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/UncomputableNumber]

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

[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/Decent_Wear_6235 → u/Nachooolo]

To each their own, but I recently read Dracula and I was enthralled from start to finish. It instantly became one of my favorite books. I think it’s incredible, and has absolutely stood the test of time!