Robert Stewart
I need to watch more of the classic Universal Horror features from the 1930’s through 1950’s. I’ve seen a handful of them, sure, but there are several more out there. For instance, I have skipped The Mummy and The Phantom Of The Opera because I had heard they didn’t quite measure up to the rest. But maybe I’ll dig them anyway when I try them out.
My favorites at the point to what I’ve seen are The Creature From The Black Lagoon, The Invisible Man, and The Bride Of Frankenstein. The last of which is a widely beloved movie, and perhaps the first ever example of Hollywood making a sequel that bettered its original. Its tale of the creature escaping its own demise and finding a desire for a mate is captivating, as is the fact that the monster’s bride does not appear until there are about five minutes left in the picture!
Recently, Guillermo del Toro took a swing at the Frankenstein mythos with an outing simply called Frankenstein. It is an allegedly true-to-Mary-Shelley’s-original-writing (I say allegedly, as I have not read it and can’t compare them) take on the mad scientist doctor and his creation. It is told in parts–a prelude, Victor’s Tale, The Creature’s Tale, and a climax–instead of in the typical three act formula. This shifting of narration allows us to see things from multiple points of view, and we are privy to things we would have to speculate on if the story was only told from, say, Victor’s side of things.
If you are familiar with the Frankenstein story, it’s all here. The collected body parts, the lightning storm, the eventual breaking free of the beast, etc. There’s not much reason to get into the story. So let’s delve right into what worked and what didn’t…
TWO UPS AND TWO DOWNS
Oscar Issac and Jacob Elordi do really fantastic work as Dr. Frankenstein and his creature. The duo is strikingly potent in each of their roles, and while I do wish we had seen a bit more of their acting against each other, they both do simply fascinating turns individually, so it’s all fine.
Each character is given a try as the narrator and gets a chance to carry the story, though it does feel like there is more of Victor Frankenstein than there is of the creature; perhaps that is just because Victor’s tale starts off the movie. But Oscar Isaac shines in his portrayal of Victor, which is surprisingly a less sympathetic turn for the character than I have seen in, say, the classic Universal Horror outings from the 1930’s. There, Victor realizes the error of his ways and regains his sanity in short order. Here, Victor is cruel and deceptive, and he doesn’t really get a swing at redemption until the very bitter end. Still, we see in Isaac’s performance what drives the man and why he is what he is.
With Elordi’s take on the creature, we see a creation who yearns for learning and care, but those are things that his creator simply can not offer. After he befriends the old blind man in the cabin and learns words, he goes from a frightened simpleton of a being to one with a full soul. He is torn between his rage and his desire to be accepted. Elordi’s growth is not as subtle or as tactful as, say, Emma Stone’s from the Frankenstein analogue Poor Things, but he still shows true depth of emotion.
The story has some real heart to it, and it has some definite nuances to its telling. And it makes a good combination retelling of Frankenstein and The Bride Of Frankenstein. I, for whatever reason, did not expect the tale from The Bride to get any screen time here, but we see all of that with the creature’s desire for a companion and his befriending of the blind man.
Ultimately, Guillemo del Toro’s Frankenstein is the story of failed fathers. Both Victor’s own and then Victor himself. But it never rubs your face in that fact. It took me an embarrassingly long time into the film to realize that’s what it was all driving towards. But when I realized it, it all made so much sense to me.
Mia Goth is abjectly wasted in a thankless nothing role that you could have had anyone play. She isn’t given much to do and isn’t really able to elevate what she is given. It’s really kind of a shame, even when I’m not the fanatic supporter of her that so many others are given that I was not fan of Pearl. I recognize she is talented, of course. But still… I expected del Toro to give her more than what she was handed in this offering.
She just doesn’t have as much screen time as you would like, and what time she has is spent fairly one dimensionally. She feels too flawless; she is clever and beautiful and empathetic. It’s hard to really engage with her. It’s possible this is because what we see of her is through the memories of two beings who loved her, and so maybe they embellished her character. But that still doesn’t help Goth have a meatier role, even if true.
The movie runs long and has a fair amount of fat that could be cut and plot points that ultimately don’t matter. At well over two-and-a-half hours, Frankenstein can be something of an endurance test at times, and not everything you see screams that it had to be included.
Kristoph Waltz’ character, for example, could almost be cut entirely. He shows up as Victor’s financial benefactor with mysterious designs on the latter’s talent, only for his reveal to be exactly what you expect. And then he dies, leaving no further imprint on the story. It’s a waste of time, and even if true to the book, I would rather this was excised from the tale and we are just told Victor inherited the money for his experiments.
OVERALL: 4 / 5
As you would expect from Guillermo del Toro, Frankenstein looks gorgeous most of the time, and has some truly soulful storytelling. The writer/director remains a master of his craft, and he surrounded himself with actors that carry out his vision impeccably. Still, the film is too long in parts and wastes Mia Goth, which feels like a huge sin. So while I certainly recommend it, I can’t say I loved it.
