Watch
I, Frankenstein
Remove ads

I, Frankenstein

2014
Sci-fi
Fantasy
1h 32m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 16.32% from 601 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews

(601)
Compact view
Compact view
Rated 30 Apr 2014
10
1st
I, leaving.
Rated 16 Feb 2015
25
6th
Think Uwe Boll with a bigger budget and somewhat more coherent editing skills. Still, it forces poor Miranda Otto to play a character called "the Gargoyle Queen" straight-faced, and that's just beyond cruel.
Rated 15 Mar 2015
5
4th
Hey, let's make an Underworld movie where we replace Kate Beckinsdale in tight outfits with a lumbering deformed human. That will totally dispel all those notions that people only watch Underworld to see Beckinsdale's shiny butt, and let the strength of our "flinging endless bad CGI" methodology shine through.
Rated 04 Aug 2023
68
20th
This is obviously an Underworld creator ripping himself off, so you get constant nighttime; oddly deserted, vaguely eastern European locations; 2 groups of magical beings constantly fighting each other; & giant plotholes (after decades of fighting & killing 666 easily killed demons, the angels never realized the base - for hundreds more! was just a few blocks away?) What makes this worse is the far more frantic editing & CGI displays. & as good as Eckhart is, he's not Kate Beckinsale in latex
Rated 01 Jan 2015
1
5th
Pretty much the gold standard example this year of a bad movie. Hell, this shit-tier caliber of production, storytelling, acting and special effects would be a bad Syfy channel pilot.
Rated 25 Mar 2015
30
9th
Rather silly.
Rated 14 Sep 2014
20
7th
A complete mockery of Shelley's character. A terrible Underworld wanna be script, with awful dialogue, strange plot devices, and weird characters. Eckhart does his best but to no avail. The real shame that there was cool franchise potential here but all this was, was a cash-in antihero attempt at reviving a monster. Visuals were ok and Eckhart was alright, but not much else worked in the slightest.
Rated 07 Jun 2014
32
20th
I did like 2 things gargoyles and Yvonne Strzechowski.
Rated 08 Mar 2014
30
5th
Might have worked if Kate Beckinsale played Frankenstein's monster...
Rated 25 Jan 2014
57
18th
Aaron Eckhart scowls at a camera for 90 minutes while not-angels and sorta-demons punch each other and Yvonne Strzechowski reminds me of how much I respect the work of the BioWare dev that modeled Miranda Lawson's ass.
Rated 24 Feb 2014
0
2nd
I can't think of a single redeeming quality about this film. I've seen worse things (barely) but nothing so wildly unnecessary in all my life.
Rated 04 Feb 2015
17
6th
I'll give my impression of the first opening 3 minutes of this movie, "We do know the source material...FUCK THAT SHIT DEMONS VS GARGOYLES LOLOLOLOLOL!" On the positive side 10 minutes of the short 90 minute run time are the closing credits. Also, Mary Shelley got a writing credit, which I find particularly hilarious.
Rated 11 Jan 2015
10
1st
Nothing about this movie makes any God damn sense.
Rated 09 Jan 2015
39
8th
There's a level on which I genuinely enjoy this, and it's a level shared with microwave burritos and Magic Bullet infomercials. That doesn't make it a good movie, and honestly just reflects badly on myself as a person. Anyway, I have to live with it, not you.
Rated 29 Dec 2014
34
5th
If the creator of this material had come up with an original concept for his creation it would have...still been awful. But at the least it wouldn't have crapped all over one of the greatest novels ever written!
Rated 03 Feb 2014
30
0th
This movie could not be worse if it tried. Po-faced, tedious ridiculousness. Quite literally nothing about it works.
Rated 18 Sep 2015
30
25th
Despite all its flaws, I still found this film wildly entertaining. Yes, it took 90 seconds for something nonsensical to occur. Yes, Miranda Otto makes a rare appearance to play a gargoyle queen. Yes, Kevin Grevioux is not terribly original and just borrowed his Underworld concept for this one. Yes, when the demons cast off their human appearance, they look like Ivan Ooze (which is trendy these days). Yes, the fire CGI looks Syfy-level. But I still had fun, and doesn't that count for something?
