close menu


Hoo boy.

Surely you remember any number of those cheeky revisionist monster fight flicks from the last few years: The self-aware, vaguely spoofy, all-too-cutesy and well-remembered entertainments like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, or Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters. Sure there was also the truly lugubrious Jack The Giant Slayer in that mix, and I would count the bafflingly popular and utterly ghastly 300 in that lot, but for the most part, these openly deliberate mutations of famous stories or myths are harmless fun. Most of them are possessed of a slight, jokey, tongue-in-cheek tone, allowing the films to play less as serious reconsiderations of time-old material and more like the Mad Magazine versions of themselves.

Stuart Beattie’s bugnuts-crazy monster mash I, Frankenstein (based on a comic book) has no such levity, despite how off-the-wall it is. This is a steel-colored, stony-serious war picture that just happens to be about the eternal battle between demons and gargoyles, and the innocent warrior Frankenstein who gets caught in the middle. The premise is the stuff of 10-year-old boy fantasies, or perhaps an ambitious luchador film from the 1960s. This is the kind of film where actors scream lines like “Return to the Gargoyle Queen! Tell her I have Frankenstein’s journal!” and never once crack a smile, wink to the audience, or give the audience the slightest hint that this is perhaps the single stupidest monster film of the last decade.


The story of I, Frankenstein picks up where Mary Shelley’s novel left off, leaving the tragic monster (Aaron Eckhart) to murder his creator. As the embittered monster is burying Dr. Frankenstein, he is suddenly besieged by a pack of roving demons who “must return him to Prince Naberius!” The monster is luckily protected by a passing gang of holy gargoyles who, as we soon learn (from gargoyle queen Miranda Otto), are God’s army on Earth sent to fight encroaching demon threats. The gargoyles try to enlist the Frankenstein into their army, but he refuses, looking out for #1. Fast-forward 200 years, and good ol’ Frankie is still alive, and still fighting off the occasional demon.

Additionally: a comely medical doctor named Terra (Yvonne Strahovski) has just now found a way to resurrect dead rats with a laser chamber (you read that correctly), and the head of the modern-day demons (Bill Nighy) wants to use the machine to… Look, does the story really matter? Let’s just wrack up a goofiness tally instead: Medical doctors refer to the Frankenstein story as “just a myth.” Frankenstein leaps off the roof of a car and punches a gargoyle in the face. There are gargoyles in the film. A gargoyle warrior keeps his axe in three parts just so he can assemble it on the battlefield. An evil demon lord – even though he doesn’t know if he’ll ever actually discover the right technology – has been amassing bodies for years in the hopes that maybe he’ll be able to resurrect them someday, maybe. And at one point, there is a glowing computer readout on a screen indicating just how alive a creature is by percentage. I guess something can be only 17.2% alive.


Oh, yes, and let us not forget the bizarre detail that there seem to be no people in this universe. Aside from our lead human character, and a few fleeting scenes in a club and on a subway train, the city where this film is set (Budapest? Bucharest? Detroit?) seems to be absent of human beings. Demons and gargoyles fight across the rooftops, turning one another into smoking fireballs of death, smashing walls, breaking cars, and generally causing huge amounts of general mayhem, and not one person seems to be present to witness any of this.

The aesthetic of I, Frankenstein is colorless and drab, having taken its visual cues from the disposable Underworld films. The gargoyles are sloppy CGI concoctions with gray skin and no distinguishing characteristics. In close-ups, the demons at least seem to be actors in makeup, but in battle scenes, they are a mob of flashing video game avatars. Thank goodness we have someone like Bill Nighy to deliver his monster dialogue with the appropriate Hammer Film panache and no small amount of glee. And I do have to give credit to Eckhart, whose performance as Frankenstein is miles afield from Boris Karloff, and buddying uncomfortably close to a typically tough, ripped movie badass.


Wow. Aaron Eckhart’s career has taken a few weird turns, hasn’t it? You have to admire a man who can work with Neil LaBute on multiple occasions, and then turns around to star in a charming indie comedy, a Batman film, and some truly awful Hollywood garbage (he was in Battle Los Angeles). I, Frankenstein is certainly of the latter vintage.

And while I can openly acknowledge I, Frankenstein as the open can of stupidity that it is, I am tempted to recommend it nonetheless for its plucky insanity. The film may not be having too much fun with its monster-on-monster action, but many people at my midnight screening were certainly having a ball with it, giggling in constant incredulity. I, Frankenstein may be destined to become a late-night camp-fest in dorm rooms across the country. It will not, however, be defended as good.



How Fast Were Dany's Dragons in Last Week's GAME OF THRONES?

