I, Frankenstein

"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.

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.

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

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/

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?