Frankenstein

It's very interesting to see Jacob Elordi in this role.

We are waiting for the release of the project

Judging by the trailer, there will be a lot of graphics, a good plot and a good cast.
We will be waiting for the release on 17.10 in cinemas or 7.11 online!

Of all the different Frankenstein-themed films of recent years, this is probably the best. The only thing I didn't like was the uneven pace of the narration. in the beginning, everything was shown and told in such detail, but somewhere by the last third they had already begun in broad strokes and just to finish, as if the timing was not enough for a full-fledged story. there would be an 8 episode miniseries format and it would be quite good

It made my heart bleed to see how Victor treated the Creature. 😭
This is essentially a child who needs to be shown and explained everything.

A cool adaptation of Shelley's work. Two remarks - the character of the uncle seemed useless, it was possible to do without him, or something. And at the end of the film, I noticed that Elordi's makeup was changing places, the blue creeping to the left and then to the right. It was distracting at the end of the movie. It was especially noticeable in the final shot.

It's a great movie

The movie is great, I don't even know what to say, to kiss the hands of the crew.

Del Toro is really one of the greatest masters. I hope they'll give me an Oscar for this movie.

Of all Del Toro's films, only "Crimson Peak" and "Pinocchio" were liked, the rest were not so much hooked. But his vision of "Frankenstein" struck to the depths of his soul, moved him to tears. I think this movie deserves several Oscars, including for playing Jacob Elordi.
I've watched almost all the film adaptations of Frankenstein, and judging by the opinion on the Internet, Kenneth Branagh's version is considered the closest to the plot of the book. But in my personal opinion, Del Toro surpassed Branagh's vision — he had canonical Gothic, but here is pure poetry and art.
It is an incredibly sensual and deeply sad sight - the humanity, creation and gentleness of a Being are so beautifully shown, and the destruction, insensitivity and immorality of Victor Frankenstein are so ugly and disgusting.

A beautiful film adaptation from a director who has made homage to this story more than once in his career, a classic after all, and his whole style is literally him. I can't even count how many versions of poor Frankenstein there were. You won't see anything new here at all, but it's beautiful, the actors are good, and that's about it.

Grotesque and magnificent!
This film feels like poetry in motion. The music, acting, sets, costumes, and cinematography are expertly crafted to create a Gothic masterpiece.
Guillermo del Toro is the master of macabre!!! Bravo,

Excellent film adaptation. Del Toro has won so many Oscars for a reason, he is a master of his craft. His "Pinocchio" personally disappointed me a little bit and something was missing, but against the background of the Disney one, it's a fucking masterpiece). But everything is perfect here. The film exceeded all expectations, despite the fact that the story about Frankenstein's monster has already been played out to the holes). Except that Elizabeth and I didn't get into the cast, Mia Goth didn't look very good in this image. This is her genre, but either a different character had to be prescribed with the appropriate type and lines, or another actress had to be chosen.

Well, what can I say? A masterpiece. A story that has been told a thousand times is being told again. But brilliant! Excellent visual range, excellent presentation, excellent acting. I rarely cry over movies, but this one made me cry.

There was no doubt that Del Toro would be able to bring something of his own and make a successful film adaptation of an already very famous story in the film industry.

and in principle, I've been watching his films since childhood and watching them with pleasure more than once. from the entertaining "Blade" and "Hellboy", the dark and Gothic "Fawn's Labyrinth" to his modern Oscar-winning films.

That's why the movie is such a masterpiece! The film has a long running time, but its atmosphere and style take their toll and capture all the attention on the screen. Del Toro brought a lot of his own and the film differs even from the book version of the original. To some extent, it even looks better than the original ideas and really surprises and inspires admiration.

The characters are also coolly written, there are no questions about the game and emotions. Elordi, in the form of a Monster, perfectly plays out all the pain, confusion and the search for an unhappy self..

Mia Goth and her character - ❤

krch speaks for a long time. Del Toro is a genius and with each of his films he penetrates deep into the soul and turns everything out there, giving out another masterpiece.
There's definitely a mastwatch here.

It's hard to imagine, but I'm one of those people for whom this is a Frankenstein story - it's the first time. I have nothing to compare it with. No, of course, I knew this story about the resurrection, but I hadn't read the book or seen a single movie (I don't think "Poor Wretches" counts).

