I've always found cross-overs to be a little interesting. Last year, we witnessed what a show would be like if "The Simpsons" met "Family Guy." It didn't turn out tremendous, and I think the "Family Guy" writers ended up dominating most of the jokes and not in a good way. Personally, I've enjoyed brief encounters of different characters from other companies, like the scene with Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." However, since the days of Freddy vs. Jason, there seems to be a trend in pitting two vengeful characters against each other, no matter how vicious the fight gets. Batman has fought Predator, Spawn and the xenomorphic Aliens. Superman has fought Terminator. Michael Myers has fought Jason Voorhees. The list goes on, and a lot of these crossover fights have ended up good, or mediocre, at the least.

So, how did a group of filmmakers manage to screw up a movie simply titled "Frankenstein vs. The Mummy?" Gee, where to start?

"Frankenstein vs. The Mummy" is a movie about Professor Victor Frankenstein (who is WAY too young to even look like a college professor) and his love interest, a female professor with an obsession over Egypt and anything associated with the country. That's it. The whole movie is nearly two hours and focuses more on their relationship than what the movie says it wants to focus on.

Victor makes a monster out of severed body parts, but the monster quickly gains its cognition and suddenly remembers who he once was. That would be a psychopathic janitor with a deep love for small knives, who Victor kills to use his brain to bring the monster to life. Way to go, Victor. So, even though our title says, “FRANKENSTEIN vs. The Mummy," there is none of Frankenstein's monster. It's just Victor being naive and not thoroughly thinking out his plan.

In Storyline B, we have our contender, The Mummy. Our Egypt-loving lady has learned that her colleagues have uncovered an ancient corpse and figured it was a good idea to bring the wrinkly pile of dust to the campus. After uncovering an artifact from the corpse, one of the professors goes mental and becomes the Mummy's henchman. This duo kills a professor, a young student and an investigator, all with the smallest amount of law enforcement interference I have ever witnessed in a horror movie. If any cops show up, they come across as stupid and naive, and the investigator is a prime example. Before he is killed off, he gives away evidentiary information to our leading lady. Last time I checked, evidence is not openly shared by authorities with suspects and witnesses involved in the case.

In the last ten minutes of the film, we are given our first, last and only fight between Fakenstein and Raggedy Andy. The results? Never has a knife fight been made so incredibly boring to watch. The whole fight was shown three times in less than five minutes, with cuts in between, showing our leading lady, crying over Victor's twitching body for the majority of the time.

Let me ask you something, "Frankenstein vs. The Mummy," what were you doing the whole time?! If you wanted to focus on the relationship between two people, you could have axed Spammenstein and the doll out and possibly got a deal with Lifetime Movies. I would have been fine with something stupid like "Love Between a Psychopath and A Woman Obsessed with Egypt," but, you don't name your movie something like "Frankenstein vs. The Mummy" unless the focus and main plot of the movie is on fights between Frankenstein AND The Mummy! This is a horror movie. You even set it up yourself before the title was shown! It was even established at the DVD menu, for crying out loud!

Deep breath, Tyler …

With that short rant out of the way, let me clarify my thoughts a bit more professionally.

The problem with "Frankenstein vs. The Mummy" is that it creates this anticipation and expectation of something that doesn't even show until the last ten minutes of the movie. I'm not kidding; the fight didn't start until right around the ten-minute mark towards the end of the film.

My point is this: the title of a movie sets expectation with the audience. Titles give the viewer something to expect while not giving too much of the story away. The title should be created from what the movie is trying to focus on, and it should be something a good majority of the movie is about. Does the title have to explicitly tell what the movie is about? Not all the time, but it should not only serve as an attention-grabber but as an expectation. It's like when you eat a sample of food at a grocery store—you see the food's packaging, but you won't know what it is exactly until you've taken a bite of the sample.

In the case of "Frankenstein vs. The Mummy," it's like seeing a sample booth set-up for the latest flavor of Ben & Jerry's ice cream only to find out it's week-old Hamburger Helper. The title says, “Check out this awesome fight! Remember these horror icons?" but the plot says, “Awwww! Look at our main characters! Isn't that romantic and sad? Oh, you're asking about that fight we promised? Yeah, we could only come up with this."

Frankly, thinking about those two hours this movie took away from my life makes me feel a little sad. The least I could do is warn you, dear reader, that this movie is unwatchable. It's not even bad enough to be good, and it fails to live up to anything it wants to be, regardless of the title. It's not even worth the $1.50 at Redbox. It's not worth a browse in the Netflix catalog, either. It's best to avoid this movie altogether. It's not fun watching with friends, and it's definitely not fun watching it alone.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to find a palate cleanser to get me in a better mood. That Paddington film seems very promising.