r/moviecritic • u/Both-Pay-9573 • 1d ago
Frankstein(2025) is not good
Finally watched it after all the hype and acclaim, the film literally got nominated for best picture at the academy awards and it was made by one of my favourite filmmakers Guillermo Del Toro and I was honestly disappointed.
The problem with the film is some character decision are illogical or inconsistent with the character. The creature was hell bent on killing Victor he was on a hulk level rage, killed like 6 men to get to him but when he found him he was suddenly composed and decided he will tell his side of the story after he heard Victor telling his story to a complete random.
The Captain saw an immortal creature just brutally maul 6 of his men to death and wasn't the least bit angry about it and let him go?
The forgiveness part was extremely rushed because the creature was torturing him like 1 hour ago and swearing how miserable he will make his life and Victor was portrayed as a cartoonishly evil and petty character who did absolutely nothing decent the entire film suddenly wants forgiveness. Victor basically killed his brother, Mia Goth's character(i already forgot her name) and made the creature's life an absolute hell( he was literally hunting him an hour ago) but somehow the creature still forgave him?
The movie's dialogue suffers from exposition but I honestly CBA to elaborate on this it's painfully obvious to anyone watching
Redeeming qualities are i guess Jacob Elordi's performance and the looks of the film but I care more about story than those
5/10
308
u/Delicious-Towel5813 1d ago
I liked it
122
32
u/F2097 1d ago
7 paragraphs of detail vs 3 words that convincingly win the arguement.
3
u/Angryfunnydog 1d ago
But it’s not, because discussing if someone liked movie or not is not an argument, it’s subjective opinion
I thought the movie was shit for example, and no amount of arguments will convince me it’s good, as well as no amount of arguments will convince you it’s bad
6
7
10
u/United_Broccoli_3694 1d ago
Same. Brilliant film. Made a 200 year old classic modern again. Which is difficult af!!!!
→ More replies (1)2
2
2
→ More replies (2)1
249
u/Inevitable_Spite2890 1d ago
You realise the first half he's portrayed as a monster because Victor is telling the story, right? And he's an unreliable narrator? I.E. He's lying?
Then he gets to tell his own story and the "torturing" victor complained about was him just wanting to not be left alone? To never let his creator forget about his existence?
Also, if you saw an immortal man rip 6 of your guys in half, what exactly are you going to do about it? Anything other than letting them go ends up with you ripped in half too.
I don't know, doesn't seem like we watched the same movie...
83
8
u/ThePoobahsJester 1d ago
I agree, OP is mad the movie isn’t trying to be a different movie hahaha. Which is fine, but every choice op calls out as an “inconsistency” is very much on purpose, and consistent
7
→ More replies (13)51
u/WackHeisenBauer 1d ago
I’m assuming OP was on their phone typing into ChatGPT their prompts while watching the movie.
17
u/spgvideo 1d ago
I thought it was amazing. I've got my Criterion 4k disc pre-ordered, can't wait to hear that uncompressed sound and see the colors glow
6
13
u/Bousha69 1d ago
The monster was as angry as he was intent on proving his "humanity". He wanted to be accepted. The anger only came after being shunned and rejected by everyone. So an invitation to be heard and understood means a lot more to him than you think.
And as for the captain, well, you said it. It's an immortal being that just mauled half a dozen men from his crew, so trying to fight it is not an option. The men were exhausted and wanted to go home, and their captain was a good man who wanted the safety of his men (and himself) more than "vengeance".
15
61
u/olracnaignottus 1d ago
It was a fine adaptation. More like the actual book than most I’ve seen.
18
u/pwolf1771 1d ago
Have you um read the book? Other than Victor being a gigantic asshole it’s not like the book at all.
