Review of I, Frankenstein (2014) by R M — 05 Jan 2015

I doubt that I can add much to what has already been said about this film, but I would summarize my reaction by saying that the film was shot well and the actors did the best that they could with the dialog that they were given. The film had two choices: take itself seriously and meaningfully engage with Mary Shelley's novel, or take itself unseriously and have a lot of fun with its source material; e.g. Knight's Tale, that has Chaucer quoting Shakespeare (who was born well after Chaucer died) and that uses the music of Queen in a jousting tournament. The film was stupid and knew it was being stupid, so I laughed along. That I, Frankenstein attempted to be a serious film to an unintended comedic effect means that the film generally failed as a work of art.

The worst thing that I can say about this film is that it stars Aaron Eckhart rather than Keanu Reaves and is still dumber than Constantine.

The film needed to assimilate these facts from the novel: 1. The Creature was unbearable to look at. His mere physical appearance excluded him from human company (think neurofibromatosis type 1 or Proteus syndrome with semi-translucent skin and superhuman physical strength and agility). What we have instead is a handsome and cut Aaron Eckhart with some facial scars. 2. The Creature had already learned how to read and had read Victor Frankenstein's notebook before Victor died. 3. Robert Walton was left out of the backstory, but he's the only reason why we have the novel (according to the novel).

What might have been really interesting is providing some backstory having the Walton manuscript making it into Mary Shelley's hands, who then published it under her own name as a novel, obscuring its truth.

I will say the film (I haven't read the graphic novel) did a decent job of imagining the Creature's personality, including the extension of the Creature's desire for a companion into the present.