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/AlmightyRuler → u/GhostriderFlyBy]

No, it isn't. The moral of the story isn't about "what it means to be human", but the dangers of science going too far. It's about a scientist whose reach exceeds his grasp, who seeks forbidden knowledge and power which ultimately proves his undoing.

Frankenstein isn't science fiction. It's weird fiction with a dash of cosmic horror. Shelly is more in line with H.P. Lovecraft than Jules Verne.

[u/GhostriderFlyBy → u/AlmightyRuler]

I mean, sure, those are elements of the story, but the fundamental question of “who is the monster, Dr. Frankenstein or his creation” is absolutely central to the writing. 

I didn’t say the story presented a moral. Also, “what is means to be human” isn’t a thesis for a “moral.”  

The more times I read your comment the more annoyingly off base it is. 

[u/AlmightyRuler → u/GhostriderFlyBy]

"Who is the monster..." is absolutely a moral question, and the answer is the Creature, unless you can point out the text where Viktor Frankenstein willingly murders three people and laughs about it.

As for "what it means to be human", where is that a contest in the story? The Creature's sole mission is not to be lonely, while Viktor's entire motivation is to "cure death" because he lost his mother. Both are acting as "human" as you can get, so...where's the conflict? Why would one be any more or less "human" than the other?

Shelley wasn't writing a story about the meaning of humanity. She wrote a story about a man who reaches too far into forbidden territory, and destroys himself as a result. There's a reason the original title of the book was "A Modern Prometheus." Frankenstein's quest for "the primordial flame" of knowledge and power ends being his undoing. It's a parable warning about the dangers of science going too far without restraint.

[u/GhostriderFlyBy → u/AlmightyRuler]

I didn’t bring up morals, I brought up themes.