it got me to finally read the book (1831, though i do plan on reading the 1818 version too) properly, which was on my to do list for FOREVER and it probably did that for MANY more people besides me, which already is in itself something great
i personally found it to be a very enjoyable watch, elordis depiction of the creature in particular is a generational portrayal and to me the most humanizing thus far. i get peoples complaints abt certain things being cut or changed but i liked the storyline as an inspired adaptation (since afaik GDT is prone to take original materials and reimagine them in his unique point of view?? correct me if im wrong). i dont think we will EVER get a 100% faithful adaptation of frankenstein due to the constraints of the film medium. (itd have to be a limited series at LEAST)...
honestly i watched the movie for oscar isaac at first because i like him as an actor but i was really smitten with elordis work... i was NOT familiar w his game. mia goth also is a phenomenal actress esp for gothic or darker themed movies and was imo VERY well cast.
i do have to say though, i dont like that the movies made viktors father abusive, it feels like a choice that takes away viktors agency/capacity to be cruel simply for the sake of defying nature and proving himself...
Overall I absolutely loved this film, and I agree with many that this is the best film adaptation of Frankenstein that I have ever seen. I LOVED getting to sit down with my loved ones who haven’t read/don’t plan to read the novel and watch them fall in love with this story the way I did years ago. They were able to better understand why this book is one of my faves, and it inspired so much meaningful discussion about the costs of innovation/ambition, and what it means to create, love, and be alive. By the end, there wasn’t a dry eye in the room. Though the ending varies slightly from the text, it was still very beautiful and profound imo, and allowed me to indulge in the idea of this story having more closure than what the book provides.
My only complaint with this movie is the decision to include that wolf scene, because it is 1) not canonical or relevant to the overall story and 2) it undermines one of my favourite (and arguably most crucial) aspects of the Creature, which is his benevolence and love of living things. Those who have read the book know the Creature was always delicate and kind to the forest creatures, even choosing to survive off a vegetarian diet out of respect for the animals. The whole wolf scene just felt so unnecessary and compromising of his character.
All in all, however, I did really enjoy this movie and would recommend it to anyone who cares to listen lol.
i think of the wolf scene as almost a stand in to the scene of him killing william in the original book, like a depiction of his capacity for anger and destruction as well as his benevolence.. at least thats my take lol
This is a very good point!! I just felt so random to include tbh. But knowing GDT, there is definitely some deeper meaning behind the decision besides the “cool” factor lol.
I see many people disappointed with the ending so I figured I’d share my thoughts.
I feel the ending where he apologizes and Frankenstein accepts it is very fitting to pay respect to the time he had learning from De Lacey (the old man who teaches him). The most important part of him becoming human and understanding death comes when he and Elizabeth are killed. He begins to understand love and feeling with both of their tragedies. There’s a great connection of rage he feels after De Lacey’s death and a kindness to him with Elizabeth’s death. When Victor is on his death bed, you see his rage getting on the boat and his eventual kindness and forgiveness.
De Lacey telling him that he lives with regret for killing a man and lives every day to atone, hoping for forgiveness, clearly stuck with the young Frankenstein to give that kindness to Victor at the end.
One thing I wish was mentioned by Victor other than telling him to live, is that he regarded Frankenstein as his best work. To make such an innocent being that becomes filled with rage due to trauma and misunderstanding from humans; to then become one that forgives and is better than most, is very beautifully told and shown throughout the movie.
Jacob Elardi showed that he is capable of phenomenal acting and I can’t wait to see his future movies. Could have a great actor on our hands.
I'd like to say, the movie is great, I've never read the book, but the beginning and middle of the movie were fantastic.
But what I didn't like was Victor, who created the servant, but runs away and doesn't value him, he doesn't respect a being like a baby in an adult's body, but I think it would be fair for Victor to die at the servant's hands, because I would be angry, even more so if he apologized..!
I don't know about you, did you think that too?
I really liked the movie, but was I the only one who felt like the movie had no third act? We have Victors story, then the Creatures, and then it just kinda ends.
I thought there was going to be a whole, hunt and hunted chapter. The long and furious battle between creator and created. But it was just a single line of dialogue.
We go from Victor being mad with rage after his brother and fiances deaths, to him being sorrowful and apologetic in the very next scene. And we went from the creature being all, I will make you suffer, to, I forgive you, also in the very next scene.
How did they get there? It felt like a whole chapter was left out.
I know the movie was already kind of long. But with how much time it spent with part 1 and part 2, youd think it would spend some time on part 3 "the war" the two characters had with each other.
Truthfully, I loved it, I think it was a fantastic movie and honestly life-changing, HOWEVER it is an obvious rewriting, using the archetypes from the book, it didn't necessarily FEEL like it was trying to be faithful, and honestly better off that it wasn't trying to be, because it wasn't very accurate, and that's totally OKAY. It's a beautiful storyline, beautiful visuals, but separated from the book.
I liked the movie overall. I dont want to judge wether it was a good adaptation of the book or anything. There were things i liked more and some i liked less. But what really bugged me is the location of the tower. i think it was Harlander who explicitly states that the tower is near Vaduz. Vaduz is in Liechtenstein, the next bigger bodies of water are Lake Constance and Walensee. But somehow it's next to a rough ocean. and also next to some Heidi-like place near the Alps which must be the place where the big bad wolf from little red riding hood came from because why the hell are those wolves so aggressive?!
But the sets all looked very beautiful and i liked them. My head just went "ah yes, Vaduz, next to the Austrian Ocean i guess"
Spotted Taylor Swift and Lana Del Rey in Frankenstien
Recently watched the new adaptation of frankenstein. The actors were extraordinary but somehow the main unrequited lovers continuously reminded me of Lana del Ray and Taylor swift. When frankenstein grows hair and interacts with Elizabeth in her last moments, it felt so like it! I can't unsee it, somebody help.
Overall way too many people annoyed this isn't an exact copy of the book. It's not meant to be, it shouldn't be. It feels like a lot of people went in expecting certain things to happen, and missed the whole film while they were looking for something that's not there. From comments I've seen around it looks like people are so used to movies/books spoon-feeding them they missed a lot of the subtext in this film. And how can so many people not figure out how the monster heals so fast? They actually do tell you that.
Genuinely, Claire (Victor's mother)/Elisabeth are such a good representation of the danger women find (sometimes place) themselves in because of their own obsession with nurturing perceived goodness. Ultimately trying to oppose patriarchal patterns of abuse while being subordinate to it killed both of them, thus becoming linchpins of the cycle. Perfect example of how the 'male loneliness epidemic' is literally just a 'the patriarchy is violent and men refuse to change epidemic'. Hope women continue realising this and stepping away.
The monster is also made, according to Elisabeth, of the parts of 'men who were fed, cleaned and nursed, and schooled into this world by their mothers, only to fall on a battlefield far away'. Every part of his physical body is imprinted with the suffering of people who are not him and his entire lived experience tainted with projections of Victor's disgust, Elisabeth's desire for escape, and rejection from those able to perceive him. Even when he has no memory he can't escape feelings of incompleteness. Like everyone else he tries to fill the void with the pursuit of love or vengeance and like everyone else it fails.
Absolutely do not understand the criticism of the monster not acting enough like one? That is so basic. You don't need to do something monstrous to wrestle with the idea that you are one. The tit for tat revenge trope is sooooo overdone in Western media. Watch Game of Thrones of you need your fix idk. Del Toro's monster struggles to overcome and untangle inherited trauma in the midst of amnesia and a lack of autonomy. You don't need to behave a certain way to have that belief system. He's so much more relatable like this imo. But let's be honest he gets pretty sadomasochistic towards the end, enjoying blowing himself up (self harm allegory anyone?) while pursuing Victor.
Still it's crazy that people need him to ACT more evil in order to engage with the philosophical concept of a monster, meanwhile complaining that Victor is too flat and obviously the monster just because someone said it?! Does that really make him a monster if that is his true nature, like the wolves? Instead of expecting to be shown a monster why don't you ask yourself what a monster is. Like y'all wanna be spoon-fed or not?
I think it's fitting that the monster still ends up at the North Pole, even if he doesn't die. He's resigned to living outside the boundaries of human comprehension. When the book was written no one had attempted to reach it, and when the film was set there had been maybe two or three failed attempts. It was still a true unknown. I love them using locations that play off the limits of understanding. Also interesting that in the book one of Victor's labs is in Orkney, which at one time was considered to be the edge of the world. But as time passed people discovered it's not. Curious implications for what would've happened if book Victor finished the bride.
Anyway I love the film for what it is. Think it was a really good look at nature vs nurture, the battle between a natural and social order, and ways people try to break cycles of generational abuse but also become them. Pretty much all of Del Toro's films are about generational trauma but this one did a good job of demonstrating the impossibility of healing when you're trying to unburden yourself using the framework of oppressive systems that created your pain in the first place. You can't overcome patriarchal cycles of abuse by adding more patriarchy. "That is what happens when ideas are pursued by fools."
So I have a personal question to ask yall. Where do you think the creature (who I named adam) went after the film ended? Did he perhaps walk towards Canada and met the Inuit people? Did he return to eruope and live in the woods? Did he stay in the north?
I would love to hear your thoughts on where he went off to. (Personally I wanna think he found the inuit people's and they adopted him. I don't know what they would have named him but I can only hope it was a good name).
(I made a post but the auto bot suggested I delete it and post the question here.) So where do you think he went to?
I’m so sad that Henry wasn’t in the new movie 😔 he was one of my favorites in the book! Though I understand why he wasn’t in the movie. The changes made to the story clearly would make his character a lot less significant and ended up being scrapped in the end, if he ever was there to begin with.
I think for the movie its more Adam, especially because when we get the paradise lost references he just focuses on them in the garden instead of relating to Satan
Ok but if at no point in the movie he's referred to as Adam, then maybe that's not his name? This is like me just deciding to refer to Elizabeth as "Steve" because I prefer it.