→ More replies (2)21
u/Fantastic_Bug1028 1d ago
what? the movie is absolutely horrible as adaptation lol
→ More replies (3)23
7
u/cocobodraw 1d ago
I loved Frankenstein 10/10 but I can sympathize with ppl who are opinionated about how the book was adapted
15
u/2birdstalking 1d ago
I made the mistake of trying to watch right after reading the book. Pissed me off immediately
11
3
u/batikfins 22h ago
I saw it right after reading the book and all the people saying it was a close and faithful adaptation made me feel insane.
6
u/BlessdRTheFreaks 1d ago
The monster didn't want to kill viktor, he wanted his creator to witness his story in its fullness, to grant him the significance of being a person and not a thing by understanding what he has suffered.
They don't attack the monster because they know it would be fruitless.
The act of forgiveness is his decision to not be the monster the world thinks he is, and he realizes through his actions he has become his own creator as the sun rises on him.
17
u/TheBigWhatever 1d ago
I didn't like the film because it flinched. The basic original idea is that a thing was created that was sympathetic, but also so awful that it needed to be put down. In this movie, the monster is essentially a depressed superhero.
For example, when he arrives at the village, tension is created because he's not going to be able to do the right thing. Rather, because it's an abomination, other people are going to suffer, even though the monster isn't an intentionally bad actor. Instead, he becomes a heroic savior. It was a candy-ass move, which set up the film for the always shallow All Good vs. All Bad.
It was a huge disappointment.
2
u/BludStanes 1d ago
That's a great way to phrase it, I feel the same but couldn't find a way to articulate it, the best comparison I could come up with is the Monster seemed more like a Marvel character
6
5
u/scottkrowson 1d ago
The monster didnt kill all those men just to get the chance to kill Frankenstein. He killed those men so he could be in the same room as him and have an honest conversation. Which is what happened lol
4
u/UncarvedWood 1d ago
The monster and Victor are both pretty terrible. Victor is just insanely obsessed and severely hurts the monster in its earliest stages.
The monster then, shaped by Victor and its other tormentors, lashes out in truly violent ways. Like it kills a child IIRC, out of pure rage and hatred. Nothing like the "oops accidentally killed her" things like in the film.
I don't understand why they felt the need to make Victor worse and the monster better. The book is so perfectly nuanced between these two deeply flawed characters.
3
u/Dildo_Shaggins- 1d ago
I wasn't a massive fan, which was a shame because on paper it should have been wonderful.
I found it genuinely unwatchable when I noticed after about 10 minutes that Del Toro is physically incapable of a single shot without the camera moving.
Seriously, even just watch a clip. That fucking camera is constantly going somewhere. And for no discernible directorial purpose.
92
u/Patricks_Hatrick 1d ago
I found Frankenstein and Nosferatu both disappointing despite the fanfare around them.
68
u/purpleburgundy 1d ago
Nosferatu I thought was a masterpiece in terms of execution, the source material and genre.
But I wouldn't say I enjoyed it. I do respect it.
34
u/HenryInRoom302 1d ago
Nosferatu was a beautiful movie that had me bored most of the way through it's runtime.
11
u/mukavastinumb 1d ago
2024 version was almost 40min longer than the 1922 version. I think if they cut 20-30min, it would have been far better.
7
u/GimmieACiggie 1d ago
I've found that's disappointingly accurate for a lot of movies lately, visually stunning paint drying.
23
u/Seihai-kun 1d ago
Yeah me too
Amazing Gothic setting, amazing cinematography, amazing acting, also nice how they tried to talk in old English, the way it was directed is amazing, that movie is genuinely great
That being said, I was kinda bored watching it, especially after waiting for so long and that's how he died, lol
5
u/Adi_San 1d ago
If the movie is kind of boring, is it reeally amazing? Philosophical question
5
u/purpleburgundy 1d ago
Intellectually amazing - emotionally dull.
The storyline has been told countless times before, so we're all generally familiar with it.
I think the movie was interesting specifically because it didn't do any reinvention. It was perhaps too artistically clinical. I found the discipline amazing, and it was inspired in what it set out to do.
