New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Edwin Davies: It was a combination of a truly awful idea, badly executed and terribly marketed. None of those things is necessarily fatal on their own - bad ideas can do well if they're well marketed; good films can be badly marketed but overcome that with decent reviews etc - but all three together make for a perfect storm of suck. No one was really crying our for a new version of Frankenstein, but even if they were, the ads did a terrible job of putting across who The Monster was meant to be fighting, why he was fighting them, or why anyone should care. It was just misguided on every conceivable step between conception and release.

David Mumpower: The logic here was straightforward. One of the creators of Underworld, Kevin Grevioux, attempted to create another gothic franchise. That sounds like a money-making endeavor, at least on paper. After all, he has done it before. The problem is what Matthew mentioned, which is everything else. As an Underworld fan as well as an Aaron Eckhart fan (he was better than Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, folks), this movie should have been my wheelhouse. Even though I still want to watch it, I have suspected since the first trailer that this is a catastrophic result. Those ads are funny, but they are not supposed to be. What went wrong beyond, you know, the movie is the cost. I would not want to be the person explaining how $65 million was wasted on I, Frankenstein.

Max Braden: Nothing good comes from dialogue that includes the line "This ends tonight." Aside from the fact that I, Frankenstein tried to get by without the firepower-chic of Underworld, the thing that still sells supernatural material from Twilight to Being Human to Vampire Diaries to even The Mortal Instruments (which I grant didn't earn much more on opening weekend) is sex appeal. I'm not going to do deny Eckhart his impressive abs, but in the eyes of teens he must look like someone who should be in infomercials selling reverse mortgages to seniors. The graphic novel fans weren't going to be able to sustain the movie on their own, so where was the appeal for the teen audience?

Kim Hollis: It just looked weird and awful. I suppose if you have a Kate Beckinsale in leather pants anchoring your film, you might have more people show up. In this case, though, it was a lesser known star with a story that was confusing and made no sense. Associating the story with Frankenstein made a lot of people scoff. I think they're lucky to have gotten almost $9 million worth of business.

Reagen Sulewski: In a lot of respects, what this shows is how valuable Kate Beckinsale was to the Underworld franchise and why she should get a retroactive raise. It's not the proudest moment for the male gender, but Beckinsale in a black corset firing double uzis was a monumental draw for audiences looking for a fantasy fix. It also helped that at the time, that sort of approach to vampires was a bit novel, whereas now, everyone has done a movie something like this. The two warring clans idea has been done to utter death, and it would need to be an exemplar of the brand to actually make money, not this horribly cast and shoddy looking example. It's barely a step above that Hercules movie that just came out, and earned an amount in respect of that.

Kim Hollis: Who do you have in the Super Bowl?

Jason Barney: I am a Tom Brady/Patriots fan, I don't think I have ever rooted for Peyton Manning... well, maybe against the Jets in the AFC Championship game a few years back... maybe against his little brother... I'm pulling for the Seahawks defense to pull this one off.

Matthew Huntley: I'm not a fan of Pete Carroll, especially after he supported that terrible call against the Packers last season (even though I'm a Bears fan and therefore hate the Packers), but I would like to see a new team win the championship, so I'm rooting for Seattle. Do I think they'll win? No, but every game is an isolated incident.

Edwin Davies: I'm rooting for the Seahawks for no other reason than that Seattle is close to where Twin Peaks is meant to be, and I assume the owls (who are not what they seem) would compel me to support them.

David Mumpower: Who ARE you people? You are rooting for the bad guy when you root against Peyton Manning. Denver is going to rock Seattle, and this season will be the rare one where the best team all season wins the Super Bowl.

Kim Hollis: I'm a Peyton Manning fan through and through, so I'm with Denver all the way. Even if I hadn't had rooting interest, I probably would have gone with Denver. I don't like Pete Carroll and Richard Sherman's attention-seeking antics have been a huge turnoff where Seattle is concerned.

Reagen Sulewski: I like the Broncos by a TD, but there's also a good shot that we set a Super Bowl scoring record or two.

Max Braden: I will only be satisfied if this "Omaha!" thing materializes in the form of flea flickers and endless trick plays.

Jim Van Nest, Broncos Superfan: I've been saying it all year and nothing has changed. The Broncos are gonna win it all. And it's not going to be close. Seattle runs a very simple defense with excellent players. Their players are generally better than whoever they're playing against; therefore, they win. The Broncos WRs (and Julius Thomas) will be too much for the much-hyped Seahawk DBs to cover and Peyton will carve them up. He will complete the best season by a QB in the history of the league with a Super Bowl win and possible MVP. Broncos 38, Seahawks, 24!

Continued:       1       2