Rated 29 Jul 2014
50
15th
Tedious with a major plot hole. If inscribing a symbol makes anything a demon killing weapon then why not make BULLETS with that symbol and get a mini gun?
Rated 16 May 2014
51
9th
I, bored. This movie was pretty boring. Nothing really stands out. Heck, even Frankenstein's Monster (They call him Adam, which seems like a boring name too) has a boring make-up design. They could have went all-out with the design of the stitches on his face and body...
Rated 25 Jul 2016
18
1st
Frankenshit.
Rated 11 May 2014
17
13th
Yvonne Strzechowski always pleases the eye but her acting skills were here wasted. And it was difficult to imagine what was Bill Nighy thinking to sign in for this movie. I haven't seen the original comic story but there was not much to cling on. May Mary Shelley rest in peace.
Rated 24 Mar 2018
40
7th
Ever wonder what it would be like if Frankenstein was actually a hansom anti-hero who teamed up with gargoyle angels and fought cardboard cutouts of demons? Me neither. In any case this movie is crap.
Rated 14 Dec 2017
32
24th
not so good
Rated 30 Oct 2017
31
2nd
The premise of this film is absurd. The script is bad and the special effects are uninspired. Overall this film is a complete mess.
Rated 29 Nov 2014
0
4th
While my gut (and psi) said no, I couldn't resist the idea of a gothic superhero. Saturday morning cartoon dialogue, ugly visuals and Orientalism. That Frankentein's monster is an expert in eskrima -I think- says a lot.
Rated 01 Feb 2018
60
22nd
Had tons of plot holes that left me thinking "wait... why would they...?" but it was entertaining enough for me to just enjoy it for what it was: a pretty straight-forward action flick without falling prey to a complicated ending.
Rated 31 Dec 2017
26
2nd
The bit where one of the demons gets a mace to the balls was the closest it got to good.
Rated 28 Feb 2015
49
11th
I certainly wasn't expecting much going into this: I thought it would stay mindlessly guy-friendly. But the oh-so poignant "You're only a monster if you choose to be" moment was truly cringe-worthy. No need to take yourself so seriously when making a movie of this quality.
Rated 02 May 2020
10
1st
Holy crap this makes Van Helsing look good. I don't know how much they spent on it but it seriously looks like some shitty TV show from The CW.
Rated 06 Dec 2016
65
0th
Really pointless and uninteresting movie
Rated 09 Aug 2015
18
23rd
We have never needed Frankenstein reimagining as yet another mythical bullshit thing x vs mythical bullshit thing y battle-since-time-immemorial story. Nor does Frankensteins monster need to be a sex object.
Rated 09 Dec 2019
66
33rd
Frankenstein Ascending
Rated 13 Sep 2015
42
23rd
Watching this movie was like watching someone else play a video game...pretty boring. Nothing remarkable happens, everything looks too cheap and has way too much CGI. They should've added a little bit of humor to this to at least make it chuckle worthy.
Rated 01 Jan 2019
66
66th
This flick was in a no win situation; make the story different and bitchers say you're not following source material, make it similar and bitchers say you're just copying. While I admit that it is not the greatest it is certainly an entertaining gothic feel movie.
Rated 30 Nov 2016
68
30th
If you saw the previews, then you know this has nothing to do with the source material. If you're still planning on watching it afterward, than you'll get exactly what you'd think you would: a sibling to "Underworld" or "Resident Evil". I can live with that.
Rated 20 Feb 2016
17
2nd
Aaron Eckhart and Miranda Otto struggles with their terrible characters while Jai Courtney is as bad as always. At least the gargoyles look cool. Marginally worse than Dracula Untold.
