The Guilliermo del Toro version, of course.
For me, this is in the 'Beautiful but boring' category. I had given up on it about halfway, and had to push myself to finish it.
If you stick to the classic story (as here is the case), the main interest lies in the interaction between Frankenstein and the creature. Yet here the creature doesn't appear for the first hour or so. What you get is an extensive (and mostly by the numbers) backstory of Victor Frankenstein, which holds very little interest, as you know where it will lead to.
Once the creature appears, and we get its perspective, things get a lot more interesting. Seeing as the movie is on Netflix, I'd say do yourself a favour and fast forward through the first part.
Visually, it is stunning. Enormous care has gone into the production design, which is magnificent. It simply takes too long to get going, but that is a complaint I have with a lot of contemporary movies.
I've heard a lot of people say very similar things to you along the lines of visually stunning but hollow.
I wouldn't say it is hollow. It does make some points, it is just that it spends ages getting to them.
It doesn't help that everybody knows the story. When you get the extensive backstory of young Frankenstein, you're not wondering 'where will this all lead to', I was thinking 'when will get to the creature'.
Quote from: Dr. Whom on November 24, 2025, 05:28:24 PMVisually, it is stunning. Enormous care has gone into the production design, which is magnificent.
to me this is like the equivalent of a band who records their album in a massive top of the range studio, then gets the best sound engineers in the world to tweak everything to perfection... but if their songs are boring it counts for zero. (imo)
Meh, I liked it just fine.
But then, I also watch things like TOILET ZOMBIE BABY STRIKES BACK!
"Beautiful", "boring", "visually stunning", "takes ages" all appear repeatedly on my Guillermo DelToro FRANKENSTEIN card... shocking to hear people yelling Bingo!
Quote from: zombie no.one on November 25, 2025, 04:51:44 AMQuote from: Dr. Whom on November 24, 2025, 05:28:24 PMVisually, it is stunning. Enormous care has gone into the production design, which is magnificent.
to me this is like the equivalent of a band who records their album in a massive top of the range studio, then gets the best sound engineers in the world to tweak everything to perfection... but if their songs are boring it counts for zero. (imo)
I'd rather compare it to a jazz or prog rock album, where a musician launches into a 15 minute solo to show off their skill with the instrument. Great if you like that sort of thing, pointless to most of us.
It's not boring. It's just... too reverent? Too serious? The acting too period-melodramatic? And personally the action sequences, with the monster throwing people 50 yards through the air, felt like they belonged in a Marvel movie, not a Frankenstein adaptation. Nothing stands out about it except for maybe the production design. It's solid and I admire it, but it didn't entirely work. 3.5/5.
I only got partway through it. I didn't mind the monster throwing dudes in the opening minutes when I couldn't really see him, but then once I got a good look at the monster... he looks dumb! I mean fakey, make-up-y, unconvincing somehow. His skin and hands and the scars just looked bad to me. I just can't get behind a Frankenstein movie with a dumb-looking monster.