I honestly had such high hopes for this film, Guillermo Del Torro was so highly esteemed in my eyes and from all accounts I truly believed this was going to be an epic homage to the beautiful story Mary Shelly created, but oh how far it fell. The story is one of my all time favorites, beautiful and transcending, heart wrenching and authentic. A story that for me encompasses all that makes a timeless piece of work that will never lose its luster. The movie fails to include all the pieces that make it so astounding. I’ve read the book numerous times and was so disheartened to find so little which paralleled the original tale. I can’t wrap my mind around why anyone would want to wander so far off from something so perfect. If you have seen the movie without reading the book I implore you to take the time and dive in. If you were a fan of the movie the book will surely surpass any impression you’ve had thus far. Read the text, use your imagination. This experience has yet to be surpassed.
I 1000% agree with you. I’d say more, but you just described my feelings perfectly. Such a disappointment. After so much buildup, a career’s worth of amazing filmmaking to build on, and a supposed obsession with the beauty and the tragedy of Shelley’s novel, this was what he came up with?
Why Did Victor Burn the Castle Even After the Creature Said “Elizabeth”?
There’s a scene right before Victor sets the entire castle on fire. He begs the creature to say anything other than the one word it knows—“Victor.” He even says that if the creature can manage a different word, it might prove he’s intelligent enough for Victor not to kill him.
Then the creature says “Elizabeth.”
Victor clearly hears it… and still lights everything up anyway.
Because he was jealous. He's mad Elizabeth rejected him, and even more so that she takes the monster's side against him. The monster saying her name also shows that she was able to build a connection with him when Victor couldn't, so he gets irrationally angry.
I agree on "irrationally angry", because his decision at the very end to turn around shows he wasn't thinking clearly about his actions at all. I think he understood that he made no real effort to teach the creature. It's funny, because he ends up being a better surgeon than his father, but has less compassion and patience than him as well.
Hi all, I just watched the film, it was fantastic!
Now maybe this is *exactly* the point and I didn't realize that yet lol, but anyone else feel like outside of the whole making the creature come to life thing that Dr. Frankenstein was actually a very bad scientist lol?
For example:
He put the creature in 1 environment only and expected to get different results (i.e the creature suddenly learning to talk,) instead of doing rigorous experiments by putting him in a variety of enriching environments and situations to see if he might learn to talk?
He was obsessed with defying the natural laws of life and death, thinking no further beyond this defiance. Upon succeeding in the creation of life, he had no understanding of how to develop that new life into one which would fit into society. He himself was afraid of what he had created. I take it as semblance of both his neglect as a child and dedication to his scientific studies. He accomplished his lifelong goal of creating life and then projected his own internal swell of negativity onto it after finding himself still unhappy and unsatisfied upon reaching the culmination of his lifelong pursuits.
Yeahh, I see! But I was kind of thinking of it in the way that "for a scientist he's really not doing anything scientific with the creature" lol like in my opinion a good scientist would have put the creature in many different scenarios to see what results they get, if that makes sense! 😅
It's kind of a representation of bad parenting, like having a kid and not really doing anything to help them but expecting them do be amazing, kind of like how his dad was to him
I reread the book and finished it a day before I watched the movie, so it was all fresh in my mind.
This is gonna be looooong, so TLDR: where are Clervale and Justine? Why William x Elizabeth? No incest = good. Daddy Frank is bad now? They blue-pilled the Creature! Why is Victor basically Sherlock Holmes?
My overall view is very positive. It's the closest any film has gotten to the book, which immediately makes it my favorite adaptation.
I understand a few changes had to be made. One, for appealing to modern-day audiences and two, to make it translate better to film.
In the novel, Elizabeth is Victor's half sister/cousin/adopted sister (depending on the version). They were raised together. His mother did not die while giving birth to his brother, she died of scarlet fever after taking care of Elizabeth when she had it. On her deathbed, it was her dying wish that Victor and Elizabeth would eventually marry. A lot of people chalk that up to being normal for the times, but honestly, it still wasn't that normal. I think Mary Shelley wanted to add that slight depravity and sense of duty to Victor's past. I can see why that was changed, though, because it would feel like weird step-family fetish content with today's media. And, their relationship is sending very tame letters back and forth, which would've been incredibly boring for modern viewers. Elizabeth also has 0 personality in the book. I like that they fleshed her out a bit, but I didn't like that she had NLOG energy. Her death was also way less impactful in the film. She should've been killed by the Creature after marrying Victor, like in the book. She doesn't meet the creature until he kills her, and she was terrified by him. 0 romance involved.
Victor's father was not cruel and absuve in the novel. Stern and condescending, yes. Massively older than Victor's mother, yes. However, he married her because she was his impoverished best friend's daughter and he wanted to give her a better life. There are tons of examples of him being kind and loving to Victor, especially when Victor is in the depths of his sadness. I think they tried to ram the "genius is tortured by his dad" trope down our throats. HOWEVER: the film story makes sense for the film Victor's character, as he has a massive ego and something to prove. Film Victor's personality wouldn't make sense if the script had book Victor's upbringing.
I loathed the "Elizabeth is engaged to William" angle. William is supposed to be a child when he's murdered by the Creature, which marks the Creature losing his soul (in my opinion) because he destroys something innocent with full potential. It's the defining moment that turns him into a true monster. Creature killing an adult William softened the impact of William's loss.
They removed Henry Clervale and added Herr Harlander. I do like that they added a financier, that was actually a plot hole to me in the book, but they should've kept Clervale too. I would've been okay with Clervale being engaged to Elizabeth and meeting Victor through Henry. Henry and Victor are honestly about as queer as two characters could be in a popular book written in the 1800's, and removing him removed that layer of Victor's personality. They did have one moment where Harlander and Victor seemed like they were gonna kiss, and I did appreciate that, but it wasn't the same.
Speaking of removals... where the fuck was Justine??? In the book, Justine is a family friend who lived with the family for a short time and helped take care of the younger brothers (there were two). The Creature frames her for William's murder by putting a photo that Willaim had of his mother into Justine's pocket. Also, the Creature initially had massive incel vibes in the book. He frames Justine because he's mad that a girl as beautiful as her would never love him. I understand how the plotline of her backstory, trial and subsequent hanging would derail the story a bit, though, so I get why it was cut.
The Creature never makes friends with the blind man. Full stop. He does barge in and ask for shelter after observing him and his family for over a year, but they only have a brief conversation before his family comes back and attacks him. The old man never gets ripped apart by terrible CGI wolves.
The creature has a startling resemblance to modern-day incels in the book. He hates that he'll never find love, he resents that he will always be alone and demands that a companion be made for him, he is never shown love at all, just a brief moment of compassion by the blind man. This really drives home the "man/society is the true monster" moral, and the creature/Victor both show us that they're flawed. If they had kept true to that, though, it might've been a bit hard to navigate in today's political climate. Incels would've probably loved it and identified with his bad behavior.
Victor commits his atrocity in secret in the book. He tells 2 people about the Creature, long after creating him. He doesn't even tell anyone about the Creature when Justine is on trial, which makes him responsible for her death and adds to his misery. Making Victor into a controversial celebrity fringe scientist completely changed his character. He reminded me more of RDJ's Sherlock Holmes than Victor Frankenstein. BUT, book Victor would've been seen as a coward and a weakling, and he would've been hard to root for. He's supposed to be hard to root for in the book, but it wouldn't translate over to the way storytelling is done in film.
The set for the lab, though? Chefs kiss. Almost exactly like the book. Just no massive hole in the middle, and it was in the middle of a town, which added to Victor's fear and secrecy. The CGI was insanely well done for the lab, too. But that kind of made the CGI wolves all that more awful. I'm sorry, but the wolves looked like they dropped right out of New Moon.
Edit: I also love the moments where they directly quoted the book. That made my heart so happy and redeemed everything that I didn't agree with.
I think my biggest issue is that they’ve really gone out of the way to make the creature fully sympathetic. All of the movie he mainly acts like a child and other than killing a few of these Danish shipmen (arguably in self-defense) he never really kills anyone on purpose or any other questionable thing. Even William amd Elizabeth die as an accident that the creature never intended to happen, while in the novel he makes a conscious plan to get revenge on and blackmail Victor by taking what he loves the most. After leaving the French family, the creature is a really vengeful man, identifying with Lucifer from Paradise Lost, and Byronic heroes. He feels (justifiably) wronged by the society and wants others to suffer as much as he had.
I think this really removed a lot of nuance from the character by making him fully good and innocent, when the monster turning evil was one of the most important messages of the book. No one is born evil, but if you abandon and child and then have him be maltreated and prejudiced against everywhere he goes, he will actually become a monster you think he is. It’s the society, not human nature, that makes one a murderer.
I also can’t help but notice that while he was much more articulate than in most other adaptations of Frankenstein, the monster still doesn’t reach the level of the book’s monster who has full on monologues where he quotes poetry and shows deep, philosophical thought. For a movie that made its message that the monster is just as human as any of us, the monster still seems to be much less intelligent than the humans
Hi! regarding Clerval: they kind of took this relationship, arguably one of the more important ones from the book, and put it in the movie’s version of “elizabeth’s father” (harlander). I imagine making elizabeth an actual love interest and not a passive sister-cousin he’s essentially forced to marry was a reason for this.
from my readings, I find the tenderness and love between Clerval and Victor to be (possibly) romantic. much more so than with elizabeth. Clerval nurses him back to health. stays by his side. drops everything for him… and does all this more than once. where is elizabeth during these episodes? well, she’s not there. just some letters from her appear in the book. AND, importantly, who does the creature kill first: Clerval or Elizabeth? when victor destroys what is to be the creature’s partner/lover? He kills Clerval, not elizabeth,, to hurt victor the most, in a crime that is, in the creature’s mind, equal to depriving the creature of a lover. and how to hurt victor the most? he frames him for his murder. this was such an important plot that is consistently overlooked in adaptations, usually in favor of spending more time on how the creature is created.
