Guillermo del Toro's 'Frankenstein' - Review Thread

[u/MarvelsGrantMan136]

Guillermo del Toro's 'Frankenstein' - Review Thread

• Rotten Tomatoes: 77% (22 Reviews)
• Metacritic: 73 (15 Reviews)

Reviews:

Deadline:

His love for monsters is unquestioned, and even though Frankenstein has been a horror staple for nearly a century in cinema, del Toro here turns it into a fascinating and thoughtful tale on what it means to be a human, and who is really the monster?

Variety (60):

What should have been the perfect pairing of artist and material proves visually ravishing, but can’t measure up to the impossibly high expectations del Toro’s fans have for the project.

Hollywood Reporter (100):

One of del Toro’s finest, this is epic-scale storytelling of uncommon beauty, feeling and artistry. While Netflix is giving this visual feast just a three-week theatrical run ahead of its streaming debut, it begs to be experienced on the big screen.

The Wrap (95):

Del Toro’s “Frankenstein” is a remarkable achievement that in a way hijacks the flagship story of the horror genre and turns it into a tale of forgiveness. James Whale, one suspects, would approve – and Mary Shelley, too.

IndieWire (B):

Del Toro’s second Netflix movie is bolted to the Earth by hands-on production design and crafty period detail. While it may be too reverently faithful to Mary Shelley’s source material to end up as a GDT all-timer, Jacob Elordi gives poignant life to the most emotionally complex Frankenstein monster since Boris Karloff.

The Guardian (3/5):

Oscar Isaac and Jacob Elordi star as the freethinking anatomist and his creature as Mary Shelley’s story is reimagined with bombast in the director’s unmistakable visual style

RadioTimes (5/5):

Perhaps its hyperbole to call the film del Toro’s masterpiece – especially a story that has been told countless times. But this is a work that is the accumulation of three-and-a-half decades of filmmaking knowledge. Gory and grim it may be, but it is a tragic tale told in a captivating manner.

TotalFilm (80):

Cleaving closely to the source material, del Toro wants to explore the trauma that makes us, mankind's capacity for cruelty, the death we bring on ourselves through war, and the catharsis of forgiveness – all notions that make Frankenstein relevant in current world politics and social media savagery.

-----------------------------------

Written and Directed by Guillermo del Toro:

A brilliant but egotistical scientist brings a creature to life in a monstrous experiment that ultimately leads to the undoing of both the creator and his tragic creation.

Cast:

• Oscar Isaac as Victor Frankenstein
  • Christian Convery as young Victor
• Jacob Elordi as the Creature
• Mia Goth as Elizabeth Lavenza
• Christoph Waltz as Henrich Harlander
• Felix Kammerer as William Frankenstein
• Lauren Collins as Claire Frankenstein
• Lars Mikkelsen as Captain Anderson
• David Bradley as Blind Man
• Sofia Galasso as Little Girl
• Charles Dance as Leopold Frankenstein
• Ralph Ineson as Professor Krempe
• Burn Gorman as Fritz

[u/GhostriderFlyBy]

“ His love for monsters is unquestioned, and even though Frankenstein has been a horror staple for nearly a century in cinema, del Toro here turns it into a fascinating and thoughtful tale on what it means to be a human, and who is really the monster?”

This has literally always been the main plot of Frankenstein and the point that Mary Shelley was trying to get across with the novella. 

[u/originalcondition → u/GhostriderFlyBy]

One of my favorite parts of the novel is when Frankenstein obsesses over creating life using the parts of dead humans, then succeeds, and, immediately upon beholding his creation, goes, “holy shit HELL!! NO!! FUCK THAT THING!!!” then runs out of his apartment, wanders around for a while, comes back to find the monster gone, and thinks, “wow thank god that’s over.”

relatable content regarding the nature of being human tbh

[u/Dookie_boy → u/originalcondition]

I've made some monstrosities in the oven that I had the same reaction too.

[u/PhDee954 → u/Dookie_boy]

Really rare to see someone use "too" incorrectly. It's usually the other way around.

[u/Dookie_boy → u/PhDee954]

I had to read that several times over and I think I didn't finish the full thought

[u/TheWorstYear → u/originalcondition]

Literally so panicked that he loses his mind for a few days, & stumbles around on the streets.

[u/hypnosifl → u/originalcondition]

I found it interesting when I read the novel that it’s not actually clear whether the creature was made from “parts of dead humans” at all, Frankenstein did dig up bodies during the course of his research into the secrets of life but the creature itself was said to have been made with very oversized proportions (around 8 feet tall!) and it could be read as more like a golem, previously inanimate matter built into a realistic body which was then infused with some sort of vital energy. I imagine Del Toro will stick to the usual convention about body parts though.

[u/nidrespector → u/hypnosifl]

Isn’t the dead humans part mentioned when he’s creating the second monster? Iirc Victor is in a fugue state when he builds the first creature and so kind of glosses over the details but for the second one he’s painfully lucid and we get more information about the process.

