- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein
Posted on 11/10/25 at 7:21 am to Richleau
Posted on 11/10/25 at 7:21 am to Richleau
Thought it was solid. I saw a lot of people comparing it to Nosferatu so that's what I went into it expecting but it's not nearly as dark as Nosferatu. It's more dark fantasy than gothic horror. It's definitely a Del toro film. Has that pans labyrinth feel to it. The last hour is definitely the best part when you get the story from the monsters perspective. Oscar Isaac crushes and that kid Jacob Alordi from euphoria plays the monster feel like he's a legit actor he's been great in everything I've seen him in. The first half I was kinda like “this is ok” but once I settled in and accepted it for what it was (haven’t seen any Del toro in a long time) it started to grow on me.
I will say the monster looked a bit to pretty/human, though
I will say the monster looked a bit to pretty/human, though
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 7:40 am
1
Posted on 11/10/25 at 7:36 am to Richleau
I enjoyed it.
The monster looked like he just left the set of the "Somebody That I Used to Know" music video.
I wish it was closer to the source material.
The monster looked like he just left the set of the "Somebody That I Used to Know" music video.
I wish it was closer to the source material.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 8:16 am to WITNESS23
I don't like massive deviations from source material, either write a completely different story, or stay faithful, don't mix it
Aspects of this film I really loved, starts really strong but ultimately in the end it's not that good.
Aspects of this film I really loved, starts really strong but ultimately in the end it's not that good.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 8:57 am to abellsujr
quote:
Very close to a masterpiece type of work here.
Really? Finished it last night and was just felt meh afterwards.
Always enjoyed the book and he nailed the tone of the book better than any of the other Frankenstein films to date, but missed the mark on many of the changes to the story he made.
It makes no sense to me to have Elizabeth as the niece of a random made up character instead of his fiancé. It lessens the impact of her death by quite a bit.
Then having the creature and Victor make peace at the end was just kind of laughable. Like what are we doing here
This is not Frankenstein. This followed the common trend now, similiar to Rings of Power, that no character can just be bad anymore. Like Rings of Power trying to make you feel for Orcs because they have babies and a home. For some reason he has Victor actually kill Elizabeth instead of the creature so it completely changes the type of story it is. Virtually not even a revenge story at that point. I get it, you want people to feel sympathy for the monster, that a GDT thing in general, but it's ok to show that the creature actually did bad things as ell.
I enjoyed it ok and it was beautifully shot and well acted. But there were some laugh out loud moments. Elizabeth telling the creature she is glad she found love with him before she dies
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 9:03 am
Posted on 11/10/25 at 9:10 am to iwyLSUiwy
Yea I didn't like that they changed Elizabeth and William to be a couple. Like you said it lessened the impact.
I didn't like that Frankenstein didn't immediately reject the monster. I thought how they got to that point was weak.
I liked that they added the blind man but the deviation from the book and having him killed by wolves instead of the monster pleading for acceptance and showing the pain of his rejection was a miss.
Frankenstein being the "father" in the end was Meh.
I didn't like that Frankenstein didn't immediately reject the monster. I thought how they got to that point was weak.
I liked that they added the blind man but the deviation from the book and having him killed by wolves instead of the monster pleading for acceptance and showing the pain of his rejection was a miss.
Frankenstein being the "father" in the end was Meh.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 9:13 am to A Menace to Sobriety
Loved it. Never read the book so source didn't matter to me.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 11:04 am to iwyLSUiwy
Omitting the creatures rage and rejection just neutered the entire thing. Painting Victor as the absolute villain and the creature as absolutely innocent, despite murdering several people, just took the sole out of the entire thing. It looked great, the actors did a great job but he fricked the story up completely. And the contrived reversal at the end just to connect the 1st scene which was the best scene btw. Victor is chasing him then all of the sudden for no reason he starts chasing Victor. WTF man
Posted on 11/10/25 at 11:27 am to WITNESS23
quote:
I liked that they added the blind man but the deviation from the book and having him killed by wolves instead of the monster pleading for acceptance and showing the pain of his rejection was a miss.
Big time. He said something about wolves not really wanting to kill the sheep and men not wanting to kills wolves, they just do it because it's their nature or something. I'm thinking they are just missing the mark on most of the reasons why the creature is the way he is and why he does the things he does. But then he doesn't go on to do any of the cruel/revenge stuff that he did in the book so I guess it doesn't even matter.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 9:21 pm to iwyLSUiwy
It was not a perfect movie. I have a couple complaints. I wish it had more time to develop. It would have been a better series. We’re left to kind of fill in the blanks with the what happens in between some of the transitions. So I get that. And Mia Goth throwing herself in front of Frankenstein was pretty lame. That love story was undeveloped for sure.
But the father/son aspect and the aspect of not choosing existence were the core of the movie and that was nailed. It spoke to me. So yes, it is “close” to masterpiece level for me.
This concept of not choosing existence. No place to go. No one who cares. The one who did was killed. The one who created him rejected him. And he’s not even able to kill himself. These aspects felt like the core of the movie and it was perfectly told and felt.
Then throw in the masterful aesthetic and the amazing performances, yeah. I loved it.
But the father/son aspect and the aspect of not choosing existence were the core of the movie and that was nailed. It spoke to me. So yes, it is “close” to masterpiece level for me.
