I, Frankenstein

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

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).

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/

Aaron Eckhart is cast as Frankensteins' Monster in this elaborate but so-so screen adaptation of the graphic novel created by Kevin Grevioux. (Grevioux also co-stars, as an imposing henchman named Dekar.) After the deaths of both Elizabeth and Victor F., The Monster is soon attacked by Demons. He learns that there's been a war waging for centuries, between Gargoyles (the good guys) and these aforementioned Demons (the baddies). The Monster also learns that there's a head Demon named Naberius (Bill Nighy) who wants to learn Victors' big secrets of creating life. He / it tries to live a solitary existence, but realizes that he WILL have to get involved in this war.

I'll join the chorus of people who attempt to defend this movie, at least to some degree. Yeah, it's cut from the same cloth as a lot of other modern horror / fantasy / action hybrids such as the "Underworld" series. It doesn't tell a particularly innovative or interesting story, but it is at least an entertaining one. Enough so that this viewer wasn't constantly checking his watch, anyway. It features a truly over the top Gothic look, and some passable makeup, but some viewers will surely be turned off by the plethora of digital effects.

Eckhart leads the way, and does a creditable job, delivering a performance of both intensity and physicality. Filmed in Australia, much of its cast are native Aussies, and they do bring a certain gravitas to the material. Nighy has had better material, to be sure, but he's a perfectly suitable lead villain here. Yvonne Strahovski (as Terra Wade, a scientist in Naberius' employ), Miranda Otto (as the Gargoyle Queen), and Caitlin Stasey (as Keziah the warrior) are all extremely easy on the eyes, which doesn't hurt any. It's nice, as it always is, to see Bruce Spence of "The Road Warrior" fame, on screen; that face of his is instantly recognizable.

"I, Frankenstein" is slick, and forgettable, but not an entirely empty experience, as it does have some humanity and sense of purpose.

Six out of 10.

'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.