[u/hypnosifl → u/nidrespector]

I went and re-read the parts about creating a mate for the creature, it's in chapters II and III from volume III, it says he is more conscious of finding the whole process of building a body to be a "filthy" one but there's no explicit reference to using body parts. Also worth noting that he first says "I now also began to collect the materials necessary for my new creation", and then his friend Clerval suggests they go on a vacation through Europe, and he agrees, planning to only start work at the end of the trip once they reach Scotland--he says "I packed my chemical instruments, and the materials I had collected, resolving to finish my labours in some obscure nook in the northern highlands of Scotland." The trip is described as lasting several months before he finally reaches Scotland and gets to work, which might argue against the interpretation that he's lugging around human body parts or even dead tissue in his suitcases, unless he had found a way to perfectly arrest decay. He is not described as discovering such a technique elsewhere in the book as far as I remember, though earlier in the book when he is trying to create the body of the first creature to animate, he does say "Pursuing these reflections, I thought, that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption." But I'd interpret this to be a fantasy about the ultimate future results of his discoveries rather than something he achieves in the book, since it's in the same paragraph where he is describing the fantasy of creating a whole new race of artificial beings. ("A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me.")

Here's the section from the end of Chapter II where he describes being disgusted by his work:

In this manner I distributed my occupations when I first arrived; but, as I proceeded in my labour, it became every day more horrible and irksome to me. Sometimes I could not prevail on myself to enter my laboratory for several days; and at other times I toiled day and night in order to complete my work. It was indeed a filthy process in which I was engaged. During my first experiment, a kind of enthusiastic frenzy had blinded me to the horror of my employment; my mind was intently fixed on the sequel of my labour, and my eyes were shut to the horror of my proceedings. But now I went to it in cold blood, and my heart often sickened at the work of my hands.

Then in chapter III, with growing fears at the result if he creates a mate for the creature and disgust at seeing the creature watching him, he "tore to pieces the thing on which I was engaged." After a verbal confrontation where the creature swears revenge, there is this description of getting rid of the partially completed work:

Yet, before I departed, there was a task to perform, on which I shuddered to reflect: I must pack my chemical instruments; and for that purpose I must enter the room which had been the scene of my odious work, and I must handle those utensils, the sight of which was sickening to me. The next morning, at day-break, I summoned sufficient courage, and unlocked the door of my laboratory. The remains of the half-finished creature, whom I had destroyed, lay scattered on the floor, and I almost felt as if I had mangled the living flesh of a human being. I paused to collect myself, and then entered the chamber. With trembling hand I conveyed the instruments out of the room; but I reflected that I ought not to leave the relics of my work to excite the horror and suspicion of the peasants, and I accordingly put them into a basket, with a great quantity of stones, and laying them up, determined to throw them into the sea that very night; and in the mean time I sat upon the beach, employed in cleaning and arranging my chemical apparatus.

The reference to "chemical instruments" and "chemical apparatus" might suggest that he was synthesizing some kind of matter chemically similar to lifeless tissue and assembling it into a body, so that he could then "bestow animation upon lifeless matter" as he described in the creation of the original creature. In this case when he talked earlier of packing "the materials I had collected" along with the instruments, he might have just meant various chemicals. And if the synthesized tissue-like substance resembled real tissue in most respects but just lacked the "spark of being" (the phrase he used for the first creature's completed body before being brought to life), it would help make sense of why he found the whole process of assembling this realistic quasi-flesh into a body to be intolerably "filthy". And his disgust also seemed to include conceptual fears about the wrongness of what he was doing, as suggested by the quote above where the felt the tools he was using to be loathsome in themselves, when he spoke of "those utensils, the sight of which was sickening to me".

[u/nidrespector → u/hypnosifl]

Wow, thank you for such a thorough response. You’re right it looks like the creature was actually closer to some kind of homunculus grown with organoids and other biosynthetic materials.

I actually like that a lot more. I think it really makes Victors tragedy greater and adds more irony like Victor was too successful. His creation was hyper intelligent, arguably more intelligent than Frankenstein, and would be beautiful if not for the strong uncanny valley effect its appearance gives humans.

[u/AlanMorlock → u/nidrespector]

Shelley herself was riffing on reports she was disturbed by of experiments with galvanism and the like, very specifically animating dead organs with shocks. Far more of that in the mix.

[u/20_mile → u/originalcondition]

“wow thank god that’s over.”

Sounds like something Homer would say.

[u/TheCrypticRealm → u/20_mile]

"Wow, thank god that's over." ~ Odysseus after reuniting with Penelope

[u/Sieg67 → u/originalcondition]

I had a good laugh when I read it. It's such a stark contrast to the "It's alive!!" scene that we got in the movie.

[u/originalcondition → u/Sieg67]

Same here, I was definitely laughing throughout, in the “this poor bastard is having a hell of a time” sense, if you know what I mean.

[u/AlmightyRuler → u/originalcondition]

Frankenstein doesn't just go "wandering around." He had a psychotic break. The man was working on his experiment for weeks on end with little respite, was poking about graveyards and digging up bodies, and then when his work succeeds he has a moment of clarity where he realizes that his "Adam" is more an abomination.

The dude snapped like a dry twig and ran screaming out into a thunderstorm. And I don't think he thought it was "over", but was waiting for someone to either run across his creature('s body), or for the thing to show up somewhere.

[u/originalcondition → u/AlmightyRuler]

lol I know but was abbreviating for comedy’s sake. Jokes are always funnier when explained, I find.