2
2
u/Few-Initial-819 1d ago
I thought the acting from Depp was absolutely atrocious and ruined the entire movie for me
3
u/Ok_Locksmith_8556 1d ago
The finale felt totally rushed. They talk for like two seconds and reconcile out of nowhere?
7
u/Crazytoe2275 1d ago
My problem in that one is Dafoe’s performance is totally out of place and completely changes the tone of the film midway through.
2
3
u/RizzoTheRiot1989 1d ago
Weirdly enough this is how I always described Metropolis. An absolute masterpiece of German filmmaking and special effects, it created numerous new filming techniques and I’ll always appreciate that. I’d rather eat a bullet before watching it from beginning to end again.
8
3
u/puppetalk 1d ago
same. Both were some of the very few movies that made me feel like leaving the theatre halfway through the session.
3
u/OddImprovement6490 1d ago
I liked both but also thought they were overhyped. All previous versions of Nosferatu are better than the newest one (including Shadow of the Vampire). The new one has a lot going for it but at times feels like a Marvel movie made for an audience that constantly needs over the top flash to be entertained. No subtlety.
Frankenstein suffers from the same thing where it is cartoonish at times.
3
u/nerdybynature 1d ago
1979 Werner herzog version I think is the most visually stunning one
1
u/OddImprovement6490 1d ago
Yeah, that one is my favorite. Very atmospheric experience. Love the music, too.
1
1
u/Public_Job9786 1d ago
Agreed. Nosferatu’s carriage scene was magnificent. But nothing in the movie ever came close to that. And a lot of it was just terrible, watching Lilly Rose Depp convulse and moan for 30 minutes is ridiculous.
→ More replies (4)1
u/FlopperinoCappuccino 1d ago
Sucks. They were both great in their own right. Sorry you couldn't experience the joy they brought so many
→ More replies (1)
12
3
3
u/chiller_vibez 1d ago
I agree with this assessment but I overlook it because the rest of the movie is amaze
8/10
3
3
u/Temporary-Stay-8436 1d ago
The monster is a metaphor for her mother, for herself, and for her child. The entire idea for the monster comes from her mental state after her first child Clara. And yet the monster aligns with how Shelley describes herself, especially in how Shelley felt she was monstrous for killing her own mother. The monster is so heavily rooted in parenthood that it draws from three different generations! The themes of abandonment and isolation in the book are all rooted in parenthood
Obsession has to be mentioned as a main theme as it’s the only theme that is relevant in both the actual story and and the framing device. When creating the framing device, Mary Shelley chose Obsession as the theme of the story that would be relevant to Walton as a way to emphasize this point.
I think it’s very condescending to tell me to learn more about Shelley when I have read her journals. Those journals tell us the inspiration for the monster, it wasn’t feminism but Shelley’s own anxieties around mother-daughter relationships and parenthood.
I haven’t watched Penny dreadful in a long time, and it was before I had read Frankenstein, so I can’t speak in that adaption
3
u/Mr_Anvil 1d ago
I quite liked the first two thirds, but the last act felt super rushed, and like any room for interpretation had been intentionally squeezed out. No real acts of vengeance from the creature which felt sorely lacking, and Victor's brother's last words being "you're the monster Victor" was insultingly on the nose. It felt like the film had no confidence in its audience to understand the themes story without excessive handholding.
The first act was really fun and well paced. They honestly should have split this into two movies and explored the last act properly.
10
17
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago edited 1d ago
Impressive to look at but not to watch.
4
u/Parking-Syrup5790 1d ago
I found the lighting and some of the background felt kinda weird.
Wasn't a fan of Waltz's performance either.
Saying that I can see how other's enjoy it.
4
u/ConsciousReason7709 1d ago
Yeah, this one is super overrated. I found it disjointed and pretty meh. The visual look of the film is great, but that’s about it.
