"I, Frankenstein" Flops Hard at the Box Office

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

"I, Frankenstein" Flops Hard at the Box Office

I, Frankenstein

Lionsgate's I, Frankenstein disappoints at the box office where it fails to break $10 million in ticket sales in its debut weekend.

Lionsgate's big budget feature I, Frankenstein failed to sizzle in its debut weekend at the box office managing to only rake in an estimated $8.3 million in ticket sales. The flick, based on the graphic novel by Kevin Grevioux with the same name, has a listed budget of $65 million, which doesn't even include marketing costs and ad campaigns. I, Frankenstein failed to topple Universal's comedy film "Ride Along," which brought in $21.2 million to nestle itself at the top spot once again, and brings the comedy film's total to $75.4 million in just two weeks in theaters.

Listed below are the top ten estimated weekend earners.

1. Ride Along $21.2 million

2. Lone Survivor $12.6 million

3. The Nut Job $12.3 million

4. Frozen $9 million

5. Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit $8.8 million

6. I, Frankenstein $8.3 million

7. American Hustle $7.1 million

8. August: Osage County $5 million

9. The Wolf of Wall Street $5 million

10. Devil's Due $2.8 million

The action fantasy adaptation I, Frankenstein stars Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight), Bill Nighy (Underworld) and Yvonne Strahvoski (Chuck) and features Frankenstein's Monster (Eckhart) surviving in the present day where he sees himself caught between a centuries-old war between the Demons and the Gargoyles.

If you want to know more how I, Frankenstein fares, make sure you check out our Escape to the Movies video review of the flick where it's called "I, Disappointed."

Source: The Slanted and Box Office Mojo

Permalink

Ouch. Even by dump month standards, that's pretty bad for an opening weekend. I mean, getting outperformed by a movie that's been out for almost two months (Frozen)? That's abysmal.

Not that I'm sorry, due to what I've heard about it.

Hadn't heard of this movie until now.....

I guess it was that bad.

You know what Hollywood should try?

A good-old Greek tragedy. No CGI or intense action scenes, something that's actively low-key in atmosphere but is engaging through narrative, yet not so complicated that it loses the majority of its viewers.

So 300, but without the elements that make 300.

I will say that I saw 1 commercial of this movie about a week ago, and I will say that it looked terrible in the trailer. Can't say I'm too surprised about this happening.

thebobmaster:
Ouch. Even by dump month standards, that's pretty bad for an opening weekend. I mean, getting outperformed by a movie that's been out for almost two months (Frozen)? That's abysmal.

Not that I'm sorry, due to what I've heard about it.

To be fair, Frozen is actually a good movie.

Objectable:

thebobmaster:
Ouch. Even by dump month standards, that's pretty bad for an opening weekend. I mean, getting outperformed by a movie that's been out for almost two months (Frozen)? That's abysmal.

Not that I'm sorry, due to what I've heard about it.

To be fair, Frozen is actually a good movie.

So I've heard. However, around where I live, movies are generally out of theaters in a month and a half for the really good ones, so a movie still outperforming a new release two months later is unheard of.

All the ads I saw for it make it look pretty bad. All the worst aspects of a re-imagining of a classic.

Neronium:
I will say that I saw 1 commercial of this movie about a week ago, and I will say that it looked terrible in the trailer. Can't say I'm too surprised about this happening.

This, the film looked pretty silly and generic when I saw a trailer a couple of weeks back, no surprises this happened. Hopefully lessons will be learned in future (not likely).

Dr.Awkward:
You know what Hollywood should try?

A good-old Greek tragedy. No CGI or intense action scenes, something that's actively low-key in atmosphere but is engaging through narrative, yet not so complicated that it loses the majority of its viewers.

So 300, but without the elements that make 300.

Can they keep the washboard abs, at least?

This movie really isn't as bad as critics make it out to be. Being a work of Kevin Grevioux, it's obviously in the same vein as the Underworld movies, just more flashy. It's a decent popcorn flick, its only real negatives being the constant talk of angels, demons, etc, which even with christianity being so grounded in our society, comes out sounding a bit less believable than vampires vs werewolves. If you're looking for a literal continuation of the Mary Shelley book, this is not it. Oddly enough this seems to be the primary complaint coming from critics. But if you're looking to see demons getting wasted like Blade going on a revenge kick, then sit down, grab a soda, and enjoy.

