Why So Blu?

3% now.

devilshalo

Well, this seems to have more plot/story than something like an *insert Paul Bettany Screen Gems film title*. Initially, I thought it was a Thomas Jane film as the actors kind of look alike and that seems more up his alley than Eckhart... Martian Chronicles anyone?

TheMovieman

Which is a bit misleading as there's only 1 positive review and according to the page, he gave it a 2/5 (poor). Figure out how that was counted as a positive review.

http://www.movieweb.com/movie/i-fran...REGiTpCQBS2NKM

Eddie W

I'm surprised to see a tiny flash of the color red in those stained glass windows. Someone must have goofed up & forgot to digitally correct them to either teal or orange.

lamphorn

A hunky attractive Frankenstein. That's only slightly dumber than the hot-guy Beast in the new "Beauty and the Beast" on TV.

csant

I must say, I enjoyed it for a popcorn action movie. I really loved the underworld... world and this one had a pretty cool story and action. The Gargoyle's were pretty damn cool. I actually liked the world they created.

I'll rate it 7 out of 10.

PenguinJoe

Are you single out of curiosity?

csant

Nope, married with children. =)

Goldberg74

I loved the title of the review that Richard Corliss of TIME used:
I still would like to see it. Maybe I'll do a $5 matinee.

Alan Smithee

It's $15 a head to see this in 3D at my closest theater- maybe THAT'S why this is bombing so hard?

hanshotfirst1138

3-D has always jacked up ticket prices, whatever artistic merit it does or doesn't have, I'm sure that the increased profits it brings are largely the reason studios like it so much.

Alan Smithee

It didn't in the 50s or 80s...

In this case it's obviously kept many away. I LOVE 3D but refuse to support this blatant display of greed.

hanshotfirst1138

Fine then, digital 3-D has always jacked up the ticket prices.

It was a big fad after Avatar, but it does seem that the craze is winding down a bit, though it's far from gone and probably not going anywhere. I have very little use for the 3-D, but the price increase isn't unexpected given that it cost the studios to shoot it and the cinemas new equipment to project it.

Troy Stiffler

But that was just paper and cellophane glasses, without a special projector.

3D barely interests me. I'm more worried about the showtime when I run to see a movie. If it's in 3D, fine. If not, okay.

Troy Stiffler

Also: I pity this movie. And I pity the producer/distributor who signed the contract for this to get wide distribution. No way was this movie completed when they decided on distribution. This is DTV content.

james2025a

This movie looked terrible from the get go. I am still not sure what to make of Eckhart as an actor. He seems to have the potential to maybe do something really great, but most of his movies are dull or wishy washy at best. The highlight so far has to be his turn as Harvey Dent, and i think The Core is one of those movies that so truly awful that its kinda watchable for laughs alone (practically anything with Stanley Tucci in to me is a steer clear). This movie looks like it is trying to copy Underworld. Even going so far as to having Bill Nighy in it as well. God knows why, those movies sucked. This movie for me will be a rental at best.

By the way, did anyone hear Eckhart on Stern last week? When he told the story of how he went to the meeting for parents who have lost children and he pretended to be one of them for an upcoming role. Damn....what a douchebag. There is preparing for a role and then there is simply being a jerk. He went down in my estimation after hearing him repeat the story and even have a good laugh about it.

Ash Ketchum

One usually tends to be single out of non-curiosity.

DJariya

I rented this last night for $2 (got the BD)

OMG, this movie was awful. I was happy to eject the disc after the 81 minutes with no credits was up. It was really hokey and cringeworthy. Even having a hot leading lady like Yvonne Strahovski couldn't make up for the bad script and Eckhart's bland acting.

I guess I'm realizing it now, but Aaron Eckart is an awful actor.

The story about this long-running battle between Gargoyles and Demons and having Frankenstein or Adam into the mix made no sense.

I'm a fan of the Underworld series, but this movie made those movies seem like Star Wars compared to this IMO.

Brack

Aaron Eckart is a pretty good actor in a lot of stuff. In The Company of Men, Your Friends and Neighbors, Thank You For Smoking, just to name a few.

Honestly, what actor would make a turd like I, Frankenstein good? I haven't seen it, but I'm willing to bet no one. He just needs to stay away from crap.

Solid Snake

Yeah. Eckhart has done some solid stuff. When the fuck are we getting TYFS on BD here?

RocShemp

I rented this off Redbox the other day. It wasn't as bad as I was expecting. But that's the only complement I can give it.

From what I read in Wikipedia, this was meant to feature a Kate Beckinsale cameo and tie into the Underworld franchise but for whatever reason that idea was nixed. But I guess that explains why this feels like warmed leftovers from that franchise.

james2025a

I watched the movie a couple of weeks ago and it was one of the worst things i have had to endure in a long time. Simply awful from start to finish. The story is so unoriginal, the acting is abyssmal, the effects are ghastly. Its just pathetic.

People are sticking up for Eckart, but i agree with you. The guy cannot act. He has no range at all.

Jai Courtney seems to also bring nothing to any movie he is in. He was half decent in Jack Reacher, but done nothing of interest since then. Makes me wonder how he will handle the Terminator movie as Reese. Hmmmm.....

The Antipodean

Bored and watched this on Netflix last night, and my GOD did it suck. The first 2 minutes or so were interesting and promised an intriguing exploration of the Frankenstein mythos. The next 88 were godawful and man, what an embarrassment for everyone involved. I'll never get those 90 minutes back. Sigh.