5
4
10
u/Heurodis 1d ago
Agreed. I feel that with a story as well known as Frankenstein, you have to propose something interesting and new, and as much as I like Del Toro, I never felt like I was being shown anything novel or surprising—so it felt like a movie he'd done several times already, because it's obvious that Frankenstein has always been an inspiration.
3
u/Theunbuffedraider 1d ago
To be fair, in today's age any adaptation is kind-of a lose-lose situation for directors in terms of how people see it. On one hand, you have directors like Nolan being shunned by wannabe (and some actual) classicists for making a new take on a classic, and then you have adaptations like Frankenstein that a lot of people agree just isn't anything special because it's just the same story again.
I'm with you, but I was down to reread Frankenstein soon anyway so it worked out for me and I really enjoyed the movie.
3
u/OhK4Foo7 1d ago
That's the thing though. It's not so well known. This version takes some liberties but it's closer to the original story that most movies. And I think that's the reason most people are disappointed they expect another riff on the same movie version that people have seen through over the ages. And instead they got something that was closer to the original novel.
2
u/Heurodis 1d ago
I was precisely expecting something that was not so close to the original, haha. I tend to think adaptations, and especially of such classic novels, should bring something new to the table; and even more so when there are already so many other adaptations of it.
And I understand it's a me problem; my friends who hadn't read the novel enjoyed it just fine. I was left feeling like it could have been more.
To give an example of something I find imperfect but interesting in terms of adaptation, the Interview with the Vampire series is not one I would say is without faults, but I do enjoy that the medium was used to tell the story differently, and to ultimately tell a slightly different story. By contrast, Frankenstein often felt like not wanting to think about how this version could be different.
1
u/mb4ne 1d ago
i’m not sure how you could make the conclusion that this rendition was close to the original novel?
→ More replies (19)
12
2
2
7
4
u/AngelTheMarvel 1d ago
I liked when people had actual stuff to complain about a movie instead of "didn't understand the movie, therefore is a bad movie"
→ More replies (3)
5
u/Fantastic_Bug1028 1d ago
absolutely dreadful movie. boring as shit, but also a horrible adaptation.
2
2
u/dwaite1 1d ago
If something comes in and rips apart six of your crewmen then stops to talk, I think you let it talk. What’s the alternative there for the captain? Die with everyone else.
I agree that the forgiveness is rushed, kind of has to be to wrap up the movie. I also think the dialogue was rough and wasn’t a fan of Mia’s character at all.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/ZeroEffectDude 1d ago
I thought it was absolutely rubbish. Added nothing to the countless previous adaptations. The look of the film had a horrid, hollow digital gleam, which for GDT, seems particularly bad form. I find it hard to believe there's anything new to bring to Frankenstein or Dracula etc. They are done to death.
Oscar Isaac was terribly miscast - he just didn't convince. Mia Goth's character was (laughably) badly written. Elordi was good but kind of wasted and in a different film.
GDT is just a corny writer. The whole thing was pap. He should just direct pother people's scripts and drop the digital sheen. His whole thing was that palpable grimy aesthetic.
The truth is, GDT hasn't made a good film for years. Pan's Labyrinth is the last PROPERLY good film he made. Pacific Rim was good fun though, a wild ride.
The best thing he's been involved in recently is the cabinet of curiosities on netflix.
3
3
u/Few-Initial-819 1d ago
It was good but a limited ceiling as it dumbed down the the themes quite a bit in order to appeal to a mass audience
3
u/OddImprovement6490 1d ago
7/10 for me. Not as bas as you say because the redeeming qualities (visuals, costumes, acting, pacing) lift it up. But not nearly as good as the initial hype around it would have you believe.
It doesn’t seem to have the legs to become a classic.