I've been somewhat confused by the title of this movie. It is called I, Frankenstein, but from what I can gather, Frankenstein himself does not feature in this movie. When I first saw the ad for this on the side of a bus (where else?) with the tagline "200 years later, still alive", I wonder if perhaps Frankenstein had been able to develop his experiments to the point where he was able to extend his own life and was back animating dead bodies in the 21st century. So, either the writers were just ignorant to the fact that Frankenstein wasn't the monster or though that "I, Frankenstein's Monster" would have been more of an unwieldy name.

Interesting, according to the internet, this film is being released here in the UK on 29th January. They must be going for the lucrative start-of-the-week crowd then I take it. I also learned we appear to be getting a sequel to Olympus has Fallen - "London has Fallen". Presumably to be released not that far apart from Downing Street Down, if you could ever imagine a clumsier title.

I had never heard of it until it was the only thing playing on the IMAX this last weekend. It wasn't very good, I couldn't really root for any one side. Angels, demons or Adam. He doesn't seem sympathetic or even nice. But it did prove that people don't react well the "ugly" heroes.

I'd call it cosmic justice.

They took a milestone of literature, put it in the meat grinder, seasoned it with the most generic and overused plot elements known to mankind and put it on the menu. Imagine a kobe steak being put into a blender along with ketchup, mayo, buns and old socks...

Seriously, I read the ads and watched the trailers. It's something you'd expect to see on Mad TV, whoever thought this was a good idea should be driven out of town by an angry mob.

Zachary Amaranth:

Dr.Awkward:
snip

Can they keep the washboard abs, at least?

There will be little muscle definition in the bare torsos you'll be seeing. Also the women are mostly chubby - Especially those who are wealthy and live in nobility. It's authentic after all!

It just seems so painfully generic by Lionsgate standards

I mean, do they do nothing but religiously themed action movies? Can't they try something else every now and then?

Dr.Awkward:

There will be little muscle definition in the bare torsos you'll be seeing. Also the women are mostly chubby - Especially those who are wealthy and live in nobility. It's authentic after all!

Blasphemy! I demand washboard abs! Especially the women!

MarsProbe:
I've been somewhat confused by the title of this movie. It is called I, Frankenstein, but from what I can gather, Frankenstein himself does not feature in this movie. When I first saw the ad for this on the side of a bus (where else?) with the tagline "200 years later, still alive", I wonder if perhaps Frankenstein had been able to develop his experiments to the point where he was able to extend his own life and was back animating dead bodies in the 21st century. So, either the writers were just ignorant to the fact that Frankenstein wasn't the monster or though that "I, Frankenstein's Monster" would have been more of an unwieldy name.

Interesting, according to the internet, this film is being released here in the UK on 29th January. They must be going for the lucrative start-of-the-week crowd then I take it. I also learned we appear to be getting a sequel to Olympus has Fallen - "London has Fallen". Presumably to be released not that far apart from Downing Street Down, if you could ever imagine a clumsier title.

I think it some kind of copy/reference to the famous "I, Robot" series.

It is based on a comic of the same name, so there is that.

OT: I didn't think it would do very well, but to open THIS bad? The huge amount of marketing this thing got, I would think it would break the the million mark, but opening SIXTH? Wow.

Somebody is going to get fired over this.

I expected that to happen. Still would like to see it.

JSoup:
I expected that to happen. Still would like to see it.

I recommend you do. Sadly, Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 5%. That is outrageous.

The comparisons to Underworld are apt. The main heavy in both is Bill Nighey! (Davy Jones from the Pirates movies).

This was a lot more fun than the Underworld movies. The screen is full of fun stuff. Frankenstein's monster himself is an interesting movie character. So wonderful to see a main character NOT be a vampire!!!

Maybe I liked it so much because my expectations were low. But I did. I thought it a blast.

thebobmaster:
Ouch. Even by dump month standards, that's pretty bad for an opening weekend. I mean, getting outperformed by a movie that's been out for almost two months (Frozen)? That's abysmal.

Not that I'm sorry, due to what I've heard about it.

It sucks for the people who made it, but I can't say I have any sympathy when every trailer I saw made it look like an easy pick for one of the worst movies of the year. Honestly can't remember the last time I've seen trailers make a movie look as bad as this one.

I'm not to surprised, the whole 'mystical element packaged as the matrix' shtick is bloody boring. I was actually looking forward to Underworld 3 because I heard it was a prequal set in the dark ages and even that bored me to tears.

Guess what Hollywood, a black trench coat is not interesting to look at, FAKK!