And how glad I am that the first film was this one. He's great.
Magical actors, they play so well, they convey feelings and emotions, this passion, this pain, that you involuntarily believe them. You believe in this madness about eternal life and the reanimation of corpses.
Jacob Elordi - individual applause 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Honestly, I thought "Euphoria" was his limit and the type he could handle. But I was very wrong, he proved it in Elvis, and now he has confirmed and consolidated it. I think you have to be very talented to play a mindless creature and an embittered monster.
I'm not even going to talk about Oscar Isaac, I think you've all seen how great he is!

The Thoreau case is a genius. It was creepy, but fascinating at the same time.
The costumes, the music, the plot, the shooting - it's magical.
Yes, there are small mistakes, but still he did not hesitate to show the truth of "magic". These are mountains of corpses and their parts. It's the stink and the flies. Greatness and regret.

And the scene with the wolves will be in my dreams for a long time))

I think this film should receive an award at the Oscar ceremony. The best director. The best costumes. I won't say about the best film. They say "Bugonia" and "Battle after Battle" are quite competitors)
But it is impossible not to mention this masterpiece.

Guillermo Del Toro is my favorite director along with Tim Burton and Henry Selick. Literally, the sponsors of my childhood were
really looking forward to the film, as Del Toro mentioned many places that his Pinocchio was also, in fact, inspired by Frankenstein's Creature. All the smallest details, decorations and their "imperfections" make the film alive and real. A very beautiful dark fairy tale has turned out, maestro's fans will be 1000% satisfied!
Like Frankenstein's Creature, Del Toro's creations will last forever!

It's a beautiful movie. Guillermo does not shoot in any other way, he approaches each of his works with full dedication. For those familiar with the story, there are no unexpected twists, and the film is not about surprising with some kind of scrapping of templates. It's about feelings and thoughts, it completely immerses you in its atmosphere.

Absolut cinema

probably one of the most beautiful films this year, the shooting and the amount of detail are impressive

It's a great movie. 2.5 hours flew by

I've been waiting for this movie because I love Guillermo, his aesthetics and the atmosphere of the films.

And he didn't let me down here either. The film is very beautiful, very atmospheric. The picture in every frame is so Gothic.
It's very beautiful, very picturesque.

The cast and acting are great from start to finish. Everyone was great and good in their own way. No need to find fault

The story turned out to be good, whole, and complete. There was also no particular desire to find fault.
There is a general slight feeling of tightness, but I won't say right off the bat that it would be possible to cut without loss of quality.

But one thing. The most basic and saddest thing for me is that this film did not produce any psychoemotional response from me. There is no chemistry. I just happily wasted 2.5 hours of my life and forgot it. And I won't remember it anymore, I won't review it, I won't discuss it with anyone, because it didn't cause any sparkle inside. And that makes it sad.

Wow, it's orgasmus in both my eyes. Del Toro knows how to play Gothic like no one else, of course. It's just that every frame is a delight. The story itself, thank God, does not follow the boring, crooked original thoroughly, but it conveys the spirit accurately. An ideal arrangement that corrects and replaces the original source.

How beautiful it is 🔥🔥🔥
Guillermo, as always, created a beautiful but at the same time gloomy, Gothic world, God make-up, costumes, scenery💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀 There are simply no words. I really liked the movie. Bravo,

Guillermo del Toro, as always, is a master of his craft. Stylish, gloomy, atmospheric, even sometimes creepy. The scenery, graphics, grimm, and actors are all top notch. I liked the movie, 2.5 hours flew by quickly

It's a great movie. The best version of Frankenstein. The actors are just great!

That's the case when a movie ends and you're in physical pain because you want to watch it endlessly. And these 2.5 hours are nothing at all.…

Costumes and decorations - blow your head off

It's definitely an Oscar, ladies and gentlemen.

I am sincerely glad for Guillermo, he has been working on this film for so many years, and he has overcome so many difficulties! and the result was worth it. I wanted to pause almost every frame and look at it, look at it...

I agree with the comments above about 2.5 hours - I didn't even notice how they flew by.