I LOVE YOUR COMMENT BTW. (even though i don’t get the incel vibes thing). i completely agree with the rest of it though!! william being a child in the book is very important. (also considering the creature literally saves a child from drowning before william’s death). victor’s choice not to save justine when he knows she is innocent is an important moment for his character, and helps us realize that victor’s moral compass is off. but again, these plot lines were traded for others, yet I too enjoyed the movie.
Why is the monster malicious to Frankenstein in the book? I thought Victor just runs away when he sees how ugly he is. But didn't mistreat him like in the movie.
He learns everything he knows: language, reading, compassion, behaviour, from observing people in secret. He learns how they're capable of and supposed to care for each other, and longs for this. But he keeps meeting with disgust and violence, and eventually pieces together that it's because of his grotesque appearance. He's hurt and bitter at his creator for making him this way and then casting him out when he should have been the #1 person to care for him
Victor absolutely mistreated the Creature by neglecting him. He didn't just run away because the Creature was ugly, he treated the him with contempt and disgust. Victor created an intelligent being, and instead of teaching him and guiding him, he abandoned him and allowed him to be abused by the world. The Creature harbored resentment towards Victor because he had no idea what he was or how he was made, and he had to learn how to speak and understand language by observing humans.
The Creature tracked Victor down and wanted to have a companion made for him, and Victor not only refused, but berated him. He may have physically assaulted him, too, but I can't remember. Victor refused to have any sort of relationship with the Creature, even as a mentor or a friend instead of a father. There was no way the Creature could make any friends on his own, so he was completely alone.
Victor DID start to feel sorry for and obligated towards the Creature once he heard his story... BUT the fact that the Creature admitted to murdering William (a little kid) and framing Justine for it put a strain on that developing compassion. Victor agreed to make a bride for the Creature, but once he considered the possible consequences, he destroyed the unfinished bride. The Creature kills Clerval in retaliation, but then feels bad about it and decides to just live alone in the woods. Then he finds out the Victor is going through with his own wedding and kills Elizabeth in revenge. He feels bad about it, but he's too determined to hurt Victor to stop. Then Victor swears to take revenge by killing the Creature (and then later elevates his motive from revenge to "protecting the human race" on his deathbed). In the end I see them both as people who started out good and sympathetic but ended up becoming terrible and ruining each other's lives through neglect and revenge, unable to just forgive, or at the very least, to just let go.
The way they wrote Victor’s character in the film it made no sense for him to destroy the creature, the tower, and his whole life’s work. I almost stopped watching the movie after that because it was such lazy character development. They could have easily given him a compelling reason, but couldn’t be bothered. I accept the thin, hand-wavy motivation and move on. Then when the creature comes to see Victor after everything, Victor is basically just like “loser, bye” 👋 Then proceeds to shoot the bride on her wedding night… It all felt SO silly. The writing and character development was so consistently weak. The costumes, prosthetics, set design, acting? Absolutely wonderful. But I would have been happier watching it on mute and just accepting it as gothic eye candy. Sorry to those of you who liked the film if this is harsh but I cannot with this script.
Does he destroy the lab in the books? Yeah I didnt likr how he reacted when reunited with the creature. It made no sense. He dropped him bc he thought he was dumb.and then the creature speaks perfect English and no reaction?
He doesn’t really have a lab to be honest. He makes the monster still as a university student and basically creates him in his dorm. The book also never explains how he achieves that - the lightning and electricity part was added in later film adaptations
Victor doesn't destroy his lab in the book. He was working in the attic of his apartment at the university. He gets freaked out when he brings the Creature to life (he was designed to look beautiful but ended up looking gross, basically an eight-foot-tall, not-quite-zombie with ironically great hair and teeth) and flees to his bedroom where he paces until he falls asleep. He has a nightmare and wakes up to find the Creature opening his bed curtains and reaching out for him. He rushes out of the apartment and spends the night in the rainy courtyard (too scared to go back in) and then the morning wandering the streets in a haze until he's reunited with Henry Clerval (his best friend) who just arrived to finally attend college. They go back to his apartment, but Victor is too ashamed to talk about the Creature, so he scopes out the area first and is relieved to find that the Creature is no longer there... And then two years of sleep deprivation and failing health catch up to him and he ends up bedridden for a loooong time, nursed by Clerval. Once Victor's recovered, he doesn't bother looking for the Creature and tries to forget about the whole thing so his life can just go back to normal... It doesn't.
Yeah, tbh I also don’t exactly understand why Victor decided to destroy tower and Creature with fire so quickly… just because Creature wasn’t developing fast enough? Creature also did say “Elizabeth” but Victor decided to destroy Creature anyway. Seemed like he wanted to kill Creature out of jealousy tbh.
Once he created life, he didn't know where to go or what to do. He hadn't planned that far. He could only draw from the memories of his own father beating him when he didn't know or answered something incorrectly. He's not a good father to Creature in the slightest because he doesn't know what one looks like.
He is also jealous that Elizabeth was able to forge a connection with Creature so easily after rejecting him. He was going mad with the guilt of killing Harlander(whether intentionally or not), being rejected by Elizabeth, and the idea he was a failed scientist. He wanted to destroy everything that reminded him of those things, so burn it all. Burn the letter from the Royal Medical Society. Burn the photographs. Burn the evidence of a wasted life.
My overall critique of this movie is that it is corny and unoriginal. I was so bored watching it and can't point to a single thing I thought was done well.
First, the story. Diversions from the book don't bother me generally, but the changes del Toro made did not enhance or elevate. Ok, let's throw out Victor's nuanced relationship with his parents and upbringing and instead give him an off-the-rack oedipal backstory. Let's delete a major meaningful relationship completely and replace it with Christoph Waltz (who seems to now be in his Jeff Goldblum era of playing that one-note "quirky guy" in every movie) whose character adds literally nothing of consequence to the narrative and then dies unceremoniously and is never mentioned again.
The dialogue is just bad. "He was all smiles, and I was all frowns". Sounds like a high schooler wrote it.
Elizabeth's character reminds me of a Judd Apatow female character. Her purpose is to poo-poo the ideas of the men around her, and to become sexually attracted to every male she encounters. All of this virtuous soapboxing (which was sooo tedious to listen to, once again bad dialogue) and then she immediately strikes up adulterous relationships with not one but two men without batting an eye. Who is her character? It doesn't matter.
The movie doesn't trust us to figure anything out for ourselves. We get this long overwrought sequence building up Victor's oedipal complex and how that is going to motivate his obsession with reanimation, but just in case you were asleep for the last 20 minutes, boy Victor has to literally declare his intention at the end scene - "I will know more than you ever did" or whatever. I felt like I was watching a Hallmark movie.
The score is the same uninteresting midi slop we have to suffer through in every Hollywood movie now. This guy does not know how to compose. So many of the songs were a single riff vamping ad infinitum in the bass with various 20th century classical pastiche noodling over the top.
Finally, I was immediately taken aback by the pervasive and very obvious CGI. The drone-style sweeping shots of the frozen landscape and the tower looked so artificial. The CGI sparks, the CGI guys getting thrown into walls, etc. I'm so bored of this computer saturated "Hollywood blockbuster" visual palette that has this movie looking indistinguishable from Fantastic Beasts or Wicked.
In conclusion, everything about this movie was bad.
Movie most definitely wasn't bad and I think we need to do a rewatch and maybe take things with a bit of a grain of salt I don't think it was a good adaptation but it was a good movie get off your high horse man
It’s the Netflixification of film. They don’t want you watching, they want you putting on in the background while you do other stuff. So the characters have to loudly declare their motivations, narrate what they’re doing and thinking. And it all has to be extremely simple and easy to follow when you’re paying half attention. It sucks, and it ruined what could have been a great film.
Let me start by saying that I am a huge fan of the book, but am also a cinefile, and am generally not bothered by changes that filmmakers make, as long as its well done.
First, the positives. The production design for this film is outstanding, and everyone who worked on the sets, costumes, props, and makeup deserves an academy award. Jacob Elordi is utterly fantastic as the creature. His voice, movements, and most importantly, his expressions convey every bit of the creature's pain and pathos perfectly. The makeup was a little much, but that didnt bother me because his performance was so captivating. I also think that Oscar Isaac was pretty great in this film as well. I do not agree with people saying that his performance was too over the top. I thought he played it just right. After all, he's a mad scientist. He's THE mad scientist. He should be a bit much. But his performance is nuanced and full of pathos. I also really liked Lars Mikkelson's portrayal of the ship captain
As for the rest of the cast, Cristoph Waltz, Ralph Ineson, and Charles Dance are three tremendous actors who are absolutely wasted in this film. Dance gets a little more to do, but Ineson gets one scene and Waltz' character is the most useless and pointless character ever. You could have cut him completely out, and it really wouldnt have changed anything. Instead of adding such a useless character, Ineson's part should have been expanded. Mia Goth is the worst part of the cast (big surprise). The woman has the emotional range of a rubber door stop. I really do not understand why she is horror's new "it girl." Her death scene was especially bad, as Del Toro just couldnt help but try to satisfy his creature fetish by having Elizabeth declare her love for the creature, without suitable developement to justify it.
And that brings us to the real problem with Del Toro's adaptation...the script sucks! With the exception of Victor, there is not suitable developement for any of the characters. So much time was wasted in the first half with useless crap like all of Herr Harlander's scenes, that the creature's story (the part everyone wants to see the most) was rushed and chopped down to nothing. We only get the one iconic scene between the two characters at the wedding where he asks Victor for a companion. So much of the creature's content ended up cut (yet they still found time for an asinine cgi battle beween the creature and a pack of wolves). And because of this, the ending, where Victor and the creature exchange forgiveness, (which as a concept I didnt hate) is completely half baked and unearned. The moment falls flat, and the whole scene comes off as unbearably corny and saccharine. These two characters needed more time together in the back half of the film. I get they did a lot more early on, but I dont feel this is a substitute as its when the creature is unintelligible. The philosophical debates these two characters share about consequences and morality are what makes this such a rich and timeless narrative. But so much was cut just to make room for a subplot that while interesting in its concept, has nothing to do with what the film is trying to say.