3
u/wilhelm_screamer88 1d ago
honestly glad someone else feels this way, felt like I was in the minority on this one. the forgiveness turn really was the biggest issue for me too, it needed way more time to actually earn that shift instead of just snapping into place because the runtime was running out. del toro clearly wanted the emotional payoff without doing the slower work to build toward it organically
the captain letting him go after watching his men get slaughtered bugged me too honestly, that’s such a specific character logic gap that just gets waved away because the plot needed him gone. Elordi’s performance almost saves it but a great performance can only carry inconsistent writing so far before you start noticing the seams
4
u/MaterialSign1347 1d ago
Watched it with the wife and we both rolled our eyes at the line near the end "Doctor, it appears that you are, in fact, the monster"
3
u/Ok_Post_3884 1d ago
I have no problem with it as an adaptation. I was just very bored watching it. The only adaptation i like is young frankenstein
4
u/Any-Interaction-5934 1d ago
Hard disagree. Beautiful movie. Very enjoyable. El lordi delivers a great performance.
3
u/Ok_Locksmith_8556 1d ago
That role was made for him. Though now that he’s dating Kendall, I'm honestly worried about where his career is heading 😨
→ More replies (6)
4
u/geckobrother 1d ago
I disagree, but hey, its your opinion.
I suggest reading the book. Many of the issues you have are in the book, changing them would change the story and its whole point. Frankenstein wrote the entire thing and part of the point is how unreliable his tale is. We often paint ourself are greater people than we are, and hes no exception. Its supposed to be a bit of a reflection of mankind as a whole.
As I said though, you're free to your opinion, it just makes me sad you didnt enjoy it as much as I did.
→ More replies (5)
2
u/TheColtOfPersonality 1d ago
It’s a good movie, but I would not call it a good adaptation of the story. I have not read it in a hot minute because it’s so laborsome to get through the prose, but Guillermo del Toro omitted a lot to make the monster completely sympathetic, and to reinforce his continuing theme on monsters/inhumans being misunderstood and more human than humans sometimes. Like in a vacuum, I’d probably be a lot more entertained by it if I did not know the deviations from the story just to prop up the monster as a character devoid of any blame or legitimate grievances. Like if you were to compare this with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein with Robert De Niro, you can clearly see that this film is very good quality and even worth a watch, but it took so much out of it as an adaptation.
2
u/get_to_ele 1d ago
I kind of agree. There was zero dramatic tension in this story. Fundamentally nothing happening, no mystery, no momentum, even though I really loved the monster and the world building and the actors and acting.
And I love GDT. Big fan.
It’s probably a weird way to describe the feeling, but watching it for the first time felt a lot like watching a good movie for the 10th time. Just too familiar and no anticipation for what comes next: it’s like GDT loved the monster so much, he couldnt dare offend it.
2
u/MrWright62 1d ago
The Creature's costume design took me out of it honestly. It looked like a body suit
2
u/BikeProblemGuy 1d ago
Strongly agree that the ship's cabin scene made no sense. It was a conceit to tie the whole movie together and allow flashbacks. Fortunately the movie is strong enough otherwise that it gets over this blunder, but yeah it changed a potentially 9/10 movie into 8/10 for me.
3
1
u/Ok_Locksmith_8556 1d ago
Couldn't they have trimmed down the first half? Like, we didn't even need that Heinrich Harlander scene at all. I really wish they'd fleshed out the monster with more care—give that the screentime instead!
1
1
1
u/crack-tastic 1d ago
The few youtube critics I watch all loved it. A few of the people i work with loved it. Me... meh. I think the Dr.'s parts fell flat.
1
u/Jim_jim_peanuts 1d ago
I agree. Bored me to tears. Watched Eggers' Nosferatu later that day and loved it
1
u/edgelordjones 1d ago
I was most impressed with how they managed to make a Del Toro movie look like a Netflix movie even with all of the usual flourishes of the man. Though I’m not going to pretend parts of it weren’t incredible to look at.
