Del Toro's Frankenstein on Netflix
- Thread starter the G-man
- Start date
When it was Halloween I went back and watched the 1994 Kenneth Branaugh film. It still captured my attention.
When I saw clips of this movie I felt like I didn't need to watch it since nothing drastic seems to have changed.
I KNOW its all based on the book but something a little different might have differentiated it from all the usual Frankenstein adaptations
(Even Wishbones)
If anyone get's that reference.
When I saw clips of this movie I felt like I didn't need to watch it since nothing drastic seems to have changed.
I KNOW its all based on the book but something a little different might have differentiated it from all the usual Frankenstein adaptations
(Even Wishbones)
If anyone get's that reference.
Haven't seen this yet, and I've been looking forward to it. I loved the Kenneth Brannaugh version starring DeNiro as the monster, which stayed closer to the source material than some of the other versions. Shame that Netflix couldn't have had this release in time for Halloween.
Watched it over the weekend. I thought it was brilliant. But I'm a del Toro fan from way back.
Made an effort to see it the theater -- and it was absolutely worth it. A gorgeous, enthralling, and ultimatelyl movie adaptation -- with some fun nods to earlier film versions.
(There is one image in particular that is a clearly a homage to the 1957 Hammer film version with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.)
(There is one image in particular that is a clearly a homage to the 1957 Hammer film version with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.)
Saw it last night (via netlix). Thought it was pretty decent.
It was more faithful in structure than previous films. Thematically, it was completely dissonant, since it changed the story from being about Victor's hubris to intergenerational trauma caused by bad fathers.
That's not to say it was bad, by any means. But he was very much using the Frankenstein story to sell his own message here.
Frankenstein has been interpreted, adapted and outright rewritten in so many ways I can't blame him for that.
I came across an interesting review from a fan who is huge on Frankenstein and has tremendous admiration for Del Toro as well. She felt the movie wasn't an entirely successful adaptation in terms of changes to some of the plot structure and characters, but it's still an amazingly created film.
I liked this a lot. Probably a bit too long but it still held my attention. Visually sumptuous but also moving and with superb performances all round, not least of all the two main actors. It was a similar sort of take to the Branagh version (which I remember liking in the cinema when it came out but haven’t seen since then) but better, IMHO.
I finally got a chance to watch this film tonight. I've long anticipated this film from the moment del Toro announced he going to adapt the novel. I wish I had been able to watch it in theaters but my local cinema did not play it, so I had to settle for Netflix. Was it worth the long wait? Well...I'm not sure.
I'm a massive fan of the Shelley novel and while I've lightened up on my stringent stance about adaptations of my youth, I nonetheless felt a heavy bias while watching this film, no matter how much I tried to push it aside.
However, even with this in mind, the film feels like A Tale of Two Del Toros, embodying how his films have become very hit and miss for me.
What I loved the most about the film was the part of the novel that I loved the most: The Creature's perspective. When the story finally gets to both his creation and especially his narration, the film feels completely different. I loved watching the Creature learning about his existence, both the good and the evil that drove his creation, his flight, and ultimately his reign of terror. The film was note perfect during his time in the wild, learning about humanity and how to educate himself (even if the film glosses over how he was able to read, unlike the novel) and I regret there wasn't more of that aspect in the film.
However, I was disappointed how the Creature's acts of revenge against Victor were heavily watered down. Instead of deliberately murdering, one by one, Victor's fiancé, brother, and best friend, the Creature only accidentally causes Victor to murder Elizabeth, accidentally murders William, and only directly kills those who directly attacks him. This romanticizing of the Creature's nature feels like a disservice to the character.
I'm not even bothered by how the film also completely rewrites Victor's history, relationships, and motivations (although I wasn't fond of his angelic visions), if only because the end result is the same, even if it took forever to get there. What I definitely didn't like is the cinematic rewriting of Victor's immediate reaction to the Creature. The very nature of Victor's success is what terrified him and caused him to run so damn far away. Not because the Creature didn't show the kind of intelligence that Victor wanted to see, but rather Victor had succeeded in his madness and he realized the abject horror of that truth.
In the end, the film is more romantic like Crimson Peak and less a cautionary tale like Pan's Labyrinth. For me, that's a shame, but I imagine for others, that's a thrill.