Strange aftertaste, the ending is not revealed by duty, I am delighted with the actors ' performance and decor

Before that, Guillermo watched The Fawn's Labyrinth, Pinocchio, The Shape of Water, and there was always a feeling that he was very talented, but not my director. But this movie hit me right from the start, I'm thrilled. Super cheerful, super cruel, beautiful Oscar Isaac, Mia Goth and Jacob Elordi with his tragic eyes. Thanks to Netflix for giving 120 million for the 2.5-hour-long 18+ movie, it was worth it.

«My maker... told his tale. Then I will tell you mine.»

How cool, gspdprsti, what a fuck. Two and a half hours in one go. I'm not a fan of Jacob Elordi, but he's so damn good. It's trite, but I really liked the movements of the Creature, like a ragged dance. Oscar is a god, two different people at the beginning/ending and in the middle of the story. Mia Gott is great in her role, but so airy, I really liked her opposition to death. In general, the aesthetics of death in the film are so magnificent, scary and at the same time attractive. The picture and the plot, the camera work, the editing - the eyes are in ecstasy, I want to look at everything, diving deeper into each frame of the film. At the same time, all the bloody, creepy moments with the bodies do not fall out, they are woven very beautifully, not repulsively. Music to the very heart. It turned out to be a stunningly beautiful film. Definitely one of the best this year.

the amazing directorial work of Guillermo del Toro and the acting skills of Jacob Elordi👍

An amazing dummy. I hoped that the film would at least please my eyes with all sorts of Del Toro visionary art, but they didn't deliver that either. The story is shallow, the characters are shells without a nut, the graphon is of serial quality (especially wolves), the finale without a climax. Why was Mia Goth there at all?

Isaac's character in the film is called a "madman" and a "real monster," although he only hit Elordi with a stick a couple of times from the most notable atrocities. I probably have to figure out for myself how he inhumanly mocked him off-screen so that this storyline makes at least some sense.

Some kind of monster... Nothing. Neither externally nor behaviorally. They took an Engineer from Prometheus, scarred him, and stuck in a glaring eye. He's walking, wheezing. Again, I probably have to imagine his rich inner world for myself, looking at how he and his grandfather read books for half an hour in the hut.

The standard streaming content is cinematic, identical to the natural content. Not to my mind, not to my eyes, not to my heart.

I feel so infinitely sorry for the creature...

The hopes were fulfilled. I've been waiting for this movie for a reason. I adore Guillermo del Toro, and each of his masterpieces is always worth my time. This movie is no exception, and unfortunately, time flew by too fast. I love every actor who played here, and I've seen once again how wonderful their acting is. I don't want to imagine anyone else in their place. It will definitely be a well-deserved Oscar!

And how weak I am in front of Jacob Elordi's eyes…

It's a good movie, but not one that you want to watch. Not Oscar, in short.

At the moment when the camera flew into Frankenstein's throat and hovered further along the esophagus, I involuntarily expected to see BB 😄

Unfortunately, the weaknesses of the literary source are very clearly visible.

It turned out great, it's addictive right away, there are no unnecessary things. Del Toro is handsome, the actors are well done, Frankenstein is alive😁👍

The film adaptation is decent. I haven't read the book, unfortunately. However, I've seen many different versions from a galaxy of directors. Elordi is very harmonious in this role. The timing does not spoil the picture at all, the pace is good, you do not have to fall asleep.

It feels strange, as if the film is great for Netflix, but when compared with Del Toro's previous works, it came out rather poorly. The pace of the narration is quite sad, as if the second half of the film was mercilessly cut, it was necessary to make a mini-series or two parts as a last resort (God forgive the rebellious moon). Well, the monster turned out to be too cute, the ending is crumpled. It's probably going to be 6.5

In the end, I wanted to strangle Victor with my own hands. He didn't deserve to be forgiven.…
I really liked the movie and felt infinitely sorry for Victor's child.…
I am familiar with the original source and, in my opinion, this is one of the most powerful adaptations of it.…

"Have you never seen snow, my dear friend?
He cleanses and regenerates the world."

The Frankenstein theme has been played out a thousand times, but Guillermo del Toro's film turned out to be very interesting.

It's a very beautiful movie. I got a visual pleasure from watching it. Well , the story of Frankenstein 's Monster makes my soul ache . Being alone in this world is extremely scary .…

Excellent film adaptation! One of the best. The cast is stunningly selected🔥 10 out of 10

The first half of the movie is great. The second one.. Hmm, either I got bored, or they didn't press me. I am not familiar with the original source

Beautifully shot , soulful

I somehow liked the narration from the monster's perspective more.

a normal entertainment movie for one evening, but with a bunch of strange decisions that constantly get in the way of itself.

