Frankenstein

There have been complaints that Frankenstein is dated. Personally I don't find that, it isn't the most sumptuous of all films, but it is still a wonderful film, that is still shocking and enthralling to me. The Gothic set design is very imaginative, helped by the beautiful cinematography with suitably bizarre camera angles, and the music score is haunting, melancholy and atmospheric. James Whale's direction is also very impressive, it is very focused and innovative. The story is without a doubt a classic, tense, moody and melancholic, and the Monster itself is just a masterful creation. The cast are superb, Colin Clive is very good as the eccentric Henry Frankenstein, while Mae Clarke is an alluring and sympathetic Elizabeth. There is no doubt in my mind though that Boris Karloff gave the best performance, not only that but the definitive portrayal of the monster. He is almost unrecognisable and scary with his make up, and while he was scary with the towering presence and the frightening look in his eyes, his monster is also somewhat touching, particularly when he reaches up to grasp a ray of sunlight. Overall, shocking, enthralling and just wonderful. "It's Alive!" 10/10 Bethany Cox

Incredible production design and sets. Obviously a template and inspiration for a million things to come.

Es un buen clásico, de eso no hay duda, pero en mi opinión está lejos de ser tan espectacular como muchos la consideran.

WASTED POTENTIAL: THE MOVIE "Frankenstein" is a tonally inconsistent and poorly written slog that squanders the talents of its cast and the richness of its source material, delivering a commercial melodrama that should have instead been one of Del Toro's finest works of art. Just like its monster, "Frankenstein" is awkwardly stitched together from different parts: pulpy monster movie; costume drama; and gothic horror. Yes, this sounds like a mess on paper. And yes, it is unfortunately a mess in terms of execution. The first 15 minutes of this movie feel like a deleted scene from the superb TV show "The Terror". The last 15 minutes of this movie feel like a sappy Disney movie that could have played on the Hallmark channel. Many viewers are keen to praise the set design and visuals of "Frankenstein". I only partially agree with this praise. I could look past the brief moments of awful animal CGI. But I could not get past the repetitive camera movements and generic shots. Most of the shots were orchestrated to show the detail of the sets. But shouldn't the camera be used to make the audience feel more engaged in the characters and their actions and emotions? I am really glad I did not see "Frankenstein" in the theatres. Beneath its shiny surface, "Frankenstein" lacks any dread, intrigue, or thematical richness. There is simply not enough suspense or tension to carry the film, and the script is to blame. Victor Frankenstein is reduced to a one-dimensional villain. He never wrestles with internal conflict before creating his monster. He never grapples with the interesting moral questions that should have arisen (and were present in the book) after creating his monster. No, he only regrets making a monster so "stupid" and dangerous. Oscar Isaac gives an unconvincing performance - something I thought I would never say - and you wonder if this is because he had so little to worth with. Then you have Frankenstein's monster, portrayed as a misunderstood creature who only resorts to violence to defend himself. Sure, the monster is humanized in the Mary Shelley novel, but here Del Toro sanitizes the character to the point that he is dull and cliché. Del Toro even seems afraid to make the monster look as hideous as he should look (is he supposed to look like a stand-in for a Tool music video?) Then we have Elizabeth, who should feel like a central character but is woefully underdeveloped. We as an audience are given few reasons to understand why she is attracted to Frankenstein's monster and why we should care. This is a glaring issue considering a huge part of the plot hinges on this relationship. (On a related note, the talents of Mia Goth are utterly wasted here!) The poor characterization in "Frankenstein" accounts largely for its thematic clumsiness. The film tries to make the story about forgiveness, fatherhood, and passing on trauma to others. But why adapt "Frankenstein" the book if you don't want to explore the philosophical and existential themes it is originally known for? The confused tone, uninspired visual storytelling, and bland, simplistic characters could be partially forgiven if the movie was not so long. I was amazed by how not a single scene in this 150+ minute movie made me feel any emotion other an boredom or disappointment. No horror. No sadness. No surprise. I really wanted to enjoy this movie but it felt like a chore to watch since I was never emotionally invested in the characters or their journey. Was their even a journey? All of this is truly frustrating because the potential was there, especially given this director, this source material, and this cast. "Frankenstein" makes it clear that Del Toro loves sentimental and gothic fairy tales and monsters. It is a shame that he relies too much on visuals and character/world design to support the flimsy narratives of his weaker films. Del Toro works best when he makes something truly original, like his magnum opus "Pan's Labyrinth". Sadly, his adaption of the classic Marry Shelley novel makes me think that he appreciates it because of its cultural impact and not because of the thematic depth and moral ambiguity that led to it becoming so timeless.

Фильм можно посмотреть, но чисто для ознакомления, с чего началась история монстра Франкенштейна. Слишком уж коряво и наивно всё смотрится на текущий день.