I'm a massive fan of the Shelley novel and while I've lightened up on my stringent stance about adaptations of my youth, I nonetheless felt a heavy bias while watching this film, no matter how much I tried to push it aside.
However, even with this in mind, the film feels like A Tale of Two Del Toros, embodying how his films have become very hit and miss for me.
What I loved the most about the film was the part of the novel that I loved the most: The Creature's perspective. When the story finally gets to both his creation and especially his narration, the film feels completely different. I loved watching the Creature learning about his existence, both the good and the evil that drove his creation, his flight, and ultimately his reign of terror. The film was note perfect during his time in the wild, learning about humanity and how to educate himself (even if the film glosses over how he was able to read, unlike the novel) and I regret there wasn't more of that aspect in the film.
However, I was disappointed how the Creature's acts of revenge against Victor were heavily watered down. Instead of deliberately murdering, one by one, Victor's fiancé, brother, and best friend, the Creature only accidentally causes Victor to murder Elizabeth, accidentally murders William, and only directly kills those who directly attacks him. This romanticizing of the Creature's nature feels like a disservice to the character.
I'm not even bothered by how the film also completely rewrites Victor's history, relationships, and motivations (although I wasn't fond of his angelic visions), if only because the end result is the same, even if it took forever to get there. What I definitely didn't like is the cinematic rewriting of Victor's immediate reaction to the Creature. The very nature of Victor's success is what terrified him and caused him to run so damn far away. Not because the Creature didn't show the kind of intelligence that Victor wanted to see, but rather Victor had succeeded in his madness and he realized the abject horror of that truth.
In the end, the film is more romantic like Crimson Peak and less a cautionary tale like Pan's Labyrinth. For me, that's a shame, but I imagine for others, that's a thrill.
I didn't cover much about the visuals of the film (which often reminded me of Robert Eggers' Nosferatu) and the acting but I agree with this 100%, especially Jacob Elordi. Just a shame he'll probably won't get much award recognition.
Last edited:
Yeah, I felt that the creature and Victor both get let off the hook too. Del Toro is adding his own themes here. If it were another director I might think they were trying to make the story more palatable for general audiences. He's wanted to make the movie since the mid 90s. I think a lot of it changed in his mind over the years due to his experiences.
Agreed. I wonder if the adaptation would've been closer to the dark nature of the novel if del Toro was able to direct this film earlier in his career.
On the other hand, his last film was a pretty loyal adaptation of Pinocchio and its dark nature, so perhaps not.
^I loved Pinocchio. That was an amazing version of the story.
I've probably mentioned this before elsewhere, and I'm likely in the minority, but I did not care much for Pan's Labyrinth. I didn't even know much about it when I agreed to see it with a friend, and I wasn't familiar with Del Torro's movies at the time. I was very much unprepared for the kind of movie I'd be seeing. I'm not much into horror movies, and the blunt brutality of the movie really affected me. I felt misled by the trailers claiming a dark adult fairy tale, when instead I got a bloody war drama, with a girl who tried to escape the war drama by hiding within a fantasy that wasn't even kind to her. In the end, too much trauma, even within the fantasy world, and it all left me feeling rather numb when I left the theatre. In fact, I felt rather sick for days after seeing it.
So, to my eyes, it felt like a horror movie with a WWII setting.
Now mind you, I've always liked Frankenstein, because as Gothick Horror, it's more about exploration of character, in this case the exploration of what it means to be human.
I've probably mentioned this before elsewhere, and I'm likely in the minority, but I did not care much for Pan's Labyrinth. I didn't even know much about it when I agreed to see it with a friend, and I wasn't familiar with Del Torro's movies at the time. I was very much unprepared for the kind of movie I'd be seeing. I'm not much into horror movies, and the blunt brutality of the movie really affected me. I felt misled by the trailers claiming a dark adult fairy tale, when instead I got a bloody war drama, with a girl who tried to escape the war drama by hiding within a fantasy that wasn't even kind to her. In the end, too much trauma, even within the fantasy world, and it all left me feeling rather numb when I left the theatre. In fact, I felt rather sick for days after seeing it.
So, to my eyes, it felt like a horror movie with a WWII setting.
Now mind you, I've always liked Frankenstein, because as Gothick Horror, it's more about exploration of character, in this case the exploration of what it means to be human.
Similar threads