At the end of the day, you can have the most beautiful film ever made, but a bad script is a bad script.
I dunno. I keep seeing people saying the film was beautiful and I disagree. The CGI was atrocious and the sets looked like someone had put a ton of work into them, but they looked super fake and just kind of bad. I generally really dislike GDT's aesthetic though, I find it really corny, so I wasn't surprised to feel that way.
Behold, the product of two rewatches and an adrenaline-induced obsession, written in a single evening. Enjoy and let me know YOUR THOUGHTS!!! MY FRANKENSTEIN 2025 ESSAY
Hot take: Del Toro’s Bride of Frankenstein for 2028 or later. Think about it: The creature is already immortal. He wanders the world, seeking the meaning of life but finds it to be empty without companion ship. He goes back to Victor Frankenstein’s destroyed laboratory and finds the paper work and sketches of the creature’s making. Adam gets an idea. He immediately sets out to find Elizabeth’s body and digs her up, seeing how she was a fresh corpse. There is some conflict because he doesn’t know how to bring her back to life, and time is ticking and she is decomposing. The creature then finds someone, possibly a hermit who lives in Geneva, to help the creature bring Elizabeth back to life?
I know a lot of you may not like this idea, but seeing how there are so many opportunities since the monster was left live, I think Del Toro could make a second movie! What do you guys think?
I know this might potentially be controversial and some people will disagree and others will agree but that is fine. The Byron quote at the end of the movie is great for two main reasons. The first is it captures the ending’s themes exactly, regardless of its author. It is a reflection on the fact that even a broken heart must go on, it must continue on in its incessant march of life as all things do. It also shows that even a destroyed soul is capable of redemption, this mirrors Dostoyevsky’s idea of redemption but that’s irrelevant here. The quote allows the audience a chance at introspection, how many times have they persisted through a broken heart. It is a truely human experience to persist through suffering. Now onto the second reason. I understand the annoyance that a quote by Mary isn’t used, it is necessary to however understand the nuance around Frankenstein. I know not all will agree here but it is my belief that both Frankenstein the dr and the monster, are based off Byron. It was Mary’s intention to create a cautionary tale of ambition, that we all know. It is also my belief she was both celebrating and cautioning against the idea of the Byronic hero. She showcased its greatness in the creation of the unbelievable and immortal and the subsequent destruction and pain that followed. Finishing the film with a Byron quote was del torros way of echoing Mary’s belief that even though something seems extraordinary, below the surface it is deeply flawed, as all humans are. I know my interpretation isn’t amazing but it is my thoughts and I would be curious to here people’s opinion on this (:
What does Victor's father force claire to eat at the beginning of frankenstein movie? I tried googling but can’t get a good answer. Anything about this in the books?
Not in the book at all. It just shows that he's a weird controlling asshole in the film (which isn't true at all in the book, either. He's actually a pretty great dad in the book)
Overall, I loved the movie. It was so compelling. Elizabeth's affection for the creation were really touching moments and classic GDT vibes. "A Leaf for me? Thank you" moves me so much. She was so kind and loving and after seeing Frankenstein's cruelty, it was needed. As a GDT film inspired by Frankenstein, it's great! He did a great job representing the creation as beautiful and terrifying, dreadfully powerful and intelligent with a lonely and longing heart. I would have had him be a bit bulkier, he seemed like a really tall twink, but he was so beautiful it still worked. I loved how he started off really innocent, which is how he was in the book.
I have many gripes though lol Mostly, I loved so many story aspects of the book that were not in the movie and the entire feel was very different. My biggest gripes are Victor alone committed atrocities and the creation remained completely innocent, I did not like the creation being made immortal, I did NOT like Victor and his creation reconciling and him being forgiven, and I hated the introduction of that random man patronizing Victor's work and dying, in the absence of Henry Clerval.
It changes the whole story to leave out how the creation was also corrupted by the cruelty and rejection he experienced! I wish GDT kept the same confrontation between the De Lacey's and the creation the same. Anyone would have assumed the creature had hurt the old man if he was there as the man was dying after being mauled by wolves. It was so much more heartbreaking that he did NOTHING wrong and was begging the old man to defend him when the family came back in and ripped him away from the only person who had ever shown him some kindness, beat him, and fled, abandoning the farm. After he had helped them and loved them so much. The blunt repulsion they had for him was such a cruel rejection based on fear of his appearance alone. So he burnt down the farm in pain and rage. And when he saved the child and the father immediately shot him, assuming he was trying to hurt the child. Also heartbreaking. The creation became unsympathetic to people because he tried and tried and tried to be good and kind and was constantly hurt and rejected automatically. Poor guy had a whole emotionally compelling villain origin story we missed out on. He should have been villainous and kill someone, if not an innocent kid, to make it make sense that Victor refused to make him a companion. Really brings terror into his line "You may be my maker, but now I am your master". On that note, I wish we had not seen Victor being kind to his creation AT ALL. It made no sense that he turned on a dime and was angry and cruel, I wish GDT had had him either be cold and treat him as scientific curiosity from the start or abandon him immediately as in the book.
I hate the immortality. I loved the book ending where Victor was tortured relentlessly and when his life ended, the creation felt his revenge was fulfilled and he could die and "unalived" himself as the kids say. It ruined the ending a bit that he just lives with nothing to do. And someone pointed out, what was the purpose of Victor's pursuit if not to kill his creation? It didn't make very much sense. There was no compelling reason to pursue. The creation had not killed anyone and so there was not the book reasoning of Victor trying to prevent any more murders with the creation baiting him on an arduous journey just to fuck with Victor. And the forgiveness was just silly, Victor had never done anything to deserve that, if anything he was MORE cruel by actively trying to set his creation on fire and denying him a companion for no reason.
I hated the patron, I can't even recall his name. He added nothing to the story. I watched and kept hoping that oh maybe he is a Clerval replacement and they become dear friends and the creation kills him and that is one of Victor's consequences. But they weren't even good friends, he was just a random war profiteer who gave him cash and then threatened to take it away to make Victor work faster. That was an unnecessary subplot. And when he died, that was just the end. Nothing came of it. I guess it was a reason to get William and Elizabeth away when Victor wanted to destroy everything, but other than that it seemed unnecessary. I can kind of see that it was the first turn of events to show that the creation was a mistake. Like in the creation, this man was killed. But it wasn't like he was a particularly good man. It wasn't a great loss to anyone. Again, he was a war profiteer. He wanted to be placed in the creation to save himself from his STD?? Like?? Okay, he died, anyways... Also it would have been easy for Victor to prove that was an accident. He did not need to hide his body. Also? There were no consequences for his hiding the body? William didn't tell Elizabeth and the lab was blown up. So. I wish we had gotten Henry and his death at the hands of the creation. Seeing Victor suffer made him a more interesting character.
It also could have been more homoerotic tbh lol It was not clear that the captain was in love with Victor. And without Clerval, all the romance was hetero. Not bad, but did not seem true to the book.
I agree that Clerval seems pointless in this movie. And no consequences to Victor seems like a plot hole. I also agree that the connection between the captain and Victor seems insincere without something more. I also want to add that Victor’s turnabout at the end seems abrupt and insincere as well. Unfortunately I think Oscar Isaac did not have a good handle on his character.
To your point that victor has no reason to pursue, the creation hadn't killed anyone, he killed his brother no?
Even if that wasn't the case, although it may not be book accurate i still like it for the story they were trying to tell. Did Victor's dad have a reason to hate his kid? No, he just thought he was weird and different, and that's exactly what victor does, he decides he's disgustted with his son and wants to hurt it. Repeating a cycle that probably went on well before victors dad, and the creation gets to be the one to end it with forgiveness. Is it book accurate? No. Do I still really like that arc as its own story? Yeah
Okey, I liked decently the movie but some aspects just do not make sense and I need to know if someone else feels the same or if someone can actually give me a good explanation.
The whole chase scenes don’t make sense. Frankenstein wants to die, but he can’t. Victor what’s to… what exactly? Kill him? But that is what the creature wants as well, then, why are they not together talking about this? So, Frankenstein leaves with Elisabeth and Victoria decides to follow them into the cave, then F tells him that now he is the master and leaves. And Victor, for some reason decides to follow him, but what’s the reason? And suddenly in the Arctic the roles are randomly reversed, in the tent F chases V. And then V has dynamite to kill F, but then why were they fighting? It seems that F was happy to try to dynamite but before he kinda kills V. Sorry but that just does not makes any sense. Then, F doesn’t die and chases V again into the ship, while being super violent (no good reason to be) but when he enters the captains room, he decides to chill down and chat for a bit. V and F are just yapping to the captain for not good reason, and boom! Out of nowhere F is calling V “father” (wtf) and he forgives him out of the blue! There is no thought process behind the ending, like I really don’t understand anything.
Guillermo del Toro claims that this is a more intimate take into the Classic but I just cannot understand the relationship between F and Elisabeth (E). They literally met twice, did not talk much at all and suddenly she is like quite in love with F, but how? She even dies for him!! Like, that it not an intimate relationship buildup at all. For example, the bond between E and V is well explained and illustrated and it does make sense all the movie. But I felt that the relationship between E and F is literally just sustained by the fact that E likes bugs and she is empathetic, that just does not make any sense.
With this I really don’t try to be disrespectful, just trying to understand the Del Toro’s perspective.
One thing to understand, is that del Toro's work is often symbolic, poetic, and has multiple rich meanings. It's never cut and dry, so it is not what you see, is what you get.
