I don't have Netflix, but this new adaptation of Mary Shelley's story was shown at the Browning Cinema on the campus of the University of Notre Dame this weekend. Writer-director Guillermo del Toro's take on the famous tale is extravagantly made, but it lacks a certain.....spark??
Del Toro goes overboard on the technical aspects--the costumes, the sets, the cinematography are all ravishing. Just about every shot seems set up to look like a painting--it's as if del Toro was trying to make a horror version of BARRY LYNDON. This movie looks great on the big screen, but there's a human element missing (which is ironic, considering the story).
Oscar Isaac gives a very annoying performance as Baron Frankenstein, who comes off here as an arrogant hypocrite. Isaac's posturing can't match up to one single intense gaze from the likes of Peter Cushing or Colin Clive. Jacob Elordi fares better as the creature, who not only is the hero of this film, he's also the romantic hero. This monster is also something of a comic book mutant, flinging people around as if they were toys and having incredible regenerative powers. Elordi is helped by a monster-makeup design by Mike Hill that above all has the advantage of being unique.
Christoph Waltz does his usual Christoph Waltz act (he would have been a lot more watchable than Isaac as the Baron), while Mia Goth's Elizabeth is hampered by having to wear some outlandish clothes that overwhelm her character.
The del Toro FRANKENSTEIN has a running time of two and a half hours, and it drags plenty, especially with all the ponderous dialogue about the meaning of life and death. Perhaps I'm the wrong person to sum it up--I've seen just about every Frankenstein movie ever made, so a lot that del Toro presents felt like "been here, seen that" to me. A person who doesn't have much experience with cinematic Gothic horror might appreciate it more.
The one major thing I thought after seeing the del Toro FRANKENSTEIN is that filmmakers like James Whale and Terence Fisher were much more efficiently able to get to the meaning of Mary Shelley's story with much smaller budgets and much smaller running times.
I know del Toro is quite the A-lister these days and a connoisseur of classic horror, yet I have never seen one of his films. I have been curious about this one. Despite two of the greatest Frankenstein films ever, James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN (1931) and Terence Fisher's THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), having very little to do with Mary Shelley's original novel, I am always curious to see if someone can do a faithful and satisfying film adaptation. I wonder if del Toro's version is more faithful to the novel than most.
ReplyDeleteIt does use a lot of elements from the Shelley novel, but it also changes a number of things as well.
DeleteThe most faithful adaptation of the Shelley novel that I have seen is a little-known low-budget Swedish film called "Terror of Frankenstein" that was made in the mid-1970s.
Excellent review. Do you like the Kenneth Branagh version?
ReplyDeleteThanks. I have to say I wasn't a big fan of that one. From what I remember it has a lot in common with del Toro's, including having a Baron Frankenstein who likes to take his shirt off.
DeleteI'll probably never get a chance to see this, and I admit to being only mildly curious. Most of what I've heard about this film has been positive, so your review comes as kind of a surprise. Personally, I don't see the point in continuing to remake this story again and again. And 2 1/2 hours is a little bit much.
ReplyDelete