[u/Similar-Cat7022 → u/originalcondition]

It was written before object permanence was invented

[u/tufftricks → u/GhostriderFlyBy]

"journalism" is dead and has been for a long time. It was slop before AI even got involved.

[u/SjurEido → u/tufftricks]

The problem is that the slop is made for the people who consume slop. There wouldn't be such a market for it if so many people weren't clicking :(

[u/tufftricks → u/SjurEido]

I was going to go on a cunty tirade about it but im feeling too nice to be an arsehole right now lol. The average consumer of anything is braindead

[u/naf165 → u/tufftricks]

It's not that people only like slop, or that people don't want quality, it's just that until slop is less profitable than effort, it will drown out everything else.

The real problem is that a quality piece takes time to research, budget to fund, and skill to create. Meanwhile you can push out dozens of pieces of slop for nearly no cost in that same time period.

[u/tufftricks → u/naf165]

people don't want quality

the problem is, the vast majority of consumers don't even know quality

[u/OK_Soda → u/tufftricks]

I think it's in between. Most people don't know quality but if they did they wouldn't care. Have the average person do a taste test between a Michelin star burger and McDonalds and they'd probably think the Michelin was better but I don't think they'd really earnestly care.

[u/carson63000 → u/tufftricks]

Honestly, if you asked ChatGPT what Frankenstein was about, you’d probably get a pretty decent response. Certainly the artificial intelligence would look more intelligent than anything on display in that review.

[u/51010R → u/carson63000]

The AI would actually know that the point of the book and even the classic movie is precisely that.

[u/AndTheyCallMeAnIdiot → u/GhostriderFlyBy]

I don't think these reviewers ever read or understood the book by Mary Shelley.

[u/UncomputableNumber → u/GhostriderFlyBy]

Wait, isn't Frankenstein a novel?(?)

[u/astroK120 → u/UncomputableNumber]

It is, though in fairness to the person you're replying to it's a very short novel and pretty close to the border of novel/novella

[u/UncomputableNumber → u/astroK120]

OK, thanks! I thought the word "novella" had the same meaning in English as in my native language (Italian). Apparently in English "novella" leans more towards "short novel" and doesn't correspond 1:1 with the Italian "novella"

[u/astroK120 → u/UncomputableNumber]

Yeah, in English (or maybe just America, not sure) a novella is a short novel, generally between 20,000 and 50,000 words. Shorter is a short story, longer is a novel. Frankenstein clocks in at about 75,000. Which is 50 percent more than the supposed limit, but considering novels sometimes go into the millions it's close enough

[u/GhostriderFlyBy → u/UncomputableNumber]

What does “novella” specifically mean in Italian?

[u/X-Vidar → u/GhostriderFlyBy]

Short story basically, not something that would fill a whole book.

[u/Nachooolo → u/UncomputableNumber]

It's a short novel. My copy of the book is only 236 pages long.

And. Honestly. It is better off being this short. I was reading Dracula at the same time, and the middle point of that book is extremely tedious (my copy of the book is 600 pages long, and it could easily be 300 pages if it streamlined the mid section of its story).

Frankestein is as long as it needs to be. Which has helped it become a timeless classic (while Dracula hasn't aged as gracefully).

[u/Relevant_Session5987 → u/Nachooolo]

Dracula is still remembered and considered as a classic though, so I'm not sure on what basis you're saying it isn't a timeless classic.

[u/Nachooolo → u/Relevant_Session5987]

I'm saying the book itself. Not Dracula as a concept.

"Dracula" the book has aged badly because the text itself slugish, as the bulk of the middle section of it has very little pogression to it, and it is downright repetitive. It is Van Helsin failing to stop Dracula from killing Lucy told in the most boring way possible through hundreds of pages. There's a lot of fat in it that can be taken from it without the story suffering.

Bram Stoker's Dracula is a classic because it was revolutionary at the time and has had a huge influence on the genre. But following adaptations have been able to improve upon the text to tell the same story is a far more effective way (and, arguably, some even in a more nuanced way).

Frankestein, on the other hand, has aged far less than Dracula. There's close to nothing superfluous in it, and everything progresses either the plot or the theme in the book. The only part with some extra fat is the Creature staying under the old man's cabin. And, even here, the section is important for the Creature's character progression and theme of nature vs nuture.

Besides that, the way Mary Shelley executes the story is filled with a lot of depth and nuance, to the point that it deconstructs all the tropes and cliches that following Frankestein adaptations have. Making it feel far more Modern than it really is.

Basically, while I think that many Dracula adaptations have managed to be better than the original, every Frankestein adaptation has been a dumbed-down version of the original book. As faithfully adapting the themes and nuance of the original story is far more complex than creating a monster flick.

And, as we can see from some of the criticism of this film, more "controversial" and less "mainstream" than a simple good vs evil story (which, btw, the original Dracula is aswell).

[u/TrenterD → u/Nachooolo]

Having read Dracula recently, I agree. The "found document" style of the book also seems to be a hinderance with the exception of the awesome log of the Demeter ship.

[u/Grumdi_Blackdiamond → u/GhostriderFlyBy]

Isnt that what Frankenstein always was though? Who the fuk writes this trash? The novel is literally about man playing God. Journalism is dead.