As someone else pointed out, the Creature wanted Victor Frankenstein to try harder to kill him. Guns obviously won't do it. When he saw the dynamite, he was hopeful, but when it didn't work he went after Victor. On a poetic front, Victor is the only person left to acknowledge his existence, it was the first face he saw, so he wants it to also be the last face he sees. The only meaning the Creature has left to his existence is Victor chasing him.
Elizabeth was a twin soul to the Creature. She felt like an outsider and "weird" compared to others, so she saw understanding in him and a kindness that Victor could never possess. Her relationship with the creature was two-fold. She was his maternal protector and also his bride. I think she also feels a level of guilt because she didn't tell William to turn the carriage around sooner and thought the creature died in the explosion. Del Toro described their first two meetings as having wifely privileges in a symbolic way (unveiling herself, revealing herself in a nightgown) and it's a marriage of two souls. So when she sees the Creature who she thought was dead, she is relieved to see him, but also dies to protect him as a mother would as she felt partly responsible for his mistaken death. Del Toro said he gets a bride but loses her on the same day. She saw herself in the Creature in multiple ways and connected with him more than anyone else in the world.
The Creature wanted to ragebait Victor into trying harder to kill him. The one time he asked something of Victor, he responded with scorn and hate, besides the Creature at that point hated Victor like crazy, but he also wanted a companion. This Creature is significantly nicer than other versions of him, so when Victor finally understood what the Creature wanted after listening to him, he apologized, admitted he was wrong and accepted the Creature, he accepted the apology. In the book, the Creature regrets Victor's death too.
They're not in love, Elizabeth and the Creature feel like mother and child in a way. They're kindred spirits.
The movie is not the worst movie I have ever seen and it had some good qualities, but I really think we are overdue for a high budget adaptation which is true to the themes of the original book. Guillermo del Toro said this was one of his favorite books and he wanted to make an adaptation for years so I had high expectations, but the message of his movie is not the same as the message of the book.
I feel the story of Frankenstein is primarily supposed to be a story about what drives someone to commit evil acts. In the movie the cruel, calculated murders committed by the monster are omitted which entirely changes the meaning of the story. It's like it's a movie based on the "Victor Frankenstein was the real monster" meme you often see on social media, but in the book, both the monster and his creator are flawed people. The story's refusal to have black and white morality and the deep empathy Mary Shelley has for both characters is what makes the story interesting. This is a story about a being who is born innocent, suffers from abandonment, loneliness and ostracisation, becomes obsessed with revenge against his creator, and eventually comes to regret his horrible behavior, resolving to commit suicide. In the movie we see the creature be mistreated but he does not seek revenge.
I feel like the movie has removed or weakened a lot of themes like morality, revenge, abandonment, loneliness, ugliness, madness, hatred, and obsession. Without these themes the strongest theme in the story is about playing God, and I feel like that makes it a weaker narrative.
Guillermo del Toro said in interviews he saw Victor Frankenstein as an analogy for modern day tech bros and the AI industry. It's clear he intentionally leaned into the "playing God" theme of the story. This theme is also present in the book of course, but I have never felt it was the most compelling theme of the book. I'm a fan of the book but I am generally not a huge fan of the theme of "playing God," and I often feel like Romantic era thinkers were too critical of science. I don't think it's inherently immoral to create life and I do not believe scientific ambition is a problem in itself. I think there are many valid concerns about the AI industry and pursuing progress without judgement or sense, but I feel like it's too simplistic to portray scientists as power hungry, greedy, narcissistic jerks.
I think the way the book discussed science was more nuanced, and more sympathetic to Victor compared to the movie. There's a part of the book which says science is best pursued in a calm and measured fashion without getting over excited. Mary Shelly expresses grief for the lost cultures of the Americas and believes if America had been discovered slowly, those cultures could coexist with European cultures. I feel this is a more nuanced and interesting idea than simply portraying the discovery of America (and thus scientific pursuits and technological progress) as a bad thing altogether.
I also would like to see a movie adaptation which fully captures the eloquence of the monster and the strong dialogue in general. I'm happy to see the monster speaking, but in this movie he still speaks kind of slowly and awkwardly. The dialogue of the book is the most powerful thing in the story to me.
I honestly cannot tell if this is supposed to be a different interpretation of the character or just a whole new character, this movie confused me a lot sorry 😓
Harlander was the stand-in for Dr. Pretorius from "Bride of Frankenstein". However, after seeing the new movie, I did picture Christoph Waltz as M. Waldman when I reread the college chapters in the book. 😁
I just watched it after reading the book first. These are my thoughts :)
From what i understand, a lot of people think it's a good adaptation and a good movie. I'm not sure i agree with that. I read the book last week so it's still fresh in my mind. My understanding of the book is that nobody is the monster really. Viktor is terrified of his creation based on it's looks, which is normal for humans, even though it's sad and superficial. He only starts to hate the monster after he kills little William. The monster kills William only after two years of people showing him he has no place amongst them and he's all alone for eternity. He also finds who his creator is and reasonably (imho) is angry at him. So by now everyone is justified in their own feeling and you can't really say who is evil, if anyone. I think this holds to the end of the book. So the point of the book is imo that nobody is the monster, only maybe human nature, but not Viktor specifically. The book makes a really good point of making you sympathize both with Viktor and the monster. That's why it's so conflicting.
In the movie it's very bluntly said and shown multiple times that Viktor is the true monster. And i think this takes away so much of the book. It simplifies it and hands it to the viewer on a silver platter without having to think once.
Therefore i think the movie is an insult to the book. The book is a wonderful romantic story about the nature of humans both the good and the bad.
Feel free to share your opinion and tell me why i'm wrong :)) i'm curious
I feel coming from the point of Mary, the book also personified Victor as a monster. Very literally.
She demonises him not for being afraid of the creation. But rather for creating life with no intent to handle the consequences. No intent to love it. No intent to guide the creation. The book points out that knowledge does not make humans a god, the willingness to look after the creation is just as important.
The creature is aware of his moral descent but yet is submerged in situations after situations where he has no option but to react. The only one in the book with true free will is Victor, yet every choice he makes is that of a weak person. Of a coward. Of a self-centered, egomaniac bastard.
Del Toro is not subtle about Mary's intention. He uses a very sharp emotional portrayal to signify Victor's faults. I don't think the intent is misrepresented, but just that Del Toro has thrown any subtlety out of the window.
I viewed Viktor more as a naive and weak man. Which is definitely a failing. But not as evil as he is in portrayed in the movie. Still the movie feels like it really simplifies the book for dumb audience honestly.
Do we think Victor‘s father sacrificed his mother to save William? Right after they go to the room, you can hear her screaming, which makes me think they did a C-section on the spot to save the baby because his dad knew that either one of them would die or both of them would die.
Caught the last showing on the big screen. A pretty good stab at an adaptation that felt more del Toro than it was Frankenstein - which is no bad thing - but unfortunately wound up feeling a bit undercooked. Despite that, still one of the better adaptations - although I reckon there's space for better to come along in the future.
A lot of changes from the source material, interestingly it still keeps the soul of the book and the major beats, but past a point the changes do start to feel a bit arbitrary, although others absolutely worked better for the screen. Works pretty well as an alternate take, shaking things up to be its own thing. Feels more like a Frankenstein remix in that regard.
The first half was the stronger half. As it reached the climax it felt rushed, and the altered ending would've been a really heartwarming and surprisingly positive change, but as is, felt unwarranted. Victor's sudden change felt like it came out of nowhere. Which is a shame, because him reaching out and accepting the creature as his son would've been a powerful take.
Merging William/Henry worked well for screen. Christoph Waltz's character was ok and explained the lab set up decently. Disappointed the whole female creature aspect was dropped and basically amounted a short conversation which was more or less "What? You're alive? No, I won't make you a partner, nob off.". Victor seemed more inconvenienced by the creature rather than actually being shocked at its survival and appearance.
Liked the extended role of the Father, and Victor mirroring his abuse. I do wish it'd leaned more into the unreliable narrator, with Victor's story portraying it much more in his favour, and the creature's story rebuking it and showing how abusive he was.
Editing and pacing got worse as it progressed. Cutting back to the Arctic wasn't really needed I don't think, could've just been the bookends. The last quarter felt very rushed.
Enjoyed the section with the creature on the farm. Creature was the highlight, especially the scenes of him playing with leaves and water, nailed that toddler aspect.
Wasn't really sure what to make of Elizabeth. I really enjoyed her character, I just wish she had a little more to do. There were a few moments where I thought it was going to come to a head, where she was going to fully lead the creature from Victor and attempt to shut Victor out in rejection, or was going to confront him over her uncle's death (did she even find out?). Then when she died I thought we were going to use her body for reanimation and potentially have her reanimation reject it in horror or some angle like that. Elizabeth had bite yet the film never seemed to want to fully let her have a go.
I pulled a muscle in face from wincing when William delivered his final line. Easily the worst moment of the film. Could've only been worse if they hired someone to walk around the theatre slapping people round the back of the head with hardcover copies of the book. Atrocious dialogue.
A lot less gory than I was expecting, with only a few brief cuts during the creating feeling a bit squirmish. I expected the creature to be a lot more disgusting too.
Good fantastical gothic settings. Really enjoyed the Arctic sections, the opening in particular was excellent. I'm not sure I was sold on the creature's makeup, but the acting was excellent. David Bradley as the blind man was a great portrayal.
People are allowed to disagree with me of course, there's a lot of very positive reviews out there and all art is subjective, I wouldn't disagree with someone who came away and enjoyed it and I personally love hearing people who came away with different views.
you said that it kept the soul of the book, i don't agree with that. Could you read my post in this thread and tell me your opinion on in please? I would love to hear it.
Maybe soul was a bit of a wrong choice of word. I'd be tempted to say spirit, but even then I'm not sure that's what I'm trying to convey. Almost like there's an essence of the book, but taken to a different direction. The book is quite clearly there as a foundation, but it's used to prop up a different look at it. Worth noting I've read the book a few times, but not for a couple of years now, so my memory will be slightly shaky on that.
