about difference. The movie seems to talk about Buffy and the vampires.

I, Frankenstein is so absurd it's like some mind bending hallucinogenic trip. To be fair it's not so bad that you have to switch it off in sheer bewilderment or disgust but it's not a fat lot of good either. It's strangely fascinating due to the sheer insanity of it all.Aaron Eckhart is pretty good as the creature, Bill Nighy just turns up as Viktor from the Underworld films again, Yvonne Strahovski is just there to look pretty and Miranda Otto is so po-faced and earnest every time she appears it's hilarious.Speaking of hilarious, there are a lot of guffaws to be found here. I couldn't believe what I was witnessing most of the time. "The Gargoyle Order". A massive city being destroyed in the name of a secret war between God and Satan that has remained secret from humans (yes really) for centuries yet there is never anyone on the streets. The entire population must down a copious amount of sleeping pills as soon as the moon appears and lie in oblivion until sunset. One of the main supporting characters is played by a soap actress from Neighbours. The gargoyles look decent but the demons, oh man, those face masks are laughable, like something from a crappy 80's B-Movie, and the fact they all fight while wearing black designer suits just made it all the more absurd and hilarious.It's worth watching for a few giggles, it's so unintentionally funny in parts it gives Young Frankenstein a run for its money! But don't expect anything of worth, this is no Boris Karloff's Frankenstein or Bride Of Frankenstein in any shape or form.

It is difficult to count how many times Mary Shelley's classic horror tale has been clapped with a cinematic adaptation, with the first treatment dating back to the silent film era. Since the early age of Hollywood, it's been hard to remember the last time classic monsters from literature such as Dracula, Frankenstein, or The Mummy have been met with a competent, if not masterly adaptation. While Hollywood has tried many times to capture the life and spirit of the classic literary works, very few times, if any have prevailed on this accomplishment. This fantasy action piece directed by Stuart Beattie (most notable as the writer of 2004's 'Collateral') fails certainly does no justice. This film is taken from the pages of the graphical novel of the same name written by Kevin Grevioux as Beattie pursues a compelling fantasy-action tale. But his effort come to feeble results. Opening in the late 18th century, this film stars Aaron Eckhart as the titular creature created by the famous Victor Frankenstein (played by Aden Young). Upon murdering Victor's wife and leaving his creator for dead, Frankenstein is taken in by a league of gargoyles lead by the Queen Leonore (played by Miranda Otto) who names him "Adam" and vows to protect him. When he flees his hometown and into a modern society 200 years later, he finds himself drawn into an all-out war between the gargoyles and a clan demon lead by the evil Naberius (played by Bill Nighy). And the only help on his side is an electrophysiology scientist Terra Wade (played by Yvonne Strahovski).If you seen this film such as 'Erin Brockovich', 'Olympus Has Fallen', and 'The Dark Knight', you have experienced alluring talent of Aaron Eckhart. Aaron Eckhart is not bad here, his performance stands solid in the lead role as well as the supporting cast in their respective roles. Unfortunately, the performances only make up half of the equation and fail to redeem how dull and uninteresting the characters are. Aaron Eckhart's lead character Adam not only falls victim to dreary character development but lacks both the charisma and compulsion to make for a character you come to care about. And the supporting character along his side amount to nothing but one-dimensional figures including the main villain Naberius who's supposed to make for the most interesting aspect of the plot along with the lead character. But with a sorely uninspiring script, the film not fails to generate any interesting characters but traps these characters in a plot that begins with a compelling premise, but eventually slogs down to a generic drudgery. The story introduces a massive war against the gargoyles and the demons which was destined transpire to something more interesting. Sadly, the plot never reaches any dynamic heights. The most excitement the film has to offer maybe the fantasy-esque battles between the gargoyles and demons as the latter explodes into a puff of CGI fire and ash upon impalement. And of course, it is hard not to spare credit to the nifty production design of the Victorian Era temple where the gargoyles reside. It's only too bad that the writing fails to level up with the visual compulsion.I, Frankenstein is a lifeless rendition of the classic Victoria-era monster with performances by a stellar cast who take strong advantage of their acting talent, but fail to make up for the uninspiring drivel this film is. Even if director Scott Beattie shows strength in visual heft, his efforts on bringing the world of Frankenstein to life come without prevail.

