User Reviews

보고싶어했지만 바빠서 극장에서 못봤는데 그러길 잘했던 듯.140316 (2.0)-디몬의 죽음 장면은 진짜 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 초딩 스케일.아론 에크하트는 멋있게 연기를 잘하려 했지만진부함 속에서는 진부한 영웅만 나오게 마련이다.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Fun and entertaining movie. Lots of action and worth watching. Good story. I enjoyed it.

This was a dreadfully, bad movie. I watched it, because I like Bill Nighy who was used like a blunt instrument in this movie. This movie was an abomination, which should never have been released to the movie-going public. It should have been buried where nobody would ever discover it. Do not waste your time with this horrible movie. Nuff said.

A guilty pleasure, definitively a bad movie, but one that is so stupid, yet takes itself so seriously, it's actually entertaining in a "so bad it's funny" kind of way

Somewhat entertaining schlock but couldn't be called good. Eckhart is decent.

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 her grave if she knew this existed.

When I was a kid, there was an kids television show called "Gargoyles". Readers who have been children (or have been parents) during the nineties should probably remember it. Well, this movie looks like a mix of this show with "Frankenstein". The whole plot is pretty stupid, with cathedral gargoyles that stay alive and wage epic battles against demons in the sight of humans (who curiously never realize anything). This is not the first time Frankenstein's story has been used to give life to anything dead in a movie. "Van Helsing" is another film where the same feature is used in the same way, and with equally bad results. It seems that the Frankenstein machine works for everything, which is absolutely ridiculous. So, from a bad idea, this movie was doomed at birth. Aaron Eckhart and Miranda Otto are the big stars of the film. He plays the role of Adam, the creature created by Frankenstein, who joins the gargoyles led by Otto's character, Queen Leonore. Both actors made fairly regular performances, without major failures but also without positive surprises. Otto seems particularly cold and impersonal in her role. The strongest part of the film are the action and fighting scenes, sprinkled abundantly with CGI, explosions and great sound effects. In fact, these scenes have been done carefully and are spectacular, but they are not enough to justify the film or make it good. The dark and Gothic environment will please the fans of this subculture, the action scenes will attract teenagers thirsty for fights and explosions, but no more. The audience that looks for some depth, logic or cinematic sense will probably come out disappointed.

Like with Dracula Untold, this is a new retelling of a new plot in the familiar story. Judging by the negative reviews, it is definitely not for Shakespeare or chick flick fans. This is a man's movie. Judging from how many of us like the story lines in video games I would have thought critics and movie producers would have caught on that this is what we guys like. Just enough dialogue to have a coherent story line in between the action and fight scenes. Just enough sentimentalism to make the characters moderately human but not the sensitive emaciated characters we tend to get now a days in the movies "critics are raving about". Like with Dracula Untold, I Frankenstein is a move for guys who like old style guys' action movies. If I want to see a chick flick, a deeply moving script/storyline or a Woody Allen dramedy, I'would waste $10 - $17 on that, but like many other men, I want to see action and fighting and the monster/hero kicking more evil monster butt. This is definitely a great movie speaking in normal guy terms. Not for the touchy feely "enlightened" men of today, but for us gentlemanly educated, loveable and loving neanderthals.

I cast much doubt upon this film when it first came out in January 2014 due to its greatly negative reviews. Since then, however, I have remembered it and always wondered just how bad it might be. I finally received the chance to watch it, and I have learned, yet again, you cannot trust the critics and their reviews. It seems that these critics thought too into the film, and some might have believed it was based upon the novel by Mary Shelley, which would cause much negativity due to its inspiration-only stance towards the novel. Based on the graphic novel by Kevin Grevioux, who also stars in the film in a supporting role, the story follows Frankenstein's monster, who has lived to the present day over 200 years after his creation. When a great threat that could destroy all of humanity arises, he realizes he is the only one who can stop it. Now, as I watched the movie, and even before, I knew this film was not going to be on the same level as masterpieces such as The Shawshank Redemption or Young Frankenstein, nor would it be on the same level as films such as The Avengers or Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. I saw this as a monster film, which I find much different than most films, meaning that I don't look at the plot as much as I would those aforementioned films. While it is a factor, I also look at the action, visuals, and performances, which are what led me to love the film so much. The action is nonstop, like many movies of the last few years (such as Transformers), and the visuals accompany this factor, which help make the movie so amazing. Despite a $65 million budget (nowadays, many films are above $100 or even $200 million just for that), the CGI is well-done, and the creatures throughout the movie are completely passable. But the movie would not be complete without the great cast. Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight, Olympus/London Has Fallen), Bill Nighy (Pirates of the Caribbean, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Part One), Yvonne Strahovski (Chuck, Batman: Bad Blood), Miranda Otto (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy), and Jai Courtney (Divergent, Jack Reacher, Suicide Squad) all give outstanding performances as Adam (Frankenstein's monster), Charles Wessex, Terra Wade, Leonore, and Gideon, and that is what helped make the whole movie for me. Finally, the score by Johnny Klimek and Reinhold Heil is a welcome addition to the film, and it helps the film become even more **** spectacle, because, as I believe, no film is truly complete without a great score to match, with few exceptions. In conclusion, though it is somewhat rushed near the middle and has some pacing issues, this film proved to me that one cannot simply trust the critics, and that it is better to go off your own opinion in the end. All in all, my final opinion is that I loved this movie. 'Nuff said.

