Frankenstein and all the images you see in this review are owned by Netflix
Directed by Guillermo del Toro
Frankenstein is really having a moment, isn’t he? And yes, I’m referring to both the scientist and the monster, as I still consider the latter to be A Frankenstein even if he’s not THE Frankenstein. Between Poor Things, Creature Commandos, and the upcoming Bride, the iconic tale of a man-made monster, or perhaps a monster-made man, has become an inescapable fixture of recent media. As such, someone was bound to take another swing at adapting the story itself, and who better to take on such a task than the modern-day king of monster movies, Guillermo del Toro? After all, his liberal interpretation of Creature from the Black Lagoon managed to win a few Oscars and is arguably one of the main reasons we’re seeing so many monster mashes as of late. Will this be another phenomenal entry in one of the medium’s greatest filmographies, or has Guillermo finally bitten off more than he can chew; akin to the maniacal doctor himself? Let’s find out!!
Out on the frozen tundra of the North Pole, a man is found by a ship and its crew; barely holding onto life and fearing something out on the ice sheet. With nothing better to do as this was before mobile phones and Game Boys, the captain insists on the man telling his story, and we learn that he is Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac), a scientist who studied death and fought against the medical establishment to test his theories on bringing to life that which was already dead. Said recompiled and reanimated corpse (Jacob Elordi) is what’s hunting him out on the ice and the doctor tells us how it all went so wrong with a couple of subplots involving his brother William (Felix Kammerer) and his fiancée Elizabeth (Mia Goth) as well as her uncle (Christoph Waltz) who was funding Frankenstein’s experiments. How did Frankenstein pull off such a miracle that even God wouldn’t dare to do, and what did it cost him in the process? Just what is it that is driving the monster to chase down his creator, and is there more to his reasoning than simple barbaric terror? Considering how many Frankensteins there have been, from Colin Clive, Peter Cushing, and Kenneth Branagh, do you think the monster had any trouble finding the one he was specifically mad at?
I’ll see this much for the movie; Guillermo Del Toro’s passion for this story is infectious, and he has made the most definitive adaptation of Mary Shelly’s work so far; certainly more so than Kenneth Branagh’s interesting yet heavily flawed attempt in the nineties. As far as it being the definitive Frankenstein movie, well, that’s where things get complicated. I haven’t read the novel myself, so there’s certainly a disconnect between me and the book nerds, who I’m sure will be the film’s most dedicated fans and are working on very interesting video essays as I write this, but I know enough about the broad stroke and what is often left out to appreciate Del Toro’s attempt to shove it all back in. It’s a love letter to the story, the characters, and the place it holds in the minds of monster movie geeks like himself, and that affection is shown earnestly and without shame. There is little egotism in this adaptation of the story, so while the look of it is unmistakably Del Toro and events are a little more grandiose than they are in the book, he is utterly determined to leave as few fingerprints on monster’s legacy as he can get away with. He wants the story of Frankenstein to stand on its own, and while I’ll leave it to the book nerds to confirm how much of the dialogue is lifted right from the pages of the novel, it contains just about everything that we’ve come to understand about the Frankenstein story from absorbing it through previous adaptations which at least makes this feel more complete as a story and with more fully realized and interesting characters.
All that said, strict adherence to the source material, which is still something I can’t confirm myself, does not in and of itself make for a good movie. Simply looking at it as a Frankenstein movie to be compared against the myriad of adaptations that came before it, I think it does fall short of true greatness, even if it is a very good film in its own right. The earnestness of the production ends up being a double-edged sword as Del Toro’s artistic spirit can be seen in the look of the movie, but without a unique selling point as far as the story, it does feel a bit derivative. It’s certainly more complete and perhaps fulfilling as a narrative than many of the other adaptations, but when compared to all time masterpieces like the Universal trilogy from the thirties or even Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein, I can’t quite muster up the same enthusiasm for it. Even Branagh’s version, which I would never classify as a masterpiece and falls far short of this new adaptation, does have a certain egomaniacal charm to it that I wish Guillermo brought to this production.
Even without that extra spark, however, Guillermo’s skill cannot be denied, and the writing cannot be dismissed. Each character is richly drawn with little nuances that the actors bring to the performance, and he’s not afraid to let them take center stage for long periods of time. There are plenty of mad scientist scenes as well as monster rampages, but they’re the cherry on top of the gothic drama sundae. Oscar Isaacs’s furrowed brow and dismissive sneer, not to mention his meticulous fashion choices, are obvious walls he puts up to hide his obsession and heartlessness, though I think the script undercuts his villainy a bit too often with moments of self-reflection and the occasional change of heart right after doing something dastardly. This works better for the monster as, outside of Young Frankenstein, there haven’t been a lot of attempts to make the monster an intelligent dramatic figure, and Jacob Elordi’s performance is just as tortured Isaac’s; repeating his creator’s defensiveness by acting mean and scary despite being a scared and depressed little fella. The supporting cast is well selected, with Mia Goth playing the role she seems to have been born to play after a strong career of being the spooky woman in spooky movies, but it really is a two-man show between Frankenstein and Frankenstein Jr whose tragic follies are captured with an almost voyeuristic obsession. I suppose we can call that the film’s unique selling point as the relationship between creator and creation seems to be what Guillermo was most obsessed over, and while the movie does feel overindulgent with its two and a half hour run time and an act structure that switches gears with an audible thud, it’s difficult not to get swept up in such an impassioned and uncompromising look into the brains of these two weirdos.
Guillermo del Toro had a very specific goal in mind, and he accomplished it without question or reservation which I’m sure has left him satisfied with the work, but there are areas where I think it will chaff against both general audiences and those who have seen the same movies that Guillermo was inspired by. It gets a strong recommendation from me for its fantastic production and meticulous storytelling, but I wish it had gone a little bit further in just about any direction instead of feeling so stringently reverential to what had come before. It’s almost like a movie about a guy who plays God shouldn’t be afraid to muck around in someone else’s legacy, but there I go, putting my expectations of a Frankenstein movie up against Guillermo’s carefully crafted vision. I suppose there’s room for all sorts of Frankenstein movies out there, and I, for one, am glad that we live in a world where this version can exist along-side the one where Robert De Niro played the monster! Aren’t we all better off for living in a world with both options?
4/5
The Reviewers Unite 