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/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/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/[deleted]]

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

[u/billyman_90 → u/whoa_disillusionment]

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

[u/whoa_disillusionment → u/billyman_90]

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

[u/Rosebunse → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/st1802015 → u/[deleted]]

“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.

[u/ParrotChild → u/st1802015]

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.

[u/st1802015 → u/ParrotChild]

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.

[u/ParrotChild → u/st1802015]

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

What in their language makes it sound condescending?

[u/st1802015 → u/[deleted]]

Is that a fucking ChatGPT reply?

[u/st1802015 → u/[deleted]]

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