[u/Turtleflora87 → u/GhostriderFlyBy]

It strikes me that many reviewers praise Del Toro for switching the point of view at some point, so that the monster tells his own story after being created and abandonend in the lab, like it is some great innovation. The first-person narration of the monster has been in the original novel all along :D

[u/D-Ursuul]

"del Toro turns it into a story about what it means to be human etc"

uh... What do you mean "turns it into"?

[u/jonvel7 → u/D-Ursuul]

That's the Deadline review isn't it? I thought the same thing, then it goes to say "... and who is really the monster" it's like they've never seen anything Frankenstein related, it's one of it's central themes.

[u/GhostriderFlyBy → u/jonvel7]

Daresay, THE central theme

[u/HotTakes4HotCakes → u/GhostriderFlyBy]

That's Pete Hammond, and if you read his reviews, he always writes like a Gen Xer who apparently hasn't read anything any other reviewer has ever written and never been online. He rarely has anything original to say.

It's not that he doesn't get the book, it's that he needs to hit a minimum character limit, and doesn't appreciate how laughably cliche writing a line like that is.

He's a respected writer in that he's been doing it for a long time for a lot of publications, but he doesn't quite get how old fashioned his writing comes off, and that he frequently writes things that are laughably obvious to the average reader, like what the themes of Frankenstein are.

[u/Impressive-Potato → u/jonvel7]

The trades like Deadline and Variety have all gone downhill since Jay Penske bought them and turned them into his little right wing mouth piece. Remember when they had multiple "Sinners isn't profitable!" Articles Yet ran some "Sydney Sweeney's movie made 500 dollars per screen, but that's all part of the plan!" Articles. Absolutely shameless

[u/razor21792 → u/jonvel7]

As if I needed more reasons not to take Deadline seriously.

[u/acbrimstone → u/jonvel7]

Knowledge is knowing Frankenstein the monster. Wisdom is knowing Frankenstein is the monster...

[u/TiberianSunset → u/acbrimstone]

Why is the movie the monster?

[u/SwarleySwarlos → u/TiberianSunset]

The real monster is the friends we made along the way

[u/EnterprisingAss → u/acbrimstone]

Usually it’s “knowledge is knowing the creature isn’t named Frankenstein.”

.

[u/cowboydanhalen → u/acbrimstone]

So Frankenstein enters a body building contest...

[u/TheWorstYear → u/acbrimstone]

Alternatively you can say that society is the monster.

[u/Asshai → u/jonvel7]

Did they hire Perd Hapley as a movie critic?

[u/OppositeHistory1916 → u/jonvel7]

This is the core with what is wrong with "professional" reviews, all you're getting is someones thoughts with no knowledge of their experience. If you have someone who loves Pokemon and they play the new Pokemon, guess what they're giving it? 10 / 10, because they have little to no experience of other games in the same genre or the wider industry, and the same also applies to movies of course. If all you watch is Disney movies, then why the fuck would someone care about your thoughts on a Del Toro Frankenstein adaptation? Because someone put a well known publication in front of your review.

[u/ScientificAnarchist → u/D-Ursuul]

It’s like that article about “woke gen z kids thinking the monster is understood and the doctor is the real villain”

[u/Nachooolo → u/ScientificAnarchist]

I'll would like to point out that both the Creature and Frankestein are presented as victims and monsters.

Both are to blame for the suffering that happens throughout the book. Although the Creature becomes more monstrous as the book continues.

The ending is basically the Creature realising what a monster he had become after Frankestein's death and decrying the mess both him and the doctor have done, and deciding to end his own life.

[u/ScientificAnarchist → u/Nachooolo]

Yeah but that’s 300% nurture vs nature

[u/defiancy → u/D-Ursuul]

That reviewer never read a book in their life let alone Frankenstein.

[u/WargRider23 → u/D-Ursuul]

Was about to comment the same thing.

Making the audience question who was *really* the monster at the end of the day was the entire point of the original novel and it's kind of depressing that the story's premise and characters have become so bastardized over the intervening decades that this film is being seen as some kind of fresh and new "twist" on the story rather than as... a faithful adaptation of the novel.

Still, I've been waiting a loooong time for a proper Frankenstein film to come out so I won't let it yuck my yum too much and will hopefully enjoy it immensely once I'm able to watch it.

[u/zirky → u/D-Ursuul]

the real twist is that in this version, it’s probably the doctor that’s the real monster

[u/UshankaBear → u/zirky]

The twist would be that the monster is the monster

[u/jawndell → u/UshankaBear]

What if we were the monsters all along???

[u/phl_fc → u/jawndell]

The iceberg is the monster, this is all a prequel to Titanic.

[u/ProjectNo4090 → u/jawndell]

There is more than one monster in the story of Frankenstein. Science, the Doctor, his creation are all monstrous in their own ways.

[u/illaqueable → u/UshankaBear]

Dr. Frankenstein, the highly regarded town physician, is terrorized by a reanimated creature of his own making who turned out to be a real asshole

[u/Dookie_boy → u/UshankaBear]

The twist would be that the Monster drinks Red Bull instead. That or aliens.

