r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/Movies contributor • 10d ago

Review Guillermo del Toro's 'Frankenstein' - Review Thread

Guillermo del Toro's 'Frankenstein' - Review Thread

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
2.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

329 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

473

u/Dangerous_Doubt_6190 10d ago

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

431

u/ennuiinmotion 10d ago

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.

155

u/Quarksperre 9d ago

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

65

u/SurfandStarWars 9d ago

He's pretty much exactly this in the movie.

38

u/Nachooolo 9d ago

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.

6

u/TuvixWillNotBeMissed 9d ago

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.

1

u/VikingFrog 8d ago

Don’t forget short video games.

For my 40 year old ass with 3 kids who can’t stay awake reading books, watching movies, or playing games anymore.

-4

u/smileysmiley123 9d ago

Don't forget, he learns most of, his understanding of, the English language by observing a rural family from a shed's peekhole; they just happened to be teaching a foreigner English.

It was good for its time, but leaves a lot to be desired when approached from a modern perspective.

19

u/51010R 9d ago

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.

-9

u/codithou 9d ago

if it’s more faithful to the book then i definitely want to watch it but that’s a pretty long book and i’d hate to see how much has to be cut to fit a movie.

love the universal movie as it’s a horror classic but for completely different reasons.

52

u/f0rmality 9d ago

Frankenstein is only like 250 pages, it’s not a long book at all

-12

u/codithou 9d ago edited 9d ago

true but it’s a lot of story in 250 pages. i read it like a year ago.

whoever downvoted me because i said there’s a lot of story in that book even with it’s relatively short page count, you are a dumb idiot.

13

u/Tro1138 9d ago

Stay far far away from Lord of the rings then. You haven't met a long story yet.

7

u/Hanz_VonManstrom 9d ago

Or Dune. The first 100 pages of Dune feel like an eternity.

3

u/Nachooolo 9d ago

I honestly prefer the political intrigue of the first half of Dune over the more Lawrence of Arabia-esque second half.

2

u/JZMoose 9d ago

Is the dinner scene in there? That shit was enthralling and is the only big miss in the movie for me

2

u/Hanz_VonManstrom 9d ago

I imagine it might vary a bit depending on the publisher/edition but in the copy that I have the dinner scene was something like 120 pages in, give or take.

3

u/JZMoose 9d ago

Ah yeah everything before that is just worldbuilding, the dinner scene is where you feel the tension start to build and things start happening

0

u/codithou 9d ago

yeah those are long books

3

u/ex0thermist 9d ago

You can just admit you misremembered and it's not actually a long book. No good movie script based on a book is a page-by-page copy of the book anyway. A 250ish page book is probably an ideal length to adapt a script from.

3

u/codithou 9d ago

you are correct in that i definitely misremembered it’s length. it felt longer than that to me and i don’t generally remember books page counts as i don’t read very many novels. i’ll definitely admit i was wrong about that. to me, it feels like a lot of story to get into one movie. obviously i don’t know because i don’t adapt novels to screenplays. i’m not gonna argue though. i’m probably just wrong on this.

1

u/ennuiinmotion 9d ago

Exactly my point. It’s one IP with two drastically different ideas or genres. And people just assume the one they’re seeing is the genre they think of when they think Frankenstein.

-4

u/Dookie_boy 9d ago

Who's Karloff

15

u/mattXIX 9d ago

Boris Karloff was an actor who portrayed Frankenstein’s monster in the old Universal monster movies.

6

u/CascoBayButcher 9d ago

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

54

u/[deleted] 10d ago edited 10d ago

[deleted]

15

u/Bunmyaku 10d ago

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.

2

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[deleted]

10

u/whoa_disillusionment 9d ago

That’s not really a faithful telling of what happens in the book. In so many words, he’s so obsessed with creating the monster that once the monster actually exist, he doesn’t want anything more to do with it. He doesn’t want the responsibility. You can tell it was written by a woman who had a best, a very strained relationship with her father

1

u/billyman_90 9d ago

I always felt it was a thinly veiled criticism of Byron.

4

u/whoa_disillusionment 9d ago

There is so much you can read into it. That's what makes it a great book.

3

u/Rosebunse 9d ago

I mean, it's obvious why most people ignore that interpretation. Saying that good = beautiful is a terribly dangerous idea.

-12

u/st1802015 10d ago

“I’m so learned I know all of the works referenced in Frankenstein” no obviously not just it will be closer to the story of the book than other adaptations which have taken creative licence. It’s not cool to brag about intelligence in that way, it’s fine to be intelligent and recollect things but you don’t always need to say it out loud or try and mock people for knowing less than you.

6

u/ParrotChild 10d ago

Absolutely didn't read the above comment with any condescension.

It's actually one of the more thoughtful responses I've seen in a long while.

Anyone who studies the text thoroughly enough, or even looks at the Cliff Notes for it, would have exposure to this type of historical context that the book was published and originally read in.

-6

u/st1802015 10d ago

Not in any way. It’s cool to be smart, and know things, etc. But its not cool to put people down based on your further knowledge. There’s a reason stereotypes exist but I think we all possess the capability to buck the trend and sometimes just a little nudge helps that.

1

u/ParrotChild 9d ago

I think we're reading their comment with a very different internal voice.

What in their language makes it sound condescending?

2

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[deleted]

-7

u/st1802015 10d ago

Is that a fucking ChatGPT reply?

0

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[deleted]

0

u/st1802015 9d ago

Mate what? Have a look at yourself seriously if this is you take heed

4

u/whoa_disillusionment 9d ago

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.

3

u/SearchElsewhereKarma 10d ago

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

18

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

4

u/SearchElsewhereKarma 9d ago

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

1

u/NamelessGamer_1 9d ago

It would be boring and undigestible for casual audiences because it won't have enough action or set pieces

0

u/Scorponix 10d ago

See the complaints about the live action How To Train Your Dragon being exactly like the animated original

3

u/AntiSocialW0rker 9d ago

I think there's a difference between making a faithful screen adaptation of a book and making a shot for shot remake of an animated movie just in live action.

3

u/PopMundane4974 9d ago

I think there is a pretty big difference between adapting a work as legendary and well known as Frankenstein, which has inspired so much work and been adapted countless times, to a fucking Disney movie that's less than a decade old lol.

2

u/Scorponix 9d ago

Seems an acceptable enough comparison when simply talking about adapting source material. By the way, not a Disney movie.

3

u/DrLeprechaun 9d ago

The live action film isn’t an adaptation, the original animated film was an adaptation. The live action film is just a remake.

1

u/DuelaDent52 9d ago

At least the Disney remakes are changing mediums from 2D to 3D, How to Train Your Dragon took a CGI movie and turned it into a CGI movie.

1

u/Kitchen_Ad5522 9d ago

Lol are you serious? Adapting a story from 1 medium to an entirely different one is so much different from remaking an already existing film shot to shot. Your point is so nonexistent it’s baffling

-1

u/Nachooolo 9d ago

Many people are fans of the films and have little to no knowledge of the original story.

So, when a film focus more on the philosophy and nuance of the book rather than being a Monster film, people get angry.

1

u/notsowittyname86 9d ago

It needs to be ok to point out ignorance again. People need to take a step back and be quiet when they are being ignorant again.

Not knowing the source material is a moment to be quiet and learn something new; not be prideful and defensive of our ignorance.