Del Toro's Frankenstein on Netflix

[the G-man]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I really enjoyed this. The rare 2.5 hour movie that actually felt shorter.

 

[Samurai8472]

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.

 

[the G-man]

I liked it a lot more than Branaugh version. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

 

[Saul]

I think it's a faithful adaptation. Changes yes, but a lot closer than anything else. The ending though...

 

[Owain Taggart]

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.

 

[Daddy Todd]

Watched it over the weekend. I thought it was brilliant. But I'm a del Toro fan from way back.

 

[Greg Cox]

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.)

 

[Unicron]

I watched it on Netflix recently and enjoyed it. I've always appreciated Del Toro's skills as both a storyteller and a film maker, and I think it's a worthy adaption.

 

[John Clark]

Saw it last night (via netlix). Thought it was pretty decent.

 

[eschaton]

I think it's a faithful adaptation. Changes yes, but a lot closer than anything else. The ending though...

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.

 

[the G-man]

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.

 

[Procutus]

Being a fan of the Branaugh version, I was curious to see how this new version compared. I thought it was extremely well done, with great performances all around, especially Oscar Isaac. I would recommend it to anyone who's thinking about checking it out.

 

[Unicron]

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.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Captaindemotion]

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.

 

[Starkers]

I liked it but if you'll forgive the analogy I thought while the various parts it was stitched together from were fantastic (the look, the direction, the actors, the original story) as a whole it lacked some spark to make it truly come alive for me.

 

[Procutus]

^

I got a charge out of it.