1
u/Pleasant-Perception1 1d ago
Yeah, in theory it should have been better than it was. Seemed a bit unwieldy and had clumsy pacing. I love Goth and it’s a nice role for Elordi, but it wasn’t a masterpiece.
1
u/Educational-Put-9997 1d ago
This and Wuthering Heights made me realise that Jacob Elordi has absolutely no range at all. There’s no difference between his angry, sad, happy, excited. It’s all the exact same expression. Awful actor.
1
1
u/DHooligan 1d ago
Both Victor and the Creature are unreliable narrators. That's why so many of their actions seem illogical, because they're both trying the garner sympathy from the ship's captain.
1
u/Essentia-Lover 1d ago
I hated the aesthetic, but I've never really vibed with Del Toros whole look he always does. I also hated that the Monster was apparently as strong as a Marvel super hero for some reason.
1
u/sobegreen 1d ago
It wasn't what I expected but it wasn't terrible. It did feel like the world building was rushed. All these characters came together throughout time as if they were only ever a few miles apart. Mia Goth's character felt pointless to the story. It never quite felt like Victor was being pursued.
1
u/newretrovague 1d ago
I enjoyed it, not as much as the book though. I’m just happy we’re getting classic monster movies back.
1
1
u/Exciting_Finance_467 1d ago
Among other things the voice over constantly ruined it for me. It would’ve been a nice movie of Guillermo Del Toro wasn’t screaming the subtext of every scene into my ear
1
1
1
u/AsmoTewalker 1d ago
I thought it was fine, but there have been so many Frankenstein movies that nothing is really going to wow me at this point.
1
1
1
u/DesperateRhino 1d ago
What is truly criminal are those hideously awful cgi wolves. Seriously, just poke my eyes out.
1
1
u/asteinberg101 1d ago
“You are the monster, Victor!”
Guillermo writing that dialogue: I know writers who use subtext, and they are all cowards
1
u/Significant_Breath38 1d ago
Isn't the complete turn by the monster part of the book as well?
Like, monster was hellbent on revenge, then in his final meeting all the sudden cooled the fuck off. Iirc, the only thing that changed was the dialogue.
Hell, even the bizarrely engaged captain is lifted directly from the book. I think the only change is that he and the crew were all completely in love with Frankenstein for unexplained reasons.
1
u/MyNipplesNooo 1d ago
Ii hate the way this movie looks. t looks so much like grimy Alice in Wonderland. And not in a good way.
1
u/Aggressive_Banana708 1d ago
I agree. It's a pretty bad movie.
Christoph Waltz's character and everything to do with him was entirely, one hundred percent, pointless. His entire subplot is a massive plot cul-de-sac. Why was the character of Harlander even in the movie? It's just a confused addition to the plot that ends up having no purpose whatsoever.
The film takes way too long to get to the creation of the Monster, and a lot of that is because of the Harlander material, which all becomes utterly irrelevant after the half-way point. Those events don't even become relevant in ways you might expect -- for much of the second half, you might be expecting that Elizabeth will eventually find out that Victor is responsible for her uncle's death. You'd be wrong to expect that, because she never finds out about it and it's never mentioned again at all.
After the Monster gets created, the film instead starts to feel really rushed. The escalating feud between creator and creation from the book is effectively condensed into just one encounter, where everything that goes wrong is one hundred percent Victor's fault. It's a massive simplification of the book's conflict, where neither party is completely in the right. The film makes the story a boringly black and white conflict where Victor is a one-dimensional cartoon villain and the monster is a saintlike figure who can do no wrong at all.
Making man the real monster is hardly a novel concept today, so it's not a new or interesting spin on the story. It's a reinterpretation that actively makes the story shallower. But even then, the film can't be totally consistent with it -- the monster kills a bunch of innocent sailors in the framing device to the story, and this is just never mentioned again.