First of all, the very "love line". The girl there behaves as if her brain button is stuck on the "I fell in love in 3 seconds" mode. The reactions are ridiculous, the actions are meaningless, the logic is zero. As a result, it feels like the real monster in the movie is not Frankenstein, but her behavior. Every appearance is minus the atmosphere, plus the cringe.

Secondly, the delay. More than two hours is too much for such a light film. The plot is not so deep as to last forever, and this specifically makes the middle sink.

And most importantly, the drama doesn't work at all. There are moments there that are supposed to be strong, touching, emotional... but they are perceived as an ordinary passing thing. Nothing catches, does not squeeze, does not cause at least some sympathy. The characters are written in such a way that you're watching from the sidelines rather than worrying.

Bottom line: you can watch it, but the film makes a bandwagon for itself — a cringe heroine, stretched timekeeping and a drama that is not a drama at all. A one-shot movie that could have been better, but chose a strange path.

Del Toro showed that even now it is possible to shoot interesting classic and already hackneyed stories (Eggers could have learned) It won't be one of his favorite movies, but it was a pleasant viewing. And damn handsome.

I join the enthusiasm of those who liked it. I will definitely review this version of Frankenstein at least once more. And I will recommend this particular film to my friends and acquaintances. (I haven't read the book)

Victor was indeed a monster, perhaps not as much as the male part of the population imagines him to be, but that didn't make him any less good. He is a cruel, selfish egoist, for him other people are nobody, trash, material for work... Perhaps it was his father's fault, but only partly. The creature was originally bright and vulnerable, like a child, and only Elizabeth could see it (and the blind old man, of course, too). And I even saw the logic in Elizabeth's behavior, there was no "stuck button". It's a pity that she died. And I feel infinitely sorry for the Creature with its endless loneliness and eternal life. There are worse things than death...

"If you don't give me love, then I'll taste rage. And I have endless love."💔

10 out of 10. I hope the film wins an Oscar, very few works of recent years have been able to touch my soul.

In my opinion, Victor didn't really understand what love and devotion were at all. His feelings for his mother were more about possessiveness than love. He himself said that when his father left, "mom was completely his," and this shows well that he saw in her something of his own, some kind of "property." His anger at his brother was not only because his father singled him out, but also because of the belief that his brother allegedly took his mother away from him because she died giving birth to him. Feelings for Elizabeth also looked not like love, but as curiosity and an attempt to somehow "take it back" after her brother.

In his head, the real monster was his father, the culprit of his mother's death. But in the end, Victor himself repeated the same circle. He abandoned his own child, was cruel to him, and eventually caused the death of Elizabeth, who became something of a mother to him.

Trying to escape from the monster he saw in his father, he turned into him.

Until they created this "monster", it was not interesting to watch, but then it was impossible to tear yourself away, a magnificent story of the formation of the main character.
After the film, the conclusion suggests itself - to become a human being, one must die.

"Frankenstein" is not a story about a monster, but a mirror of our time. The monster is not in his appearance, but in our refusal to take responsibility for what we create: whether it's technology, AI, or social rejection. The real horror is not that we are playing God, but that we are abandoning our "children" to their fate. Frankenstein warns: without compassion, even the greatest creation becomes destruction.

"You may be my creator, but from now on I will be your master." I liked that moment) Well, Jacob Elordi played just amazing 😍 I love him and always will)

Just bombishly. The best of all film adaptations.

Excellent film adaptation.
The actors' acting is excellent, the picture is impressive. You can safely review it.

The film was beautifully shot, no doubt about it. But Frankenstein is my favorite book. And how the plot was distorted....It just freezes me out and bombs me. Frankenstein had a big and loving family, and Elizabeth was the adopted daughter (in other words) in their family and they grew up together, and yes, they eventually fell in love with Victor.…There was no love interest (or whatever you want to call it) between the creature and her....and in general, most of what was shown too....and it makes me very sad.