Rated 25 Sep 2019
6
99th
maybe the best film of 2014
Rated 21 Apr 2014
55
22nd
Plot-wise there's not an awful lot going on, but the action's cool, and it's entertaining enough
Rated 25 Jan 2014
20
9th
Points for Aaron Eckhart and slowmo-explosions. The kind of movie that's so bad it's actually kinda good again
Rated 01 Feb 2014
50
50th
But the spirituality here ultimately becomes just as jumbled as the plot, and the violence teeters somewhere between assaulting and just plain weird. I wonder if the filmmakers might one day echo Victor Frankenstein himself and express regret over ever making the thing. (pluggedin.com)
Rated 05 Feb 2014
70
42nd
I don't really know what I was expecting. Part of me hoped for Eckhart to go Nic Cage batshit insane with it, but after leaving the theatre, I knew simply that I'd had a fun time. Worthwhile 3D, actually LIGHTER on the CGI than I'd expected. It boasts a completely linear swerve-free plot that I'm not going to condemn it for; it's shut-your-brain-off movie-making fun that doesn't NEED a captivating story or twists and turns to be entertaining. Is it objectively GOOD? Probably not. But I had fun.
Rated 06 Feb 2014
78
41st
Overdramatic and cliched, but in the best kind of way.
Rated 10 Feb 2014
36
12th
If you like dialogue which sounds like it was written by someone at primary school then this film is for you. Action scenes are fine but the cheesy interactions between characters just makes you cringe! The story is rushed and everyone seems happy turning up and putting in minimal effort for a payday - its rubbish!
Rated 16 Feb 2014
10
0th
About as bad a film as you could ever see in a theatre. Blase in every way. At one point someone says "It's coming" and a supposedly brilliant scientist responds "Him, not it." Did nobody think that it would have sounded better for her to say "He, not it."?
Rated 17 Feb 2014
65
46th
Am I the only one who thought this was pretty fun? Yes? Okay, I'll just slowly get out then...
Rated 01 Mar 2014
20
27th
Meh, okay movie, relying almost completely on the effects. I really hope there isn't a sequel.
Rated 17 Mar 2014
40
23rd
Aggressively stupid and needlessly confusing
Rated 29 Mar 2014
30
6th
Absurd plot and dialogues, terrible acting. I could not get past the first 30 minutes.
Rated 06 Feb 2015
35
96th
I loved Underworld even the much hated Van Helsing. I thought they were great fantasy-monster films! And I love I, Frankenstein possibly even more! This is the most explosive/action-packed film of them all!
Rated 30 Apr 2014
47
8th
some good visuals but overall a waste of budget and manpower... Frankenstein creates a human (somehow an handsome one) who then teams up with cathedral gargoyles to beat low IQ demons whose leader is a British mafia...
Rated 09 May 2014
50
35th
eng; [I Frankenstein]; frankensteins monster gerät in einen alten krieg zwischen gargoyels und dämonen und das monster entscheidet sich für die menschen zu kämpfen.;
Rated 21 Jun 2014
10
5th
Terrible acting Terrible plot Terrible effects What are Nighy and Eckhart doing in this.
Rated 13 Aug 2014
45
1st
My brain exploded due to the lameness of this movie...
Rated 21 Aug 2014
41
5th
One cannot simply make a good Frankenstein movie with PG-13 limitation.
Rated 25 Oct 2014
55
20th
5 for effects
Rated 22 Nov 2014
27
4th
Just a really bad version of Frankenstein. Eckhart doesn't convince as the monster of Frankenstein and the story doesn't make any sense. 27/100.
Rated 24 Jan 2014
50
47th
Appropriately, I, Frankenstein feels like a stapled-together version of a number of similar films, but I don't think that's enough to condemn it. It has solid action that is shot and edited well, a surprisingly serious tone that almost gets the audience to buy into its ridiculous premise, a good setting that is used well, and actors that don't trivialize it or make it feel silly. It's a little exposition-heavy and its derivativeness might turn off some viewers, but I had some fun with it.
Rated 29 Nov 2014
49
6th
As bad as you'd expect. Plot is boring and predictable, characters one-dimensional and I did not even like most of the action scenes.

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...