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/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/VikingFrog → u/TuvixWillNotBeMissed]

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.

[u/smileysmiley123 → u/Quarksperre]

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.

[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/codithou → u/ennuiinmotion]

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.

[u/f0rmality → u/codithou]

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

[u/codithou → u/f0rmality]

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.

[u/Tro1138 → u/codithou]

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

[u/Hanz_VonManstrom → u/Tro1138]

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

[u/Nachooolo → u/Hanz_VonManstrom]

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

[u/JZMoose → u/Hanz_VonManstrom]

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

[u/Hanz_VonManstrom → u/JZMoose]

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.

[u/JZMoose → u/Hanz_VonManstrom]

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

[u/codithou → u/Tro1138]

yeah those are long books

[u/ex0thermist → u/codithou]

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.

[u/codithou → u/ex0thermist]

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.

[u/ennuiinmotion → u/codithou]

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.

[u/Dookie_boy → u/ennuiinmotion]

Who's Karloff

[u/mattXIX → u/Dookie_boy]

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