If you see the film you can't help but think how much the visual style resembles 'Underworld'. Story wise it leans more towards 'Van Helsing'. I guess those bad memories are the reason it failed to make any money. I personally thought it wasn't too bad: good VFX, decent action, nice production design. Okay, so they story is somewhat nonsensical but it isn't a drama but rather light popcorn entertainment. Ackhart's performance is functional but nothing worth of any award. They also were smart enough to keep the length at a snappy 92 mins and not drag it out to 130 mins like Van Helsing did. Maybe not cinema material but I can see this doing solid business in the video rental circuit.
Review of I, Frankenstein