Finally, the representative accents in the USA have changed.
Now we have autistic, neurodifferentiated people and others with mental and mental disabilities in fashion.
Let's say the film adaptation is very loose and more about father-son acceptance and that not every monster is a monster, and not every person is a person.
Definitely worse according to the plot of the movie with McAvoy.
Definitely very Netflix-like.
After the Shape of the Water and the Cabinet, I expected a comeback from the maestro, but it turned out to be kind of weak

And yes, in terms of visual, it is, as always, a tower. It couldn't be any other way

This is a masterpiece film adaptation, just amazing.


Now let Guillermo Del Toro make Bram Stoker's Dracula.

I sincerely do not understand the above rave reviews! This movie definitely doesn't deserve such high marks. Yes, the movie has great visuals and Jacob Elordi's acting (Really), but that's it! This is the second "Shape of Water" - the same overrated "movie".

As always with Del Toro, it's very beautiful from a visual point of view. Shots that you want to stop and enjoy. I won't say anything about the plot - it's more or less known to everyone. The actors are good, especially Isaac. Probably the best adaptation in the last 20 years.

The best movie in recent years. Did you know that everything in the movie is not a neural network, but everything is real? Even the wolves and the tower, the buildings, everything. The fact that they play with the colors of the characters, the fact that the color red means gg's mother, and this shade is present on the girl after, in a necklace or in some other details resembling gg's mother, and gg sees his mother in her and therefore is in love. Even the same actress played her. And each character has its own shade. Frankie himself is beautiful. The picture is also beautiful. There are even at least 12 references to famous art paintings.

What a great movie it turned out to be, very atmospheric and glassy, I love it.
it's been a sooo long time, I haven't watched anything like this in terms of quality, besides, I couldn't stop watching it, which is also a rarity for movies now)
I'll review it for sure, because it's really worth it)

Guillermo made a very beautiful film again. Oscar Isaac is beautiful, I can't take my eyes off him, it's such a pity that they don't want to continue his "Moon Knight" in any way, I love his game.

I don't really like Elordi, but he's good here, I must say, all these movements of his character, how subtly he conveyed it.

I liked the movie. Colorful, atmospheric. The actors played well. The dialogues between the creator and his son touched me to the depths of my soul. But there is one thing. The story itself is hackneyed. Yes, the authors shoot their vision and shoot well. But there are so many books in the world that are waiting for a film adaptation. There are so many stories on the pages.

A beautiful fairy tale, nothing more. Frankenstein's monster, like a Disney princess, escapes from an evil "stepmother" learns to eat from deer and finds a place to sleep with the help of rats, and the blind, kind "fairy godmother" shows that people can be good, and of course they can't do without "love" at first sight. And even the ending, when it would seem that there should be the greatest strain, ends with acceptance from scratch, Victor knew his story before the monster's story, knew about his mind, feelings, but this did not prevent him from offering to hold the dynamite. I'm not against deviations from the original in the film adaptation, I'm not against creative vision, but for some reason, even within the framework of itself, the film seems superficial.

While I was learning to speak, you never learned to listen.

You all know this story, even if you don't: 1) read it; 2) watched it.

A scientist creates a monster. The monster is freaking out. The scientist abandons the brainchild in a panic. The monster is offended. Collateral damage and pursuit. The monster and the scientist engage in battle. The final.

The concept of Frankenstein's monster was coined by Mary Shelley as part of a literary game in 1816, and for two hundred years, many people have told this story, including through parodies ("Young Frankenstein" by Mel Brooks, which is considered one of the best versions). And it was kind of strange to me why Guillermo del Toro was so hung up on the film adaptation of Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus. Del Toro even wanted to make a trilogy based on the book, each part of which would tell about one of the main characters: Victor Frankenstein, the monster and, accordingly, the captain, who faced the scientist and his brainchild. Damn, man, you have a wagon and a small cart full of plans, including Lovecraft's "The Ridges of Madness," which you promised a quarter of a century ago! And to be honest, even after watching the new version of Frankenstein, I don't have an answer to that question. However...

First of all, it's beautiful. Guillermo del Toro, even in his weakest projects (and "Frankenstein" is a spoiler! - not a weak project) always knows how to work with a picture. The scale of the scenery, color correction, and special effects are all at the highest level. Her Majesty the Gothic rules the ball here. There is no doubt that del Toro put all his love into the film. Actually, after "The Shape of Water," I missed his last feature films (I only got hooked on the TV series "Cabinet of Curiosities") and, apparently, it was in vain. Del Toro is still one of the greatest, sorry, "visionaries" of modern cinema.