Perhaps the most perplexing thing about trying to write a review for writer/director Stuart Beattie's comic-book adaptation "I, Frankenstein" is the simple fact... there's really not much to say about this film. Neither awful enough to be completely dismissed, nor good enough to be a worthwhile consideration for viewing, the film just sort-of sits in a limbo of mere "existence." It's a movie that happened, but not one that really matters in any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps good for a laugh or two should you catch it on cable, but not one you'll likely remember even seeing a few days later. Which actually is a shame, especially coming from the same creative minds that brought us films like "Collateral" and the somewhat overblown but pretty decent "Underworld" franchise.Aaron Eckhart plays an overly-hunky rendition of Frankenstein's monster, who not long after the conclusion of the events depicted in the original Mary Shelley classic, finds himself attacked by demonic forces. However, he is saved by gargoyle warriors created by the archangel Michael to protect the Earth from demons. The warriors dub Frankenstein's monster "Adam", and offer to let him join them as a warrior for heaven, but he declines, choosing to live alone. Centuries later, in the modern day, Adam continues to fend off these vile creatures. Soon enough it becomes clear that a demon-prince called Naberius (Bill Nighy) is seeking him to learn Victor Frankenstein's secret to creating life... a secret he wants for his own dark purposes. And so, Adam must form an uneasy alliance with the gargoyles in order to stop Naberius' wretched plans and to save the world from the forces of darkness...To be fair, there are a few elements at play that do work, and I think that's why I cannot completely disregard the film. Eckhart, probably best known now for his turn as Harvey Dent in Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" makes for an adequate hero, and I actually enjoyed his performance. Even though he's been made into just a stock "brooding hero", Eckhart gives the role just enough of an emotional core and does well with what little material he has. He makes for a good Frankenstein's monster turned action hero. It just drives me nuts that they tried to "pretty him up", and he's simply just regular old handsome Aarson Eckhart with a few faded scars around his face. I think it would have added a lot if they made him a bit more grotesque. And as always, Bill Nighy is an absolute joy as our lead adversary. He's never anything less than stellar, and he'll give his all to even the most silly of roles. So I really enjoyed his turn as a demonic prince... it gives him some fun moments to sink his teeth into. Director Stuart Beattie also has a knack for visuals and even if the film is heavily reliant on big, loud CG effects, I could never call the visual guidance anything less than slick. At its best, the film does have the ability to entertain, and there's a few stand-out sequences where the action rings true and you'll find yourself somewhat thrilled with the proceedings.But unfortunately, it's the script that does the film in, in a big, bad way. Based on a graphic novel by "Underworld" co-creator Kevin Grevioux, Beattie's script is just a complete mess. There's absolutely no breathing room for anything outside of the most basic of character and story development, as it rockets by with an almost nonsensical pacing. Interesting ideas are brought up and then dropped on a near-constant basis. (Ex. Wouldn't it have been interesting to have gotten more than a fleeting glimpse of the multi-century jump in time the film takes after it's prologue? I wanna see how Adam managed to get by as time went on.) And it just plays the relatively insane-o concept of Frankenstein's monster trapped in a war between immortal factions a bit too seriously. Sure, play the actual plot-line straight, but the film needed a few more laughs and moments of levity. The trend of taking old stories and giving them gritty, modern reboots seems to work best in situations like "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters", where the concept is played for both thrills and for laughs. And I think this film definitely needed some lighter moments to help make the concept more digestible.As it stands, "I, Frankenstein" just sits as a relatively middling and mediocre take on the iconic character. True, the film boasts some fun performances, a handful of thrilling action set-pieces and slick direction... but its all at the service of some of the most bland and tragically misguided writing I've seen in recent memory. A script with a haphazard pace, lack of development and bizarrely over-serious tone really drags down what could otherwise have been a fun little adventure romp. In the end, we may not get the worst movie ever made. But we get something that is arguably far worse- a film that is completely and utterly unremarkable and thoroughly forgettable. This is one of those rare films where I actually hope it gets the reboot treatment sooner rather than later, and that they take some more risks with the material... give it slight sense of self-aware humor to compensate for the ridiculous concept, slow down the pacing to give it some breathing room and explore the character of Adam a bit more, and you'll have a very fun movie. Instead of a bland one like this.I give "I, Frankenstein" a sub-par but watchable 4 out of 10. If you can see it for free, I'd say consider giving it a shot. It's the sort-of movie that would make for good background noise on a slow day while you do other things. But that's about it.