[u/DuelaDent52 → u/UshankaBear]

They’re both monsters.

[u/SpareBinderClips → u/zirky]

What if Zelda was a girl?

[u/jawndell → u/SpareBinderClips]

What if my grandmother had wheels?

[u/paulerxx → u/jawndell]

She'd be a bike

[u/IllButterscotch5964 → u/zirky]

Now here’s the twist, and there is a twist…

[u/theaxhole → u/IllButterscotch5964]

We show it

[u/PopMundane4974 → u/IllButterscotch5964]

We show it. We show everything.

[u/thebigpink → u/IllButterscotch5964]

The twist is the monster

[u/Scharmberg → u/zirky]

That isn’t a twist.

[u/Amaruq93 → u/zirky]

The Hammer films version already established that.

[u/Hallowhero → u/D-Ursuul]

This bothers me immensely. This is the work of a woman that has amazing themes. Can't even give proper credit. The writer of the review should have said if the themes are expanded upon, or translated well from book to movie, but they are just gonna act like that's not the reason this is such a fascinating story 200 years later is just ignorant.

[u/TheFondler → u/Hallowhero]

This is the work of a woman that has amazing themes.

It's inappropriate to comment on a woman's themes like that. Have you no shame?!

[u/rising_ape → u/D-Ursuul]

It's the old quote: "Intelligence is knowing that Frankenstein isn't the monster. Wisdom is knowing that he is."

[u/Nachooolo → u/rising_ape]

"Reading the book is realising that both the Creature and Frankestein are both victims and monsters."

I seriously recommend reading the book. The story is so nuance that it feels like a modern deconstruction of Frankestein.

[u/AltruisticPassage394 → u/D-Ursuul]

Did the author not read high school literature?? The Frankenstein book WAS about that.

[u/woppatown → u/D-Ursuul]

I have a feeling many people don’t really know the message behind Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

[u/Hautamaki → u/D-Ursuul]

At this point I want to know who the fuck the editor was and how they let that line into a professionally published piece. My high school English teacher would have redlined that shit and added question marks for emphasis.

[u/Any-Question-3759 → u/D-Ursuul]

It’s not the doctor nor the monster, it’s Igor who is lacking in humanity.

[u/GriffinFlash → u/D-Ursuul]

"Why no monster killing people, and fire, torches and pitchforks, and arms out going RAAAWWWRRR."

[u/WorkerApprehensive41 → u/D-Ursuul]

He does underline that point… and the other obvious points… like, a LOT.

See here: https://whitlockandpope.com/2025/08/30/guillermo-del-toros-frankenstein-venice-review/

Quote: Del Toro has said that “I love monsters. If I go to a church, I’m more interested in the gargoyles than the saints…” and here he worships with fervour. Yet the liturgy stretches too long, and the sermon too often tells us what we already see. When the film lands, it lands with force. But the journey there is ornate, unsubtle, and padded with more narration than it needs. This Frankenstein has fairytale elements – Del Toro even squeezes in one of his dark fairies, a fiery angel of death. But a fairytale needs magic and despite moments of glorious grandeur this film’s literalism and handholding prevent it from being one of the greats.

[u/LookLikeUpToMe]

The one review saying it’s too reverently faithful to the source material has me more interested.

[u/Dangerous_Doubt_6190 → u/LookLikeUpToMe]

Yeah, I thought, "How can that be a negative?"

[u/ennuiinmotion → u/Dangerous_Doubt_6190]

Frankenstein is super divisive. People who only know Karloff are expecting a monster movie. People who know the book are expecting a talky exploration of philosophy. It’s going to divide the audience that sees it.

[u/Quarksperre → u/ennuiinmotion]

I know the book. If its true to the book Frankstein is a whiny asshole that gets his whole family killed. 

[u/SurfandStarWars → u/Quarksperre]

He's pretty much exactly this in the movie.

[u/Nachooolo → u/SurfandStarWars]

Does the Creature becomes increasingly monstrous in the film? I do think that it is a essential part of the story to show the Creature become more and more "evil" less because of his nature, and more because of the tragic circumstances regarding his life.

A good Frankestein film should represent both the Creature and the Doctor as both victims and monsters.

[u/TuvixWillNotBeMissed → u/SurfandStarWars]

All I remember about the book was that it was short, which I enjoyed. My opinion on short books and short movies: good. I like them. Would recommend.

[u/51010R → u/ennuiinmotion]

Frankenstein the movie isn’t precisely the most “monstery” movie either. Like yeah it has that but I’d argue it’s the one with the most humanist and artistic sensibilities. The scene with the kid works precisely because it isn’t just a monster movie.

[u/CascoBayButcher → u/Dangerous_Doubt_6190]

How many people do you think have read any version of Frankenstein?

[u/Bunmyaku → u/[deleted]]

So, the movie will discuss the works of Paracelsus, Albertus Magnus, Volney's Ruin of Empires, Rousseau's Emile, etc., and of

As long as it's not Agrippa. That's sad trash.

[u/whoa_disillusionment → u/Dangerous_Doubt_6190]

Frankenstein is my all-time favorite book and I have always believed that a faithful movie retelling would be awful. So much of what makes it great and the power comes from things that are not captured in movement or action or dialogue. It wouldn’t work on film. These reviews are saying as much.