Secondly, yes, the story is familiar (part of the Monsters chapter, in my opinion, was told faster and more dexterously - suddenly - by James Gunn in a twenty-minute episode of the animated series Monsters Commandos), but del Toro still brought in enough new elements (plots, motivations and characters) to make it look fresh. and at the same time, she maintained respect for the original. Oscar Isaac is very good. The fact that he can play a reference asshole could be understood even by the "Forbidden technique" or "Drive", but what del Toro will force Isaac to make of Frankenstein is a reference asshole who thinks of himself as a rock star (in his style there are "notes" of Prince or Jagger, yes), this something interesting. It's not that no one has ever made a villain out of a scientist before, but it all came out very organically. As the Monster grows more human, Victor loses his humanity. Including in the movements (a very competent visual solution). And in the end, the question arises in full growth - and who, in fact, is the monster here? Perhaps del Toro even went overboard with Frankenstein's toxicity - it's difficult for him to worry even at the beginning, not like when he starts teaching the Monster. However, Isaac is so good that it's just fun to watch him. Plus, the characters are influenced by the idea of a vicious cycle: a bad parent (hello, Charles Dance!) he does not give enough love, and his child, being an adult, will not be able to pass on this love, in turn, to the next generation, and so on, and so on. Or will he be able to? The movie is just about that.

In general, none of the actors or actresses had any questions. Jacob Elordi in the role of the Monster was clearly trained by Doug Jones, del Toro's old friend, or at least "filmed" his movements in "Fawn's Labyrinth", "The Shape of Water" and other projects where Jones portrayed unknown animals. Mia Goth ("X", "Suspiria"), staying somewhere in space again, gives a certain fabulousness and lightness to what is happening. By the way, if a biography is ever made about Goth, she should be played by the younger Peresild, haha. Waltz's character, the death dealer Harlander, is entertaining, but for me, it goes out of the equation too quickly - I expected him to play a much bigger role. But Waltz himself did everything he could. However, despite the stellar cast (you can play the drinking game, celebrating the appearance of the natives of "Game of Thrones". You'll knock over three glasses for sure), most of the work fell on the shoulders of Isaac and Elordi, who coped with a bang.

And yes, del Toro didn't make horror movies again, in case anyone cares. "Frankenstein", of course, is bloody in places and there are many dismembered bodies in it, but it doesn't feel too naturalistic and frightening (rather, something in the spirit of Tim Burton. Alexandre Desplat's soundtrack even resembles the music of Danny Elfman in places). By the way, this is also facilitated by the Monster's almost comic-book superpower for regeneration, which is absent from the book. With this regeneration, all sorts of logical questions arise: like, why didn't Victor think to dismember him?

Oh well. Unlike Robert Eggers' mournful last year's Nosferatu, I don't want to find fault with the new Frankenstein. I'm just not going to give him a mega-high score, heh, like many critics of the top Internet. Two and a half hours pass pretty quickly. Del Toro shot a great version of a familiar story that may have really needed a cosmetic rejuvenation for the younger generation of viewers. It's not a masterpiece, but it's very beautifully and professionally staged and played.

Rating: 7 Transylvania hotels out of 10

Beautiful locations, costumes! The actors are gorgeous! But the narrative didn't get to me at all. It's clear that the director creates his own picture and it's great. I'm sure I would have liked the film more if I had postponed watching it instead of starting it the day after reading the book, which I really liked.

Frankenstein at the North Pole. Deltoro's handwriting is beautiful, but it shows in everything that it's a fairy tale. The scenery, the makeup, the plot, the light fairy-tale grotesque everywhere. The fans won't be disappointed. Beginners can be deceived by the posters. Why they stole a piece of the plot from Terror is not clear))

It's boring, it's too long, and it's not even second-hand, but it's been digested three times. I fell asleep in the middle, woke up, for the sake of principle, rewound to the moment where I fell asleep, watched it to the finish line. As a result, it's just wasted time.

Mary Shelley is not familiar with the literary source in detail, but the film caused conflicting feelings. There is no fantasy component of "Van Helsing" in it, but it cannot be said that the Gothic style, like the recent "Nosferatu", is directly written off one by one. I would rather compare it to Edward, who has scissorhands. The same vibe of winter solitude. The second half is very long. In general, it was already a bit boring in the end.