Are you like speaking to me, my betrayals? You dare want to mess with my monster? THAT DOESN'T EVEN MEAN ANYTHING TO COME UP AND SCREW UP MY MONSTER AS IT IS I, FRANKENSTEIN! Sorry, Frankenstein, you're not alive at all.

The story that Stuart Beattie and Kevin Grevioux give us is a standard saga that has planned out in many a film, television drama and game. The dark lord of infinite evil sets forth to consume all the world and bring back the age of chaos. The truth and light of the universe battle the evil to keep order and protect humanity. It is a great epic drama filled with plenty of action, passion and spectacle fit for a gamer. I just feel the story may be a bit "monochrome". It did justify my expense for a theatre quality sound system. The effects where what one would expect in this "big popcorn", wall rattling spectacle. The CGI was tight, I did feel that it was a bit too much. Like "Van Helsing", "I, Frankenstein" relied heavily on the CGI which stripped the film down to a "basic", going through the emotions action film.Yeah the movie brings the action and excitement. It is entertaining-especially with a Sony theater system that can rattle the walls and windows but so much seemed to be missing.

I like the idea of two face having another role to play..sure ..why **** even while watching it again i can see that someone making this movie was thinking the same.... i can also see how the female lead isn't that hot......which i've come to **** well as the name gideon for Jai **** all coming **** least they don't try to do too much.....makes me wonder as to weather someone might want an army of **** reviews and making anything look better......-JRA

This movie isn't awful but it does seem more like a very long cut-scene in a video game. In fact, I think a video game would have been better than the film.

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 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 **** 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.

It's got some solid effects, but they can't save "I, Frankenstein" from an incoherent script, poorly written characters and a loud feeling on the whole thing.

It will take your mind off boredom for a while, before you eventually (though rather quickly) get bored of the stale acting from every actor on screen with the exception of Aaron Eckhart who is the only one giving an ounce of a performance though he does not seem sober while doing it. The effects don't even stimulate the eye, when you see a demon blow up you just think 'whatever' mostly because you will see the same effect over and over again. Overall, the writing lacks the creative intelligence to push it forward into an engaging franchise, writer Stuart Beattie of all people who wrote "Collateral" one of my favorite movies, writes himself into a deep dark corner that i hope he one day crawls out of with a better or at least a more coherent screenplay (Pirates of the Caribbean sequels need not apply).

I, Frankenstein es una película que aunque le falto una chispa, contiene una historia coheficiente que funciona bien, por lo tanto mientras avanza se mantiene en unos buenos estándares.

I, Frankenstein is a let down. I found the main character to even be the most interesting character in the movie.I don` think even the writer did, cause he seems like just one of the guys. The supporting characters seem to be a part of the movie just as much as him. It`s entertaining to watch one time, but that`s about it.

"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.

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.

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 every minute or so even if the plot (such as it is) does not require any CGI action. Pretty bad!

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 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.

Given the cast, director, budget, and the support backing this film, I expected a lot more than a lackluster story and rather silly performance by Frankenweenie.

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 world surrounded by even cooler action!

seriously, what is wrong with people?! this movie was good and at least it wasn't boring like half of the movies nowadays i give it a 7...............

Thinly scripted, poorly acted, yet boasting somewhat impressive action sequences, I, Frankenstein amounts to nothing more than a very guilty pleasure.

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 enough that you trust me when I say you'll never, never see this movie.

I don't think that I've ever rated a movie with a 0, but this one does not deserve more. After 20 minutes of watching this jest, I felt a sudden urge to throw up.

Una película muy mala en la animación me pareció que los personajes eran muy falsos en si la película fue horrible si se toma en serio si Yo realmente esperaba mucho de esto, pero para ser sincero, esto fu horrible, pero por otra parte mis expectativas eran bajas,en cuanto a la historia, me aprecio muy carecida de acción "I, Frankenstein" es uña de las peores películas del año esto es por ahora por que ahora no sabemos que clases de mierdas los directores creen en un futuro no muy cercano. En cuanto ala película tuvo mal Argumento y un pésimo **** es culpa de las Actores. Toda la culpa la tiene el guionista hacer malos diálogos.

It's exactly as awful as the trailers made clear. Cheap, derivative, takes itself way too seriously. It's a good thing Eckhart's a beaut or it'd be 0.

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 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.

What in the world was Aaron Eckhart thinking making this piece of junk. Half way through this movie I stopped caring about anything going on. The script is awful with actors like Eckhart and Nighy having to say some of the dopiest lines in their careers. The only minor saving grace is some of the effects aren't bad. D-

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 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.

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.

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.

I first gave this an 8 and I then I thought about it. What's wrong with this story? I can't say that there is a poor performance, the plot yes there is one, is strong and well developed, the direction sound, so thinking more and more I upped it to a 10. Why? Eckhart does such a terrific job that he is riveting as he moves from a soulless contemptible creature who kills a human to a full souled human that saves humankind. I honestly think that this movie could be a great series either in the theatres or little screen. I think what everyone hates is the strong Christian overtones -- goodness vs evil, a soul's redemption, personal choice and FREE will. Superb movie. I loved it.

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 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.

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.

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?

The Gha is certainly receiving a lot of applicants this month. Tell Mr.Frankenstein that I'll get back to him shortly, his gift shall be harnessed as a weapon against or enemies. *Wink*

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 Aaron Eckhart trying his best this is still a lame, generic, crappy movie.

You're going to forget about I, Frankenstein for at least 2 days Cons-Clunky dialogue, ambiguous purpose, pale acting, lame CGI, badly scripted and a terrible plot Pros-It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Recommendation-No One