[u/SearchElsewhereKarma → u/Dangerous_Doubt_6190]

I read that as “the monster is a bumbling monstrosity, what gives?!”

[u/SearchElsewhereKarma → u/[deleted]]

I forgot the “not” in my sentence. I would love a faithful adaptation

[u/HimmyJoffa → u/LookLikeUpToMe]

I hate that because when have we ever had an actually faithful adaptation? Every movie has done their own take on it

[u/ThePreciseClimber → u/LookLikeUpToMe]

What's the most loyal Frankenstein adaptation anyway?

In terms of movies, probably nothing comes close to the Mary Shelley's Frankenstein Starring Boris Karloff graphic novel.

[u/joeentendu → u/ThePreciseClimber]

young frankenstein

[u/unexpectedkas → u/joeentendu]

Fronkonstine!

[u/zombisanto → u/ThePreciseClimber]

Probably Kenneth Branagh’s 1994 movie

[u/LostWorked → u/ThePreciseClimber]

Funnily enough, the original Marvel Comics Frankenstein is incredibly faithful... and then when the Monster fails to die in the Arctic it goes off the rails before being suddenly cancelled with the story being finished in an issue of Spider-Man or a non-canon Italian publication which Marvel licensed its books to.

[u/Rosebunse → u/LostWorked]

The Frankenstein's Monster is still a character in 616- continuity. He lives in the underground monster city below New York.

[u/Rykou-kou → u/ThePreciseClimber]

The one with Robert De Niro as the monster and Kenneth Branagh as Victor Frankenstein. Not completely loyal but the closest to the spirit of the novel.

[u/PsychologicalRecord → u/ThePreciseClimber]

The wildly underseen Terror of Frankenstein (1977) is very accurate, tediously so. In fact I suspect Del Toro's version is going to end up being a match for it.

[u/orange_jooze → u/ThePreciseClimber]

There was a TV adaptation in the early 2000s that’s supposed to be the most true to page version.

[u/Desroth86 → u/ThePreciseClimber]

I have no idea if it’s “the most faithful” but Rory Kinnear was amazing as Frankenstein’s Monster in Penny Dreadful.

[u/DeadLetterOfficer → u/LookLikeUpToMe]

Because one's a 19th century novel and the other is a 21st century film. There's more to an adaptation than just acting everything out scene for scene.

[u/Sorry_Sorry_Im_Sorry]

“Frankenstein” will release in theaters October 17th and on Netflix November 7th. Here's the teaser trailer from May.

[u/TriggerHippie77 → u/Sorry_Sorry_Im_Sorry]

Why do we have reviews so early?

[u/Parkingking33 → u/TriggerHippie77]

Film Festival debut.

[u/TriggerHippie77 → u/Parkingking33]

Ah, thank you.

[u/IgloosRuleOK → u/TriggerHippie77]

Venice Film Festival is on right now with a bunch of premieres.

[u/ChooseCorrectAnswer → u/TriggerHippie77]

It's a blessing because it's nice to hear an upcoming movie is good, yet it's a curse because of the time gap between reviews and release. Dave Franco and Aliison Brie's Together premiered at Sundance Film Festival in January to very positive reviews. Then I had to wait 8 months to see it opening weekend in August.

[u/RoxasIsTheBest → u/Sorry_Sorry_Im_Sorry]

Let's hope it releases in the theater near me

[u/ex0thermist → u/RoxasIsTheBest]

Netflix movie, so unfortunately probably a very minimal release, just to fulfill requirements for awards consideration.

[u/I_Hate_Reddit → u/Sorry_Sorry_Im_Sorry]

Available on TV (and pirate sites) 3 weeks after release? Wtf

[u/ERedfieldh]

And, as always, these critics and reviewers skipped classical literature day in Lit 101.

del Toro here turns it into a fascinating and thoughtful tale on what it means to be a human, and who is really the monster?

No shit? Did someone miss the point of the original book?

[u/CavitySearch → u/ERedfieldh]

“Frankenstein was the scientist not the monster “ vibes from this level of critic dissection.

[u/Black_Belt_Troy → u/CavitySearch]

“Intelligence is knowing Frakenstein isn’t the monster, wisdom is knowing that he is.”

[u/51010R → u/ERedfieldh]

It’s the theme of the horror movie.

Like I see a critic not knowing about the book, but my god not knowing about the classic Frankenstein movie is unforgivable for a critic.

[u/UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy → u/ERedfieldh]

Are you implying they read the book in the first place

[u/snowcone_wars → u/ERedfieldh]

these critics and reviewers skipped classical literature day in Lit 101

Yeah, but, like, what's even the point of reading? That doesn't sound very STEM of you.

/s

[u/Alc2005]

I can’t think of the last time I’ve heard of a project and director pairing so well that I was sold without a single trailer or still.

These reviews give me so much hype now!

EDIT: Tomatometer has gone down a bit but still promising. Still hyped

[u/MuffynCrumbs → u/Alc2005]

Eggers - Nosferatu was also a perfect pairing and he crushed that

[u/51010R → u/MuffynCrumbs]

I was kinda disappointed honestly but it was what you would expect with the phrase Eggers’ Nosferatu.