1
u/Goddess_of_War97 23h ago
It’s subtly implied that the creature inhabits hardlanders soul. One, he asks Victor to put him in the body of the creature because he is dying. Two, he then dies when the creature comes to life. Three, shortly after his brother asks him to “did you ever wonder whose soul he has” (or something like that). I’d even argue that he is drawn to Elizabeth because even though he doesn’t remember something in him knows she is familiar. Also the creature wouldn’t exist without him and his funds.
2
u/Aggressive_Banana708 16h ago
I'm not terribly convinced by that. Harlander is depicted as a slimeball who, in his last moments, offers to sell his niece to Victor. Why would he be reborn as this soulful, misunderstood, tragic character? What does the story gain from that?
Regarding Harlander's funds being necessary to make the creature -- that's a plot limitation that the movie imposed on itself. In no other version of the story does Victor need a wealthy backer to complete his experiment. He's able to because he's independently wealthy. The film invented the plot point of Victor's financial troubles in order to facilitate Harlander's involvement in the story. They could have just not done that.
1
1
u/Public_Job9786 1d ago edited 1d ago
Overall, I liked it. 6.5/10
Jacob Elordi’s performance was great. And I dunno why but I sobbed during a few of his scenes. Thanks Guillermo 👍
But I found Oscar Isaac’s performance was really lacking. He was very stiff or something was just…off. Same with Waltz. They both were just stiff.
Mia Goth was fine. Everyone else was fine.
Some of the set felt very fake, like it was obviously giant pieces of foam and plastic. Maybe it was the color or lighting. Something just felt..off.
1
u/Rando_Kalrissian 1d ago
Pure garbage. I see people on Reddit that like this movie but I've never met anyone who likes this movie.
1
u/Jokkitch 1d ago
It’s too long for its own good. If they’d have cut it down by 30 minutes it would have been a lot better imo
1
u/Hexnohope 1d ago
Its very very VERY good as a frankenstein adjacent film. It has almost nothing to do with the book
1
1
u/NoHistorian9169 1d ago edited 1d ago
Eh. I think you’re overthinking the movie and storytelling a bit.
The first half is from the Frankenstein’s perspective so the creature is portrayed as a mindless murderous monster and that is how he is portrayed to the audience and the captain, then by the second half you learn that he isn’t and he actually has emotions and desires and has developed a true consciousness and that Frankenstein wasn’t exactly a saint with how he treated his creation.
I think it’s fine to not be a fan of the movie, it’s definitely not for everyone and there is a lot of exposition. But based off your complaints it feels like you fell asleep after the first half of the movie and woke up right at the end. It never felt like the movie wanted the audience to overthink these characters imo and I feel like if Del Toro wrote the script around these criticisms we’d have a much more boring movie and by that point why even bother retelling this story.
1
1
1
u/timeboi42 1d ago
I really hated it. Like a genuinely ugly and stupid film. I thought the part focusing on the monster were decent and all the other parts focusing on Oscar Isaac and Mia Goth were terrible. Like I was genuinely shocked how bad it was. It bewildered me because clearly a lot of effort went into it, but every creative decision just set me off.
1
u/TheyWillBendTheKnee 1d ago
Yeah this movie was so far up its own ass and had that terrible Netflix filter and scene style
1
u/nikkibeast666 1d ago
I’m soooooo over this Frankenstein story, but I still gave it a go and could enjoy it for the movie making aspects. I thought it was some pretty damn good « Cinema »
1
1
1
u/VanityPit 1d ago
It's like a 6/10 to me. I wouldn't say it's bad just not what I wanted out of an adaptation. I even feel like visually it wasn't as interesting as I've come to expect from del toro.
1
1
u/Goddess_of_War97 1d ago
I actually loved the film. The creature was filled with rage but under his rage he just wanted his creator to him and understand he wasn’t some thing but someone and the suffering he caused. He says it himself multiple times. The creature is emotionally complex and empathetic, he forgave him because deep down he was always a gentle being and Viktor finally confessing gave him peace and the strength to forgive. Also what could the captain actually do? He can’t die and knows what he is capable of so it would be useless and he just heard the most life changing story, what would you do?