How Fast Were Dany's Dragons in Last Week's GAME OF THRONES?


BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD's "Complete Collection" Isn't Complete, But It's Close (Review)



  1. boukalele says:

    thank you so much for bringing up the fact that there seems to be no people. although I haven’t seen how he was able to get in the subway car. I am pretty sure that none of the subway systems have an open air area between cars.

  2. chris sliger says:

    I love how movies with things like “demons” and “monsters” are considered stupid and silly, while boring ass movies like Scarface that only caters to immigrant’s fantasies of becoming big in America, are considered mature and serious. I Frankenstein actually took a chance at not being the cliché goofy action movie and actually tried to make a serious movie about gargoyles and demons. But instead, adults call fantasy movies childish in an attempt to sound mature, and watch things like the Godfather to satisfy their 12-year-old fantasies of being a gangster and doing whatever they want. anyone else sense a double standard? (300 sucked btw)

    • Kate says:

      I feel like it’s because the depiction of very open-to-interpretation material like monsters, etc. can take really weird turns that a lot of people will think are “too weird” because it’s not based in reality enough for them to enjoy it, if that makes sense. Whereas something like “The Godfather” or “Scarface” caters to “real life scenarios” of over-romanticized versions of what people think gangster/mob life is actually like. While I do enjoy the over-romantic versions of these things, I really wish more people could get into the monster genre more without rolling their eyes and thinking of 50s B-Movies because the world of folklore and the supernatural have a lot to offer in terms of interesting material. It speaks volumes about the beliefs and lives and real fears of the people of the times that they were relevant and considered very frighteningly real. But this just loops back around into the reason people like “Scarface” so much; it reflects the beliefs and values and world around people and their relation with it. Monsters are hardly considered real now but bad people are.
      Tl;dr there needs to be more monster/fantasy fans.

  3. Jnvrmind says:

    I’ve always thought the same thing about 300. As far as I’ve ever been able to figure out,you need to be a big gamer or stoner to enjoy that movie.

  4. Chris says:

    You nearly lost me at “the bafflingly popular and utterly ghastly 300”.

  5. Michael says:

    Au contraire, Will. 300 is one of the BEST movies ever made. And it is not responsible for making any other movies. It always uses a condom. But seriously, WORST movie ever? Hyperbole much, Will? I understand YOU hated it but a lot of us got enjoyment out of it.

  6. Will says:


    300 is one of the worst movies ever made, and is itself responsible for an entire trend of shitty movies just like it.

  7. bastien says:

    @rktrixy Except the monster *is* named Frankenstein. Frankenstein being a surname.

    The monster essentially considers himself to be Dr. Frankenstein’s son, and Dr. Frankenstein was so invested in his creation that he feels similarly towards him.

    So it’s not at all unreasonable to consider that a son might have his father’s last name, especially when that son was just as obsessed with his father as his father was with him. And after destroying the father’s life and ultimately ending it, to keep the name as somewhat of a trophy.

    Of course the monster is named Frankenstein. He has always been named Frankenstein, even if not explicitly. Besides, it’s not like he can keep going around town for decades calling himself “The Creation”.

  8. Valerie says:

    Wait 300 was ghastly? 300 was amazing. It was visually stimulating and emulated the comic beautifully.

    The Underworld movies are fun, also it would be worth noting that I, Frankenstein and the Underworld movies where co-written by the same person.

    While I have no desire to see the film outside of it’s Underworld feel, it seems the writer was looking entirely to hard for a movie grounded in reality about demons and gargoyles.

  9. Sam says:

    The monster’s name was Adam. The Doctor’s name was Stormageddon (sorry, this really needed a joke).

  10. Axelsan says:

    Wow, I had already planned on waiting until DVD rental time. I do get tired of bad CGI over good practical. And it was made by the people who brought us Underworld. But I liked Battle: LA, so,,
    I bet the reviewer likes Woody Allen movies.

  11. Joshua says:

    I haven’t seen the film so I can’t say I’m invested one way or the other, but I find reviews like this completely useless. Very superficial. It just seems like a chance to see how snarky one can be.

  12. rktrixy says:

    Wait. Wait. Wait. The monster is not Frankenstein. It is Frankenstein’s Monster.

    Does he actually introduce himself as Frankenstein in this film? If so, lets take the whole production and writing crew into an alley and paddle their asses.

    It’s one thing to make a bad monster flick. It’s another to disregard the basic genesis of the story you are trying to tell.

  13. Lisa says:

    so…. not even a tinge of Van Helsing-style appeal? Kind of disappointed, it looked like it might be diverting for a few wee moments… ah well…

  14. Dave says:

    I guess Aaron Eckhart won’t be back on the podcast…