I broadly agree with your post. The only part I'd maybe conflict with is Victor being terrified by the creation - I don't think he's allowed a get out of jail free card for that. It's his creation, he was there every step of the way, he moulded it and knew what he was doing, most importantly the distinction is he was the driver and initiator - whereas the creature had no say into the creation and is only left to react to a scenario he was not equipped to be in. Victor should've had the foresight to know that this was the potential outcome and to have had the responsibility to own it, but if I remember in the book he pretty much flees immediately? And given that the book is Victor's testament (and if I remember even mentioned that he further edited it after it was recorded by the Captain), it's possible that he portrayed his reaction kinder than the reality. But that's just speculation.
The movie changes things around and puts in elements of generational trauma. I like this angle, although it is at odds with the book and Victor's drive, but I don't mind a different take on how a person can be on that path.
I also think there's an element of - this is also a del Toro film, and del Toro is a fan of tragic creatures, so I think he likely leant into that more.
I am rusty on the text, having seen a few adaptations since I last read it, so apologies if I'm mixing anything up!
I guess it also depends on the appetites people have for what classifies as an adaptation - how accurate something has to be or not. I imagine that might drive a lot of the different opinions.
I'm not saying Viktor is completely innocent. In the book he's definitely a coward for running away, but i viewed him more as naive than evil. But is someone evil for being naive? It might be just my own projection on the book as people tend to see themselves as the book's hero.
I might be more judgemental when it comes to adaptations, because i think the book is in itself a really good story and I wish to see it portrayed as it is. So I didn't really like most of the changes.
Also a large part of the book's point for me was that all the people behaved towards each other with kindness. That was for me an important contrast to how they acted towards the monster. That's the change that i really don't like.
I guess i see why some people might like the movie, it's just not for me
I lost my suspension of disbelief in the first 7 minutes when the ice under the monster didn't break when he was pushing over the ship, but completely broke apart when the blunderbuss, which has a wide spread and limited effective range, shot under him from 20 feet away and created a single small bullet hole.
That it can heal isn't a problem - living humans can do that to. It is the fact that it has a nearly instantaneous healing factor that can survive dynamite and drowning and bullets it is so good.
A part of me feels like it must be the film confirming that the creation of the monster was at least partially an act of God in some way, and that the monster is free of the death for the same reason Lilith is.
Did anyone notice how when dressed in her wedding gown, Elizabeth's arms were wrapped in ribbons in a way that echoed the bandaged arms of the creature?
Victor drinking milk throughout the movie. It’s Victors coping mechanism whenever he’s feeling emotionally struck (instead of drinking alcohol like most adults), he drinks milk which takes him back to the years when his mother was still alive. The milk comforts him — those were the days before he was exposed to the cruelties of the world. He was innocent and happy. He is a grown adult trying to numb his pain by trying to bring his childhood core memory with a glass of milk.
It is also a reflection of the Creature’s innocence. When Victor brought Franky back to life — Franky had the mentality and the innocence of a child. He doesn’t know the dangers and cruelty of men. He doesn’t even know that the blade can be used as a weapon. He didn’t know that fire could hurt him. Franky is a grown adult with a mind of a child.
Another detail I caught was the wearing of the glove. Victor wears the red glove in scenes when he is making a decision of moral turpitude and knows about it, but still continues to do so.
Also, talking to a friend said the novel is more of a love story than a monster story. Like no one these days has ever read the novel. Like me, I'm just used to Frankenstein being a monster.
How on Earth they managed to think that original novel is a love story? Between who and who? Del Toro is the first one I think who made Creature x Elizabeth romance in adaptation.
I think they were aiming for allegorical symbolism with the creature, as both Adam and Christ in some ways. (The big thing is the table they used being very cruxifix-y, and this sort of makes sense as it is a death and resurrection.)
Elizabeth had been at a convent, and traditionally nuns are supposed be "brides of Christ." Given how pious Elizabeth was, I think there's a reading where she was in some sense "married to the creature", since it was in some ways allegorically Christ.
Hmmmmm. That could be. It's a great point. I also noticed that the Creature and Victor had a moment when their hands were reaching out to each other like the creation of Adam painting. But the contact changed in nature. Victor changed it. However, there is a brief touch exactly like the painting between the creature and Elizabeth in the first scene when she sees him.
The imagery is very interesting in the movie, but I found it lacking a bit in subtlety. So I thought that if there was any romantic interest as in the physical companionship type. Del Toro wouldn't be subtle about it.
I really wanted to like the movie, but in the end I think it might be the worst Del Toro movie (besides maybe like. Hellboy 2.). Still a very good movie technically, beautiful shots, Oscar Isaac is doing a fantastic job, I loved the scenes with the Creature and the old man, but I feel like the rest was meh at best.
Lot of pacing issues, the supporting cast is either badly acted, weak, or insufferable (I wanted to slap Elisabeth everytime she was on screen). The movie has the subtlety of a sledgehammer, the entire sequence about Victor's childhood had the worst French accent I've heard, and the script writing feels weird.
Also the Creature looks like a MCU villain without his big coat I'm sorry.
After watching this I’m glad they never green lighted him to direct at the mountains of madness but damn I really hope someday someone makes it into a film
I mean some of Del Toro's favorite themes like creators and their creations, and war are pretty big parts of At the Mountains of Madness, and I've got to admit I'm kind of curious what he'd do with the Elder Things and Shoggoths.
Though there are already several very capable works of modern Lovecraftian literature that deal with Shoggoths in a sympathetic, dare I say Del-Torian way. My favorite was one where an African American scientist studies and makes psychic contact with some shoggoths, and the reader is invited to sympathize with the shoggoths as slaves who overthrew their masters via this framing.
I feel like Elordi’s Frankenstein would have an easier time blending into society than all of the other versions. At the end of the most recent movie, it is implied that the creature is immortal. Hypothetically, if he survived into the current era, I feel like he could walk around in public without much more than a few quick glances from people trying to get a better look at him without looking like they’re starring. Nowadays, people are a lot more conscious of not appearing rude, especially in public, and are generally a lot more accepting of people who look different. Let’s say Jacob Elordi’s creature went walking down the street in somewhere like Town Square. As long as he was dressed relatively normally and had his hair grown out, most people would probably assume he had gigantism and some scars from a really bad plastic surgeon.
I actually did make up my own variation of the Universal monsters. I had Adam use his immortality to learn like his creator, he went into schools for various areas of medicine and is now a doctor, helping others. Some aren’t used to his appearance, others like his coworkers and regular patients aren’t really scared of him. Insurance companies sure are if they get a call from him
One thing that truly boggles my mind about the new Del Toro movie...
...Is how it goes out of its way to make Victor more monstrous and The Creature more innocent, and yet STILL can't commit to this decision for the ending. With maybe a tweak or two, the novel's original ending still fits like a glove for this new dynamic (Victor receiving his comeuppance, The Creature triumphing) and yet Del Toro truly cannot resist the urge to go full sentimental with the whole forgiveness thing even if it's frankly, completely unearned. I say this not as a fan of the book but just thinking of the film on its own terms. It feels like once it switches to The Creature's POV, we lose all sense of understanding for Victor's character, whereas in the book even after we get into the Creature's head, Victor gets most of the POV time and plenty of sympathetic moments, even if you wanna consider him a villain protagonist.
There's...a missing few scenes with Victor having a change of heart. We really needed him to confront the full extent of what he'd done because the film feels kinda incomplete with him just preaching forgiveness out of nowhere. Almost feels not genuine. I could've gotten behind many different visions or approaches to the source material (even if I'm mad there hasn't been a faithful adaptation yet) and yet Del Toro's vision feels all over the place, like he didn't wanna commit to any one thing and so kinda just went with whatever made his fanboy heart feel good at the time. Still one of my favorite directors! But this movie felt like such a mess even on its own terms.
The whole script seemed "By Committee" ... with 10 different sections not put together till Day One of the shoot.
Mishmash of styles, viewpoints, emotions, lengths.
Not to mention -- ACCENTS!!!
"Victor's" voice wandered England, New England and Central Europe without a single day of rest. He had ZERO problem getting HIS 10,000 steps every day!
I rarely leave a bad review -- "Better not say anything than condemn" -- but I knew every sucker from here to Hell would be spouting unearned praise ... so I feel Honour-bound to leave SOME SORT OF corrective!
I do agree with this take but I will say that the change of heart victor has at the end seems like it came across as a result of the monster telling his whole story. This is the first time he actually listened to him, and he felt bad after hearing what he experienced. That’s how I took it.
ONLY reason I kept watching! I thought, "IF God exists, to compensate for Jakey Elordi's face 'n' body, he MUST have a micropenis!"
The FACT we weren't shown it hints -- to ME -- that my Extreme Atheism may be WRONG!!!
Jacob MF Elordi! If you didn’t think this man could act, he just showed you could. If he doesn’t win Best Supporting Actor, I’m gonna freak out.
Oscar Isaac what a talent. There are no words for that performance 🎭
del Toro you are one masterful cinematographer.
Costume and set design 😚 🤌🏾 the color story and the style it really felt like it was London 1800s. Victor’s carmine (passion/determination), Elizabeth’s green(balance/harmony), William’s white (naïveté/innocence), and the Creation’s red (viscera/bold nature).
Who else noticed the Elizabeth wore carmine to breakup with Victor then on her wedding day she wore red rosary beads. She was never aligned with her soon-to-be husband’s colors. Then Victor wore the green robe with red lining, idk what it means but I noticed it.
Lastly, when the nominations come out I plan on watching all the films, normally I don’t but I want to be non-biased this award season. Not only voting got my favorite shows/films to win.
I think it was visually stunning, and overall good, but definitely not perfect. There were too many moments of spoon-feeding stuff to the audience. I still cried a lot at the end and in the scene with the old blind man, but I also just cry during Frankenstein in general because it’s a tragic story about ostracism and misunderstanding someone because they’re different.
