Lionsgate / Summit Entertainment
Don't expect that to change this weekend with Lionsgate's "I, Frankenstein" starring Aaron Eckhart as the monster.
Reviews are only trickling in now since reviews were held until this morning - always a bad sign for a film - and, as expected, they're pretty awful.
Currently, the film is sitting at 0% on Rotten Tomatoes.
This is the second film of the year to bring in awful reviews after recent releases "The Legend of Hercules" and "Devil's Due."
Personally, I never really understood what this film was trying to do. Yes, it's telling the story of Frankenstein, but this film is based on a graphic novel which finds the monster caught in a war between gargoyles and demons fighting over him. (What?)
Ben King / Lionsgate
I don't remember Frankenstein being so ripped.
Something else that will hurt this movie at the box office is the "I" in the title. It seems pretty unnecessary.
Everyone I've spoken to about the movie has agreed it reminds them of another similarly titled movie, "I, Robot" and for that reason it's become a turnoff - not because "I, Robot" wasn't an enjoyable Will Smith movie, but because it feels like "Frankenstein" borrowed from a title that's already been done years ago and is trying to replicate its success.
The film cost an estimated $65 million to make and is expected to bring in figures in the mid-teens opening weekend with comparisons to the "Underworld" franchise starring Kate Beckinsale.
Here's what critics are saying:
Variety says the movie is pretty dull.
"Utterly witless, listless, sparkless and senseless, this supernatural actioner makes one long for the comparative sophistication of the conceptually identical 'Underworld' franchise (with which it shares producers and a writer)."
"... the film never attempts to explore, exploit, or elaborate on Adam's origins in the Frankenstein story, to the extent that it's easy to occasionally forget the film's entire premise while watching it."
RogerEbert.com notes that Eckhart's Two-Face in "The Dark Knight" looked more grim.
"This particular envisioning of Frankenstein's monster might just as well be called Scarface, for a cut-up visage, and, for the 18th-Century-set intro, some Seattle-grunge-rocker hair, are all that disguise Eckhart's fratinee-idol good looks here."
The effects aren't great either.
"All this and elaborately mediocre production design, oodles of mediocre CGI-action scenes, and, in the version I personally paid about 20 dollars to see, really uninspired 3D."
"Noisy and repetitive dullness, its many confounding plot developments and character motivations, or its tossing out the philosophical complexity of Shelley's novel in favor of Underworld-style good-versus-evil claptrap. It's not good enough, but it is slightly better than it has to be."
Still, Cinemablend offers that at least Eckhart is enjoyable - at times - to watch on screen and is better than "Hercules" (which isn't saying much):
"To his credit, Eckhart digs into the role with a surly bravado, sneering behind the prosthetic scars and deftly wielding scowls as well as the dual-fisted weapons Adam picks up. In action sequences, he's pretty awesome, barreling forth with an effusive rage that punctuates his intimidating physicality. But aside from brawling and brooding, Eckhart is given little else to do."
"There's very little left of Mary Shelley's 19th-century morality tale in this video game-like version, clearly geared to the fan-boy/fan-girl set."
"By going to the unusual length of insisting reviewers hold opinions until 9 a.m. opening day, clearly the movie studio behind I, Frankenstein sees this as a "critic-proof" effort that will easily separate genre lovers from their premium ticket money (it's in IMAX and 3D) no matter what the reaction to the movie may be."
If you are looking for something to see this weekend, check out one of the Oscar-nominated flicks like "Her," "Nebraska," or "Philomena" that you probably haven't seen.