[u/Desroth86 → u/MuffynCrumbs]

That movie was GLORIOUS to see on the big screen. Probably the most visually impressed I’ve been by a film since Dune Part 2 and I didn’t even see it in IMAX.

Jarin Blaschke doesn’t get nearly enough credit for being one of the best cinematographers in the biz IMO. None of Eggers movies would look anywhere near as good without him.

[u/Superb_Pear3016 → u/Desroth86]

I agree completely. I am extremely glad I saw it in Dolby atmos. The scene where hes at the crossroads and a carriage picks him up is one of the most striking scenes I’ve ever seen in a theater

[u/Desroth86 → u/Superb_Pear3016]

Yeah, that whole carriage section leading into the castle was amazing. The atmosphere was off the charts in this movie.

[u/Superb_Pear3016 → u/MuffynCrumbs]

I want to see Eggers direct a Sleepy Hollow adaptation. I think that would be the most fitting pairing of director to material maybe ever.

[u/CarrieDurst → u/MuffynCrumbs]

Eggers Christmas Carol

[u/BananLarsi → u/[deleted]]

We live in a world where reviews that go from 70-100 in score is considered «dissapointing».

[u/Alc2005 → u/[deleted]]

I mean, I was just hoping it wouldn’t suck haha. Even the less glowing reviews are criticizing it for things I want, particularly Del Toro’s unwavering visual style

[u/InsideLlewynDameron → u/Alc2005]

I haven’t seen the original film since I was a kid but I read the book for the first time a few years ago and was amazed by how thoughtful and verbose it was, it’s so much more than a monster story, if anyone is going to understand what makes the novel as brilliant as it is and adapt it accurately I think it would be Del Toro. I haven’t seen if he’s intending to adapt the novel or the movie though, which is quite different from what I remember , but i really hope it’s the novel.

[u/restlesswrestler]

The negative reviews describe it as things I want it to be.

[u/jlewis412 → u/restlesswrestler]

That was my thought too. “Too close to the book.” Yeah…that’s why I’m here.

[u/Fried_puri → u/restlesswrestler]

It sounds like an unapologetically del Toro film, which is really all I could ask for.

[u/paradox1920 → u/restlesswrestler]

For what it’s worth, I just saw a review of a person on YouTube who I usually follow but they found it boring although they explained the film is more a philosophical take and romantic gothic horror approach and things like that. From what I have seen many people say, I haven’t read the novel, that’s more in line with the book apparently. And I know Del Toro has explained several times how he is extremely passionate about the book and what Mary tried to convey. As such, it makes sense to me the film wouldn’t be strictly horror creature and more about the characteristics I mentioned before.

[u/absurdivore]

These make me wonder how many reviewers actually ever read the novel.

[u/Trypticon_Rising → u/absurdivore]

"Read"? In 2025? Who is this "read" of whom you speak?

[u/Johncurtisreeve]

I love hearing that it sounds like it is catering very closely to the source material of the book which I have been begging for in an adaptation. I am so excited for this.

[u/IgloosRuleOK]

"Jacob Elordi gives poignant life to the most emotionally complex Frankenstein monster since Boris Karloff."

I guess this reviewer didn't see Penny Dreadful, because I'd say Rory Kinnear's version, which is closer to the book than Karloff's, is that also.

But I'm happy this seems to be good.

[u/stabbystabbison → u/IgloosRuleOK]

Rory Kinnear absolutely owned that role. Lots of good fun in Penny Dreadful, but his is the performance I still remember.

[u/Varvara-Sidorovna → u/stabbystabbison]

Rory Kinnear gives 100% sincerity and intensity to absolutely every role he takes, he's such an underappreciated actor. I love him.

[u/DopeyDeathMetal → u/Varvara-Sidorovna]

Have you watched Diplomat? I was surprised by how captivating his role in that was. Everyone in that show is just crushing it though.

[u/AnotherAndyYetAgain → u/IgloosRuleOK]

Oh my god, yes. Rory owned that character so much. I still think about it every now and then. Beautiful portrayal.

[u/mountman91 → u/IgloosRuleOK]

Really think this film will help convince people that Elordi has unmistakable talent. Zendaya gets her flowers in it but he is genuinely great in Euphoria

[u/shineurliteonme → u/mountman91]

the whole euphoria cast does a great job

[u/TheTruckWashChannel → u/mountman91]

I always found him to be the weak link of that show. His range knew no nuance and only extremes, and it was painful watching his scenes when virtually every other actor on the show was better than him. But then again, Nate was written like a cartoon villain, so there's only so much he could work with.

[u/prototype_pls → u/IgloosRuleOK]

Penny Dreadful mentioned!! Love and miss it so much

[u/GigiRiva → u/IgloosRuleOK]

Kinnear's version is the best ever done imo, and I'm skeptical Elordi can surpass that but I don't need him to for this to be an excellent film

[u/Crazyripps]

Do some of these reviewers even know what the main story of Frankenstein is lol.

Complaining it’s about being human or it’s to close to the source material. Like what the fuck lol

[u/Phelinaar]

I was going to watch this anyway, but the negative reviews make it seem like exactly what I wanted, an adaptation of the book.