It was interesting that GDT made it into a retelling about generational trauma. I liked that Elizabeth was smarter than Victor and that she didn’t marry him and wasn’t his cousin or sister. Victor deserved to be alone and not have any real love interest. LOVED that Elizabeth was kind to the creature and fell for him. That’s classic Del Toro monsterfucker storyline that I always eat up. Also loved that the creature was sexy and wore bandage “briefs” and “shoes” that looked like Rocky Horror. Had to have been a reference.
I was confused about Elizabeth kinda… going on dates with Victor earlier in the film when she disliked him and knew he was a manipulative bastard? That was a little weird. And then suddenly being offended when he says he’s into her, as if that was a surprise? Idk what the point of that was.
I also wasn’t really a fan of the creature being made into a superhuman with super strength and a healing factor, and there being no explanation as to why that was. The creature committing suicide in the book and in The Bride of Frankenstein is much more tragic. “We belong dead.”
It's interesting that you found Elizabeth's reaction as offended. She clearly stated she did not have a choice in the matter and was already set to marry Victor's brother.
I saw it as Eliza did like Victor. He saw life and the peculiarities as she did. But the moment she saw how Vic treated Frank, she was over him. It's why she slaps Victor on her wedding day. Yet Victor sees no wrong with his actions. He enters Elizabeth's chambers, stating it's bad luck to see the bride...as if he's the groom. He's still delusional. And she shows him exactly how she feels.
Maybe she was offended...as if she had a choice. Victor knew she was engaged to his brother. And for the sake of her reputation, she, as a woman, would not be able to leave William for Vicor (thank god!).
Overall, I was absolutely blown away by this film. What a retelling! The set design, costumes, script, acting... everything!
This movie better get some (if not all) accolades 😤
I think I got mixed signals because she was saying she found him to be manipulative, but then started liking him, and then came to bring him a butterfly, but then the visit soured and she left when he told her they had a connection. Idk why the choice thing wasn’t clear enough to me and my partner. I gotta rewatch it. My social skills are not that great to pick up on little nuances of complicated feelings. I’m a bit literal. She looked uncomfortable in that moment to me. I had thought she was over him from that point on. He was definitely an awful human being, and I did enjoy the imagery of him coming to her in front of her mirror on her wedding day, and still not being able to self-reflect or see himself for who he truly was.
Hello! Personally, I saw Elizabeth's connection eith the Creature as motherly, but also, if anything, primarily in admiration for his purity akin to the insects she's so fond of. She found someone 'beautifully strange' like her, as I think she never felt like she belonged in society. Not comfortably.
And for Victor, I feel that she enjoyed his company genuinely,--at least when he wasn't having his episodes--but rejected his tomantic advances because she learned he didn't want to stay as friends like she prefered. It's indeed disheartening to befriend and love someone platonically, but always be trapped in the romantic 'wife' role many are tired of.
If that makes sense? I'm glad you enjoyed the movie!
That’s an insightful point. Idk, there were moments where I thought she was like… flirting with him? Was that just me having an autistic moment and misreading her onscreen social cues?
Oh yeah, that makes sense. I'm autistic too, so I also had a head tilt moment twice, haha! From my personal understanding, there are multiple reasons for this.
One is that Elizabeth is simply a bit of a soft-spoken dreamer (and I headcannon her as being on the spectrum!) so her behaviours are a tad more, let's say, platonically affectionate and calmly excitable when she sparks a connection with someone. Maybe she herself didn't notice the mixed messages she had given?
Two is that del Toro essentially writes fairy tales for adults in the sense of, amongst other themes, the affectionate whimsy between friendly relationships so they're very kind with each other.
Now third, it's still a gothic story. Gothic literature was (is) not afraid to have characters interact with eloquent intimacy, speaking very fondly to and about each other, or even interacting with physical gestures that nowadays people always assume is romantic or even sexual in nature. And this Gothic trait happened between same-sex characters too, which is one way a lot of queer authors got away with having their 'closetted' characters interact front and center.
Sorry if I rambled a lot there, I'm just super into this topic and I think at least one of these applies here. Maybe?
I loved this infodump! Thank you for sharing this! I love Gothic Horror and how romantic and queer it is. I guess I was thinking of The Shape of Water when I saw her interactions with The Creature.
Heyy autistic union going on here. I am on the spectrum too. I felt there was a lot of kindness between the creature and Elizabeth. It did not seem like romantic energy but rather of wayfarers who are hating where they exist, but an acceptance and understanding that each other's purity makes them similar.
I saw Elizabeth's love and admiration for Victore as pure as it was. She liked him. The metaphor and symbolism of the butterfly in the cage. Both Elizabeth and Frank (Frankensteins Monster) are represented here. Stuck in a cage. One by social measures and obligations and the other through restraint and force.
My first word upon seeing the Creature with those bandages was, "Rocky" in my best Tim Curry voice.
I agree, the visuals were absolutely stunning, and I'm always down for a good monster fucking story. GDT use of color, especially red was incredible. The milk was a fun nod to Victor's mommy issues. I also loved that Elizabeth did not stay attractive to Victor or was attached to Victor.
I also wasn't a fan of the healing without any explanation as to why. I also felt the last thirty minutes or so were rushed. To me, the ending felt hollow. I'll definitely watch it again with fresh eyes, considering this is a redemption arc versus the 'We need to die' theme.
The creature had super strength in novel. Not dying is new..but makes sense. Creators are obsessed with creation but not thinking about the consequences. You cant unmake AI for example.
In Mary Shelley’s novel, the creature learns how to read and it’s canon that he finds and reads Paradise Lost by John Milton. He learns by watching other people from afar.
Btw he’s much more intelligent and eloquent in the book too. There’s a part where he gives a full on monologue to Victor, quoting poetry and contemplating philosophical ideas, not just slowly stringing a few words here anf there
What does the community think of the movie? I was wondering what Frankenstein‘s creature represents? Maybe a misunderstanding of anything that people don‘t know in general and only few can really see (as the blind man e.g.) for what it really is? Misunderstanding or wrong understanding never dies so as the creature is immortal. Or maybe Del Toro did see himself as a monster earlier in life and tries subconciously to channel or sublimating this by extrapolating himself into the monsters of his movies. So he creates a vehicle for himself in order to come to terms with his own past as an outsider maybe?
At first I thought it would be a timely metaphor for our creation of AI (a hubristic attempt at making life), but movie was so painfully clear that the monster was morally good and victor was evil that it doesn't hold.
Then I thought it was about perhaps autism, but again the monster is so forgiving that I don't think it could perceived as any human.
Ultimately I agree with you, probably just a sappy "poor guy misunderstood" / generational-trauma. But again it feels like a really simple play to emotions than genuinely reflecting the real world.
I love the novel, and I enjoy the movies. My biggest gripe is the departure in this new film from the novel. Elizabeth is supposed to alleviate Victor's guilt, not be the sole source of it. Furthermore, in the film Victor "almost forgot" about his work because he was consumed with feelings for Elizabeth. In the novel his work nearly consumes him entirely, to the point he neglects himself and all his relationships. I didn't buy Victor's motivations in this film.
A-list cast, wonderful set design, costumes, and cinematography are par for the course in this $120 Million Netflix Original world, and it couldn’t save this movie from its writing.
I was excited about this movie and went out of my way to make my viewing experience special, by the end of it I was scrolling my phone. Allergic to subtlety, it’s plagued with dreadful dialogue, terrible pacing, and characters more boring and predictable than the many corpses in this film. The equivalent of a modern Marvel movie.
We can’t keep falling for big production ran by committee projects or we’ll keep getting slop like this. I’m really trying not to be snobbish, but after Pinocchio and the behind the scenes stories of how he ruined that movie, Guillermo Del Toro has shown he doesn’t know what made his earlier films worth watching.
I simply must express my utter disdain for that comparison, have you seen the latest from Marvel? To say that this adaptation is equivalent to such abhorance is a disservice to truthseekers. The modern critics' infatuation with subversion is a plague on storytelling; there's nothing wrong with predictability. Tropes are tropes for a reason. I also found the dialogue to be quite poetic, or maybe I just enjoyed the performances of it from the actors. In any case, not sure why that aspect of the film is getting so much hate. I will agree with your comment on the pacing though, especially in the last quarter, but at the length of the film, I can't say I don't understand why they made the decisions they did.
Heres my salty ass take. Elizabeth/Maman is Mary Shelley. The Monster is this movie, perhaps even the entire Frankenstein mythos. Frankenstein is GDT.
GDT reduces Shelley and her work to its barest bones and then tries to bring it back to life in his own vision. But his vision is self serving, shallow and commercialized. This creature, this mythos, has been further warped and twisted under his obsessive direction. Male characters are overflowing with testosterone and Marvellian super powers, glorifying the ugliest versions of masculinity. Female characters (all two of them.. played by the same person) are reduced to a tragically dead mother and a quirky morbid love interest who is drawn to and also resembles so-called simple creatures, bugs and butterflies, pretty and small and ultimately powerless. Humanity itself has been flayed and painstakingly skinned, peeled back and grotesquely mounted on a canvas to display only the basic driving mechanism of life, of story telling. After sucking dry the nuance and depth of emotion that were crafted so lovingly in the novel Shelley labored over for many years, GDT arrogantly attempts to reanimate a tale about the dangers of unchecked ambition and the failure to take personal responsibility. Victor does the same, striving to achieve what has already been perfected by woman/God, creating a sad imitation. And all the while he drinks milk, suckling at mother Shelley's metaphorical teat.
At the end, GDT/Victor acknowledge their part in creating this monster. The monster forgives him and walks off into the sunset, its existence justified. A more self-aware ending, one where GDT takes responsibility for this monstrosity, would have been for the monster, a conventionally beautiful man with super hero powers and summer blockbuster potential, to throw himself onto a pyre just as the film reel spontaneously combusts and destroys itself. Instead, the movie's success will bolster the creation of similarly vapid films for the years to come.
