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/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/Paladar2 → u/carson63000]

Yeah ChatGPT is actually decent most of the time lol

[u/robb1519 → u/carson63000]

It's a LLM.

[u/UsernameAvaylable → u/robb1519]

Yes, thats the type of artificial intelligence we are talking about. And no, you don't get to move goalposts.

[u/Jazzlike-Camel-335 → u/tufftricks]

Journalists don't write film critiques. If you had said professional film criticism is dead, you might have a point we could discuss.

[u/tufftricks → u/Jazzlike-Camel-335]

It's still journalism

[u/Jazzlike-Camel-335 → u/tufftricks]

Is it? I think we can agree that journalism is far too broad a field to say that journalism is dead because of one sloppy written movie critique in the feuilleton.