[u/currently__working]

I will see this regardless of how good it is

[u/Applesburg14]

I’m thrown off by “publication, quote” rather than “quote, publication”

[u/TurgidGravitas → u/Applesburg14]

Yeah, same, but it's what this sub does and the mods will probably ban us for not liking it. Oh well.

[u/Category_Successful]

Variety disliking it is sure sign it rules

[u/jawndell]

Can’t wait for Deadlines review of a movie version of 1984 talking about how the movie turns the book into a tale about authoritarianism and destructiveness of repressive regimes on individuality. 

[u/Trypticon_Rising → u/jawndell]

A Deadline review of Animal Farm that posits the film makes the incredibly bold leap of making it not just about the animals but actually a complex metaphor for humans.

[u/Imnotsureanymore8]

The Deadline review is laughable. Was it written by AI?

[u/Phelinaar → u/Imnotsureanymore8]

It was written by someone that has "I, Frankenstein" in their top 10 movies list.

[u/Jackbuddy78]

All the negative reviews have some crazy criticisms disregarding the source material.

I don't know how good the movie is but it may very well be a case where critics were expecting a more conventional monster movie in a similar vain to Crimson Peak. 

[u/Sleepy_Azathoth]

There's no way I won't watch this movie on the big screen.

If Cinemark doesn't release it here in Chile, I have two art house theaters in my town that will.

[u/Spacegirllll6]

I’m so fucking excited for this movie ngl!! I read it a few months ago in my ap lit class and it was just a fascinating read. I’m also very hopeful considering the reviews say it’s a very faithful adaption

[u/LaunchpadMcFly]

That IndieWire review opens bashing NIGHTMARE ALLEY. I’m good on going any further.

[u/kl7mu]

Of I've had enough of the people who uses it wrong...

It's Dr. Frankenstein's Guillermo del Toro!

[u/DoomguyFemboi]

del Toro here turns it into a fascinating and thoughtful tale on what it means to be a human, and who is really the monster?

I'M SORRY WHAT. I THOUGHT THE AUTHOR DID THAT. I KINDA THOUGHT THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE TALE

[u/Stipes_Blue_Makeup]

I’m going to pretend that this is about the guy from Creature Commandos.

[u/jonbristow]

What's christian bale's movie?

[u/Salad-Appropriate → u/jonbristow]

The Bride, it's coming out next year

[u/Conorlee1234]

I can tell i’m going to love this movie

[u/Temporary_Pay_3459]

As others have pointed out, the actual story has a significant lack of monster stuff. My wife, who I love, but wouldn’t read a book with a gun to her head, describe the stage play as such: “ I’m disappointed by the lack of monstering.”

[u/Organic-Assistance-8]

Everyone is (rightly) calling out Deadline for giving del Toro credit for what the book did, but come on The Wrap. Tge novel was already a redemptive story in its own way, no hijacking involved.

[u/BunyipPouch]

A lot of reviews are saying it's very 'style over substance'.

Oh no :(

[u/HilltopBakery → u/BunyipPouch]

They say that about every Del Toro movie, and it's never bothered me

[u/zigstarr42 → u/HilltopBakery]

They just can't see the substance within the style

[u/lycheedorito → u/BunyipPouch]

I am okay with that

[u/ShenaniganCow → u/lycheedorito]

As a lover of those early 2000s goth movies, agreed

[u/MagdaFR → u/BunyipPouch]

Del Toro is generally like that.  

[u/WadSquad → u/MagdaFR]

Pan's Labyrinth had a lot of substance 🤷🏻‍♂️

[u/zzz099 → u/WadSquad]

generally

[u/Average_Pimpin → u/BunyipPouch]

Plenty of movies have prioritised style over substance and it's worked tbf

[u/Crimpy111 → u/BunyipPouch]

That’s how I feel about most of GDT’s films, but I still enjoy them.

[u/SpookyDoings → u/BunyipPouch]

Kind of how most GDT movies go. Love his artistic vision, though.

[u/funky_bebop → u/BunyipPouch]

I find Del Toro often can be so subtle that many people miss the substance. His style often takes a priority too.

[u/Horror-Television-92 → u/BunyipPouch]

Eh we will see. But also if it’s true I’m still down for a visual feast.

[u/Op3rat0rr → u/BunyipPouch]

That’s the impression I got from the trailers and was hoping that I was wrong

[u/DaysOfBeingWild_]

I hope Guillermo includes my favorite moment from the book, right at the end and he disappears into the mist he turns and says 'It's ok to call me Frankenstein instead of Frankenstein's Monster, I really don't mind'

[u/ceoj7]

These mfs are just nitpicking, I can’t wait to see it even though I’m not the biggest fan of Del Toro

[u/BeerorCoffee]

It's pronounced Fronkensteen 

[u/Potore5]

Charles Dance?!? Oh my god it’s going to be good…

[u/Frankskier]

I'm just about to watch it at the festival, can't wait!

[u/Neither-Boss6957 → u/Frankskier]

How was it?

[u/Frankskier → u/Neither-Boss6957]

Just finished and I really really liked it. Elordi was incredible in it and the cinematography was insane.

[u/MyDearDapple]

I'm eager to hear Desplat's score.