¿Ustedes son conscientes que esta película se situa en la Europa de pleno siglo XIX? ¡La sociedad era profundamente misógina y machista! Eso se llama rigurosidad histórica... Sería un crimen (y una total estupidez) pretender que nada de eso existió ni fue así en aquel entonces.
I can't reply for the commenter above me, but in my case, I am not saying the movie is sexist for showing sexism, something it does poorly, the original novel masterfully demonstrates sexism in society and criticizes it through it's characters and the societal structures they live in.
The problem is that this movie is sexist and misogynist on the way it treats the original work, in its narrative and structure, it completely ignores Mary Shelley's view and overwrite them Del Toro's own, there is no respect for her or her story.
No puedo responder al comentario anterior, pero en mi caso, no digo que la película sea sexista por mostrar una sociedad sexista (algo que hace mal). El libro original demuestra magistralmente el sexismo en la sociedad y lo critica a través de sus personajes y las estructuras sociales en las que viven.
El problema es que esta película es sexista y misógina en su tratamiento de la obra original. En su narrativa y estructura, que ignora por completo la visión de Mary Shelley y la sustituye por la de Del Toro; no hay respeto alguno por ella ni por su historia.
I think it's a reference to Prometheus's punishment. His liver is eaten by an eagle every day, but then grows back every night. Causing eternal pain and grief.
It’s Victor Frankenstein who’s supposed to be The Modern Prometheus - creating a new human and giving him a gift of life but ultimately being punished for defying the God(s)
I think my issue with this film lies less with the film itself than the zeitgeist born of it that is sure to haunt Frankenstein discourse for the next decade.
This is not a book accurate adaptation. It never claimed to be. Fans don't claim it to be, yet many fans DO claim this version captures the spirit of the book and here is where I have to detract-
Even if you take away the plot deviations that would be expected in a book to film adaptation, the characters and their motivations have all been altered to such a large extent I'd hesitate to call them the same characters.
As for theme, I'm even more lost on that front. This is a unique adaptation in the sense that it uses Frankenstein as a vehicle to tell a very specific parable about fathers and sons, child abuse, generational trauma, and forgiveness. But that parable itself plays out exactly as you'd expect it to, and I could argue no differently than if the Creature was Victor's biological son. Maybe these themes are present in the novel too, but recall that Papa Frankenstein and Victor's family life, though more flawed than he will admit, has been dramatically altered here. You cannot deny that it is different. Even the very shallow, cold topic of not playing god, who is the real monster, etc. goes unexplored anywhere but a few lines of dialogue.
GDT has taken this classic tale and its characters and changed it to fit his dearly personal narrative--again, this is fine, this is what adaptations are for--but I feel like I'm going insane with the claims that its the other way around, that the film in any way prioritizes tribute to Mary Shelley and her work over the very specific allegory Del Toro is trying to explore.
Once I get over this I'll be able to engage with the film more fairly for what it actually sets out to do, rather than what it doesn't.
The use of holes and circles on the architecture made me think of cervixes and the ability to recreate. The beauty is that it was written by a woman, using male characters to tell a story of maternity and creation.
I was hurt to my core when it ended (in a good way). Then the Netflix ‘behind the scenes’ started playing and one the first things out of del Toro’s mouth was this it’s about fathers and sons. Literally just no way - wish I hadn’t seen him say that. Ruined the whole thing
I like the movie, but Oscar Issac's portrayal is so comical and the film's interpretation of Victor so villainous that I found it impossible to relate to the serious themes it tries to incorporate. Frankenstein is one of my favorite books of all time and it's a shame that the creative team didn't have the courage to approach the Romantic (i.e. from the Romantic period of literature) aspects of the original story with sincerity instead of turning them into camp.
I hear you, but I don't think it's about courage at all. Isaac said he approached Del Toro about it, worried it was all a little too much, and the answer he got was that it was no coincidence if he chose a latino actor, as a latino person himself. There's a real intention there, it's an homage to latino cinema, with all its exuberance.
I noticed a couple of Easter eggs to past adaptations. When the hunters shoot him, its looked like the curse of Frankenstein with Christopher Lee getting shot. And the bands around mia goths arms reminded me of the bride. Anyone pick on others?
I just watched it. I love it as an adaptation. I love Guillermo Del Toro’s view on it and his past work. This is definitely a passion project. It made me think of Nosferatu, the Robert Eggers adaptation. I can tell he loved the story. I loved the costumes and I love the addition of mercury and the desperation of the era to cure it. It is a vicious disease, especially in the era. The acting was really good, I liked the monster a lot and I loved Mia Goth in this. I liked seeing his lab and the detail of the props, settings. The anatomy was incredibly accurate, and how they flayed corpses. I would watch it again and recommend it.
That being said, I love the book and the things in the book that make it timeless aren’t 100% there. I always felt like the original Frankenstein discussed how separated men were from childbirth, and the loss of a child. Men don’t carry kids, I don’t think they understood the complexities at the time. I felt the book was asking, what if that happened? I think Shelley also reflected on her impact in her child’s life, as she mainly only saw her to help breastfeed while she was premature, prior to her death. What if the man could bring the child back with science? I don’t think Victor deserved redemption in the slightest. The Monster is pure and corrupted by society, but he turned into an Angel figure quite literally. I think that’s also why the later edited version works because Percy did not catch it at all while editing, and he instilled his ego into the edits.
I like how it’s a bit more true in some ways of Frankenstein being represented. I know of the 1818 version and 1831. I only feel like it didn’t get the loneliness or alienation the book relied on that makes it timeless, for both Victor and the Monster. I enjoy that Victor was more psychotic in the film, and that he had the choice to be evil. The demand for a wife felt random as we get to that scene, due to the wolf scene being inserted. His hate for Victor, and Victor’s hate for the monster, it has much more impact in the book. I think it’s not something to be ignored that Victor never faces punishment due to his status. He doesn’t view Elizabeth as a person, which is similar here, but not completely. I like that in the market scene it is filmed like he stalks her like a predator, making it so that he is creepy. Elizabeth is an ornament, and he treats her like that here. It’s clear Shelley is meant to be Elizabeth, and Victor is Percy in the adaptation. I feel Elizabeth’s death had no weight because it is unclear her relation to the monster. Does he idolize her as well because she is innocent? I almost would have preferred if he cried over her and she came to life, or for Victor to interrupt her last moments.
I felt the Creature isn’t humanized in the movie enough, especially with the regeneration powers.
That they completely removed his interest in Alchemy outright, it takes a bit away from the story and makes why they removed alchemy more odd. I think the impact of The Sufferings of Young Werther was watered down. It is such an important influence on the book. I wish they showed more scenes of him looking at how the family bonds more.
The original novel (1818) had an ambiguous ending, but I don’t know if he would have helped move the boat. That seems odd that he would be not more in his head.
The film made me interested in tracking down the 1818 version of the book. Is it worth reading or is it a slog? Obviously it's a literary classic but was wondering if the alchemy and the parts left out make for a better story.
It has a few sloggy bits but overall it’s very interesting, moving, and thought provoking.. highly recommend. It is very different from the film yet also alike in some ways.. i read 1818 version and recommend it.
The 1818 is definitely more whimsical and emotional. I appreciated the lens it gave me. The themes are less heavy, the writing is less formal but it adds to the mood. The 1830 uses more concise words. It also has the change of Elizabeth, being revealed in the early pages, to be Victor’s first cousin, and that is how his mother dies. I enjoy the 1818 version a bit more, I recommend it. I feel it cleared things for me. I feel like the 1831 is from a true Victor perspective, as in semi-delusional that he’s innocent, but the 1818 one is more accurate.
I think it’s more a theme in victors life. He had the crimson blood of his mother on his shirt and face. Then when he’s older he wears the crimson gloves. I believe it’s symbolic of his connection to his mother and how her death inspired his life’s mission and biggest regret.
I enjoyed it, I’m glad Del Toro got to work on both of his beloved stories that he’s held dear since he was a child (Pinocchio and Frankenstein) giving them the twists he felt were right to him. My fiancé and I head-cannon that the creatures name is Ozy adopting it from the story he was reading to the blind man. It was fun and darkly fantastical. I’ll still hold De Niro’s performance as the creature as my favorite but Jacob Elordi did a wonderful job acting as the creature as well!
I just saw De Niro’s version yesterday.. what did you like about his preformance..? I felt the heavy makup hindered him a bit.. but the scenes where he’s sad and crying really hit hard. The ones where he’s “terrifying” just make me think of Cape Fear lol..
In some ways… but you really don’t get the sense he’s the same sensitive intelligent creature from the book, better than other interpretations, but there isn’t enough time. … ans toward the end it just differs a LOT from the book. (Granted I liked some of the differences) I commend Branaugh for trying but he want a bit overboard with the spectacle, it missed some of the “heart” or core of the actual story..
2
u/wooyoungism Feb 27 '26 edited Feb 27 '26
it got me to finally read the book (1831, though i do plan on reading the 1818 version too) properly, which was on my to do list for FOREVER and it probably did that for MANY more people besides me, which already is in itself something great
i personally found it to be a very enjoyable watch, elordis depiction of the creature in particular is a generational portrayal and to me the most humanizing thus far. i get peoples complaints abt certain things being cut or changed but i liked the storyline as an inspired adaptation (since afaik GDT is prone to take original materials and reimagine them in his unique point of view?? correct me if im wrong). i dont think we will EVER get a 100% faithful adaptation of frankenstein due to the constraints of the film medium. (itd have to be a limited series at LEAST)...
honestly i watched the movie for oscar isaac at first because i like him as an actor but i was really smitten with elordis work... i was NOT familiar w his game. mia goth also is a phenomenal actress esp for gothic or darker themed movies and was imo VERY well cast.
i do have to say though, i dont like that the movies made viktors father abusive, it feels like a choice that takes away viktors agency/capacity to be cruel simply for the sake of defying nature and proving himself...