This concept of not choosing existence. No place to go. No one who cares. The one who did was killed. The one who created him rejected him. And he’s not even able to kill himself. These aspects felt like the core of the movie and it was perfectly told and felt.
Then throw in the masterful aesthetic and the amazing performances, yeah. I loved it.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 9:23 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 9:38 pm to WITNESS23
quote:
I wish it was closer to the source material.
In this instance the source material has been done so probably needed to change it some
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:06 am to biglego
I would love to see Frankenstien brought to the big screen in a way that truly follows Mary Shelly source material. It is unfortunate that the Frankenstien story that we have always seen on the big screen strays so far away from its original source.
Bram Stokers Dracula with Gary Oldman pretty much was true to it source material.
The Godfather was true to it source.
Frankenstien is a good book and it follows a much different path then what has always been presented. Del Toro tells some aspects of the original book but he take liberties with the original story and makes unnecessary changes to the sbook.
Bram Stokers Dracula with Gary Oldman pretty much was true to it source material.
The Godfather was true to it source.
Frankenstien is a good book and it follows a much different path then what has always been presented. Del Toro tells some aspects of the original book but he take liberties with the original story and makes unnecessary changes to the sbook.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:15 am to Richleau
I haven't seen the movie yet, but Del Toro licensed the late Berni Wrightson's Frankenstein for his film. The monster may not match up, but it's eerie how Oscar Isaac resembles Wrightson's Frankenstein that he drew in 1978.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:49 am to abellsujr
quote:
So I get that. And Mia Goth throwing herself in front of Frankenstein was pretty lame. That love story was undeveloped for sure.
Yea that scene just really really bothered me. Made no sense and just kind of completely changes the whole story for me.
quote:
But the father/son aspect and the aspect of not choosing existence were the core of the movie and that was nailed. It spoke to me. So yes, it is “close” to masterpiece level for me.
Yea I certainly wasn't trying to sway you from liking it. I had just finished watching it the night before and was just surprised when I clicked on the thread and saw the reactions. If someone hadn't read the book or doesn't care if it's true to source, I can see them really enjoying it.
I liked it ok, but my complaints are simply the straying from the source so much. It's just odd to me that GDT strayed from the source so much and changed the entire theme of the book because he claims that Frankenstein is like his Bible. He has an odd way of showing his respect and love for the story and author.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:50 am to biglego
quote:
In this instance the source material has been done so probably needed to change it some
When has the source been accurately portrayed? Every film version I've seen has drastically changed the source.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:56 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
When has the source been accurately portrayed?
No idea bc I’ve not read the book. Looks boring. I just assumed it had been done
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:57 am to biglego
quote:
No idea bc I’ve not read the book. Looks boring. I just assumed it had been done
Nope. The most memorable and best one, the 1931 version was obviously way off. Not very much even resembles the book. Victor Frankenstein from the 2010's was possibly even further off from source since the main character was someone who didn't exist in the story. This GDT version is imo, just as far off if not more story wise. It gets the tone right, but it's hard to give it a bunch of props based on tone alone, it's very far from the source no matter how much people want to justify the changes simply because it's GDT. The 1990's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein tried to be faithful but it was directed so poorly and so poorly acted (Robert De Niro being basically a Bronx creature lol), it completely takes away from any faithfulness.
Supposedly there is a Hallmark one from the 2000's I think that followed the source very closely. Don't really have a desire to watch a Hallmark Frankenstein though.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 1:02 am to lacajun069
quote:
Frankenstien is a good book and it follows a much different path then what has always been presented. Del Toro tells some aspects of the original book but he take liberties with the original story and makes unnecessary changes to the sbook.
As somebody who had to read it, it’s the most faithful but flawed adaptation to date. The 90s version with DeNiro was less than this.
I liked it.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 12:56 pm to cfish140
I tried to watch it last night and could only get through about 30 minutes.
The opening with the creature attacking the ship, getting shot a few dozen times and continuing to be a threat did me in.
In the original story by Mary Shelley, the Frankenstein monster is made of scavenged human parts, so what makes this thing immortal in this movie.
Seems like a pretty dumb take to begin with and I have no interest to continue watching it to see how it all turns out.
The opening with the creature attacking the ship, getting shot a few dozen times and continuing to be a threat did me in.
In the original story by Mary Shelley, the Frankenstein monster is made of scavenged human parts, so what makes this thing immortal in this movie.
Seems like a pretty dumb take to begin with and I have no interest to continue watching it to see how it all turns out.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 1:39 pm to gumbo2176
Started out with a bang and slowly dragged on for way too long
Posted on 11/16/25 at 8:11 am to The Ramp
I don't usually care for "monster movies," and I tend to avoid movies much more than two hours long, but I buckled in on a lazy day. Watched with low expectations but actually enjoyed it.
There are certainly valid criticisms, many expressed above, but it's a decent watch and keeps moving at a decent pace.
Slight casting spoiler ahead:
I was surprised when I read in the Tudum article that Netflix sent after I watched that the same actress (Mia Goth) played Victor's mom, Claire, and Elizabeth. The mom spoke only French, and some light prosthetics were used; I totally missed it.
There are certainly valid criticisms, many expressed above, but it's a decent watch and keeps moving at a decent pace.
Slight casting spoiler ahead:
I was surprised when I read in the Tudum article that Netflix sent after I watched that the same actress (Mia Goth) played Victor's mom, Claire, and Elizabeth. The mom spoke only French, and some light prosthetics were used; I totally missed it.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News