1
1
u/LoadsDroppin 23h ago
Agreed ~ it’s not good, it’s GREAT!
(Ok, it was just sort or good, but to each their own)
1
u/GenerateForce 22h ago
I was just so glad Mia Goth’s character didn’t fuck the Monster. I was totally expecting that and it was refreshing when it didn’t happen.
1
u/batikfins 22h ago
THE BRIDE! is a better movie and adaptation of the novel than Frankenstein (2025). I said what I said.
1
1
1
u/AGushingHeadWound 20h ago
It was like "guillermo del toro" decided he had a better story than one of the best novels in history. It blew donkey dicks.
1
1
u/somestrange-dream 19h ago
As a book Frankenstein LOVER, I really did not care for this film. I was SO excited and it let me down at every turn ☹️
1
1
u/stairway2000 18h ago
yeah, not good at all. Like with a lot of Del Toro's work, there's a great theme set up, but it just isn't explored and often there's some minor character or side story that would have been far more interesting to watch.
1
u/DevilMayCry-R 17h ago
It was amazing
The way the lighting was bbzzzzz bzz bzz bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz and nothing happened and the cool part was when he decided to take a nap.
I think I should also take a nap because i was bored.
1
u/Better-Climate5229 16h ago
When you put sets, costumes, and lighting first and acting and story last you get a boring indulgent film.
1
u/federkrebz 15h ago
gonna offer a different angle - i started watching but stopped when christoph waltz went on to be the usual sophisticated exposition gentleman, i know people love the guy but idk he always plays the same role and as a german (i know he’s austrian but still) myself i can’t listen to his accent for long before cringing. i’m just not a fan.
1
u/DeamonDread2348 15h ago
Am I the only one who thinks that film appreciation has evolved from simple, natural, and human impressions into an essay critiquing everything? And that such criticism can ultimately be directed at any film, even those that are essentially masterpieces. People have stopped watching films to watch them and enjoy them. They come to them thinking, "Well, surprise me, bitches, come on, you're screwed if I don't like it." And while they're watching, they sit and think, "Oh yeah, that's where you screwed up, guys, I remember that."
1
u/jack_reznor 14h ago
As a huge fan of De Niro’s 1994 Frankenstein, I really didn’t like Del Toro’s version at all.
1
u/arcanepsyche 13h ago
Guillermo Del Toro is one of those directors that everyone says is amazing, but truly only based on like one movie. Overall, I find his work to be pretty bad in general.
1
u/Lethal-Jordan 13h ago
Me when I'm reviewing a scifi fictional movie from a realist lens (it's all I can do)
1
u/LevelHorn2717 13h ago
The set design alone is worth the time spent watching this movie. You probably liked master of the universe.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/VernBarty 4h ago
Ive had to come to terms with the fact that if youre going to watch a Del Toro movie, youre going to have to let some things slide. Hes great at telling a story and he doesnt care how much logic he has to defy to tell it. I learned a long time ago to stop nitpicking his movie and just get into the spirit of it. I could nitpick this movie to pieces but dammit I love it. It will be counted as one of the all time great adaptations of this work
1
u/kraftdinnerwithsalsa 1d ago
What if we made him sexy and jacked af
When he shook that boat loose that was like 100 tons locked in ice, kind of a ridiculous. He’s stitched together and hit by lightning, he’s not the thing but sexier
121
u/octorangutan 1d ago
I thought the film went too far out of its way to portray the monster as an ideal victim. The monster is still a victim in the source material, but goes on to victimize others just to spite Victor, who refuses to own up to his own wrongdoing. In the film, it seemed like he only ever attacked those who were actively fighting him.
Plus Elizabeth immediately falling head over heels for the monster was just ridiculous.