Although all of the characters in these monster movies are fictional, when stories are reinterpreted too far from their original story lines they tend to fail. Frankenstien, in the main, was originally concieved as an idea which wrestled with the struggle between the scientific endeavour and the natural order or things, not a story of the battle between demons and angels (gargoyles in this instance). The spiritual element of the minsters quest only touched the original story due to the prominent religious world view of the times. In my view this movies failed and is rated so because it stretches the concept held in our minds beyond it's original narative.

If you didn't watch this movie then you haven't missed out on much. If you watched the first 10 minutes of it you quickly realize how it's going to end. The main character is far from scary or far from a monster and I wish I would stop seeing Bill Nighy in these kind of movies, Underworld was enough but I do really like him as an actor.

I just saw the movie and it s so far from the shelley book. Aaron remains handsome although he has scars but that s the only interesting point. Was it necessary to add vampires and creatures of evil. Mary Shelley wanted to underline the loneliness of the creature and to explain about difference. The movie seems to talk about Buffy and the vampires.

Perhaps the most perplexing thing about trying to write a review for writer/director Stuart Beattie's comic-book adaptation "I, Frankenstein" is the simple fact... there's really not much to say about this film. Neither awful enough to be completely dismissed, nor good enough to be a worthwhile consideration for viewing, the film just sort-of sits in a limbo of mere "existence." It's a movie that happened, but not one that really matters in any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps good for a laugh or two should you catch it on cable, but not one you'll likely remember even seeing a few days later. Which actually is a shame, especially coming from the same creative minds that brought us films like "Collateral" and the somewhat overblown but pretty decent "Underworld" franchise.Aaron Eckhart plays an overly-hunky rendition of Frankenstein's monster, who not long after the conclusion of the events depicted in the original Mary Shelley classic, finds himself attacked by demonic forces. However, he is saved by gargoyle warriors created by the archangel Michael to protect the Earth from demons. The warriors dub Frankenstein's monster "Adam", and offer to let him join them as a warrior for heaven, but he declines, choosing to live alone. Centuries later, in the modern day, Adam continues to fend off these vile creatures. Soon enough it becomes clear that a demon-prince called Naberius (Bill Nighy) is seeking him to learn Victor Frankenstein's secret to creating life... a secret he wants for his own dark purposes. And so, Adam must form an uneasy alliance with the gargoyles in order to stop Naberius' wretched plans and to save the world from the forces of darkness...To be fair, there are a few elements at play that do work, and I think that's why I cannot completely disregard the film. Eckhart, probably best known now for his turn as Harvey Dent in Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" makes for an adequate hero, and I actually enjoyed his performance. Even though he's been made into just a stock "brooding hero", Eckhart gives the role just enough of an emotional core and does well with what little material he has. He makes for a good Frankenstein's monster turned action hero. It just drives me nuts that they tried to "pretty him up", and he's simply just regular old handsome Aarson Eckhart with a few faded scars around his face. I think it would have added a lot if they made him a bit more grotesque. And as always, Bill Nighy is an absolute joy as our lead adversary. He's never anything less than stellar, and he'll give his all to even the most silly of roles. So I really enjoyed his turn as a demonic prince... it gives him some fun moments to sink his teeth into. Director Stuart Beattie also has a knack for visuals and even if the film is heavily reliant on big, loud CG effects, I could never call the visual guidance anything less than slick. At its best, the film does have the ability to entertain, and there's a few stand-out sequences where the action rings true and you'll find yourself somewhat thrilled with the proceedings.But unfortunately, it's the script that does the film in, in a big, bad way. Based on a graphic novel by "Underworld" co-creator Kevin Grevioux, Beattie's script is just a complete mess. There's absolutely no breathing room for anything outside of the most basic of character and story development, as it rockets by with an almost nonsensical pacing. Interesting ideas are brought up and then dropped on a near-constant basis. (Ex. Wouldn't it have been interesting to have gotten more than a fleeting glimpse of the multi-century jump in time the film takes after it's prologue? I wanna see how Adam managed to get by as time went on.) And it just plays the relatively insane-o concept of Frankenstein's monster trapped in a war between immortal factions a bit too seriously. Sure, play the actual plot-line straight, but the film needed a few more laughs and moments of levity. The trend of taking old stories and giving them gritty, modern reboots seems to work best in situations like "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters", where the concept is played for both thrills and for laughs. And I think this film definitely needed some lighter moments to help make the concept more digestible.As it stands, "I, Frankenstein" just sits as a relatively middling and mediocre take on the iconic character. True, the film boasts some fun performances, a handful of thrilling action set-pieces and slick direction... but its all at the service of some of the most bland and tragically misguided writing I've seen in recent memory. A script with a haphazard pace, lack of development and bizarrely over-serious tone really drags down what could otherwise have been a fun little adventure romp. In the end, we may not get the worst movie ever made. But we get something that is arguably far worse- a film that is completely and utterly unremarkable and thoroughly forgettable. This is one of those rare films where I actually hope it gets the reboot treatment sooner rather than later, and that they take some more risks with the material... give it slight sense of self-aware humor to compensate for the ridiculous concept, slow down the pacing to give it some breathing room and explore the character of Adam a bit more, and you'll have a very fun movie. Instead of a bland one like this.I give "I, Frankenstein" a sub-par but watchable 4 out of 10. If you can see it for free, I'd say consider giving it a shot. It's the sort-of movie that would make for good background noise on a slow day while you do other things. But that's about it.