I mean, I can do goofy, I enjoyed Van Helsing... which was odd given the trench coat...

The hat helped.

I'm not surprised, the trailer looked so bad and bores me to tears each time I had to watch it when I go to the cinema. Underwolrd was fun to watch but the sequels were kinda bland so I didn't really have any faith in this.

Did this movie have Kate Beckinsdale in a tight leather outfit? No, then I'm not interested. I can understand why Bob was a little more kind to this movie than other critics, but I only saw the first Underworld movie and I only saw it the one time.

You know what this director should do though, a Vampire: The Masquerade movie. I mean it was pretty obvious Underworld took quite a bit of inspiration from it, and I even found my characters acting out some of the stunts from the movie during my play sessions.

Hollywood, you can't just throw out recognizable names and hope they stick. Did you learn nothing from Jack the Giant Slayer? Just because something famous is in the public domain doesn't mean it's a guaranteed success...

I imagine if anything, this is only really gonna pickup in DVD sales or rentals (whatever market that is now).

My main thing is that the title is Frankenstein, but its really more about the Gargoyles and Demons then anything of that mythos. The Frankenmonster is almost a side macguffin in the nigh identical vein he was in Van Helsing, despite being the protagonist.

I saw a preview for this, it looked terrible. Plus the plot is a bunch of self-congratulatory derivative drivel, frankly it sounds like the sort of thing you'd read in fan fiction. Also, as for names I can't remember anything I've cared about I've seen anyone in.

Oh wait, Yvonne Strahvoski was in that stupid Chuck show. That show was so badly written that it was really funny watching the actors stumble through it. Somehow that worked.

Flunk:
I saw a preview for this, it looked terrible. Plus the plot is a bunch of self-congratulatory derivative drivel, frankly it sounds like the sort of thing you'd read in fan fiction. Also, as for names I can't remember anything I've cared about I've seen anyone in.

Oh wait, Yvonne Strahvoski was in that stupid Chuck show. That show was so badly written that it was really funny watching the actors stumble through it. Somehow that worked.

That's what you know her from? I know her from something else. You may be familiar with both it and her character. Or at least, her character model.

image

This movie always gave me the vibe of "written by a focus group". Only 50 more bombs like this and the studios will learn their lesson.

I guess this is what happens when you make an awful movie no one wants to see.

Weaver:
I guess this is what happens when you make an awful movie no one wants to see.

But don't you see, it had the checklist. HOW COULD IT FAIL

Established IP
DARK AND GRITTY tone
Easy-to-follow moral war they could then pretend it's shocking when the good guys do something bad
Blue/orange contrast on the only parts where it isn't pitch black
CGI wankfest potential

I mean really, this should have succeeded by Hollywood logic.

thebobmaster:

Objectable:

To be fair, Frozen is actually a good movie.

So I've heard. However, around where I live, movies are generally out of theaters in a month and a half for the really good ones, so a movie still outperforming a new release two months later is unheard of.

You haven't seen it? GO! GO SEE IT! (I just saw it today. Best "classic" Disney movie I've seen since Beauty and the Beast, and that was over 20 years ago.)

Also, Frozen's got some serious legs. In its 10th week, it's still tracking as the 3rd highest 10th week of all time, only behind Avatar and Titanic... and that is definitely company you want to be counted among.

I wonder if studios will finally grasp that we don't want to pay to watch movies that look like bad video game cut scenes. We get enough of those from video games.

Quite frankly, I wasn't expecting much of it. Seemed a bit too cliche for my tastes, and, having read Frankenstein, I would not like to see other things associated with it. The Boris Karloff movie was good, but that was because it didn't overcomplicated things--Monster, man, torches and pitchforks.
As I've read that it is being based off of a comic, in one of these sources do they make mention that the Monster was never given a name, and instead just murdered everyone Frankenstein knew and loved?
Just for my curiosity, those who have seen the movie, are there a lot of Swiss precipices? Shelly sure loved to talk about them. An entire long, Enlightenment-prose, adjective-full chapter to be precise.

MCerberus:
I mean really, this should have succeeded by Hollywood logic.

"Hollywood logic" is, of course, an oxymoron.

I hadn't heard a solitary thing about this movie until I saw Moviebob's review on it, and that told me everything I needed to know. Another high-budget (can we call $65mil high-budget anymore?) phone-in with a handful of people trying to enjoy themselves making it weighed down by a lackluster performance by everyone else.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here