No wonder there is a mention of " based on motives" at the beginning of the film, since you will find literally nothing from the original book here. The film is very beautiful, I want to look at every detail, and the makeup of Frankenstein was simply mind-blowing. For me, the plot turned out to be very long, I think this is the only drawback of this picture. It was really hard not to close my eyes at some points. But despite all this, the film cannot be given a bad rating, the atmosphere is still amazing)

The movie is fire. And blood with life and death. I just didn't understand who was running after whom in the end and who was running away from? Although it may be intended that way...

It's a great idea, and the graphon isn't bad. but in general, the film is about nothing. we tried to tell the story of
both, but the climax came out like nothing. in fact, under normal conditions, neither one nor the other would have forgiven each other. That's why I don't believe it. Well, it would be more interesting to
see what the monster would do next and how people accepted it.

This is an absolutely brilliant film adaptation that will touch the heart and soul of everyone where there is a place for love and sympathy. Great acting! This film is not about action and plot, but about feelings and emotions. I recommend it! 10\10

Visually, the film is beautiful. It's a good modern adaptation of the famous novel, and the story is closer to it than most Frankenstein films.
I didn't like the fact that a trope was introduced into the plot, as a woman falls in love with a monster and tries to save him... And here he's dying. For what? Drama? In my opinion, the mortal existence of a monster alone is already sad.
The choice for the role of Frankenstein surprised me even before the release, because you expect him to be terribly ugly, and Elordi turned out to be absolutely not like that, but this is not a claim to him, of course))

What a strange adaptation of a good classic!

Benicio followed the path of peacemaker - they forgave each other in the end, but they couldn't live happily ever after, alas

The real book is steeped in hatred, vanity, and ambition.

From the actors: Waltz, in my opinion, is already playing the same character everywhere.
Isaac just got used to it well, liked it
Elordi is not bad, but they made a painfully caricature painted grimm, it doesn't cause any horror, even compared to the same Nosferatu.
Mia Goth, I think, is the coolest of the cast, and she looks like she's not from our time.

😍😍😍

It was a very beautiful movie, and I couldn't take my eyes off it all the time, especially from Jacob Elordi's performance. I rewound it somewhere to review it. I was very touched by the story of Frankenstein

I didn't think I'd start my comment with how beautiful the coffins in the movie are - this is the first time I've seen them.
Throughout the film, the eyes enjoyed the architecture, pieces of furniture and all sorts of aesthetic details.
The actors all got used to this picture well, but Elordi surprised me the most, completely unexpectedly and as if a new level for the actor himself in his career☺️
The makeup of Frankenstein itself is not very advanced, I think it could have been done much better and more interesting in our years)

The novel "Frankenstein" by the writer Mary Shelley is too loosely interpreted. It was shot beautifully, with a flourish and good special effects. Of the disadvantages, one can note the length of the plot, the lack of disclosure of the images of some characters.

Interesting, but sooooo long-winded.

Against the background of Del Tor's "Frankenstein," the film "The Poor Wretches" looks like the Frankenstein of a healthy person. Although the latter didn't come to me at all at the time, at least it has an interesting message. It's funny that the same thing happened with the recent Nosferatu. I wasn't particularly impressed with him at the premiere, but against the background of Del Toro's Dracula: A Love Story, he just started playing with new colors and doesn't seem so mediocre anymore.

I was pleasantly surprised by the depth. This is not just another interpretation of the classics, but a dark and philosophical story about the consequences of human pride. The film makes you wonder where the line is between the creator and the monster.

No, well. Close to the text and at the same time beautiful. Everything is great.

I read the book, watched several different film adaptations, and generally understood what to expect. I liked the graphics, Frankenstein himself is also quite cute. It's a bit delayed in some places, but it's generally dynamic. But still, some points raised a lot of questions)) Especially Elizabeth's behavior. One minute she's "friends" with Victor, then "oh, I'm forever given to someone else," then she slapped her face when they told her they were happy for her wedding. And then she threw her arms around Frankenstein and "get me out of here." Victor's tantrums also caused some confusion. The most adequate of all was Frankenstein himself, who just wanted love) Otherwise, the film is not bad 😁

In 2.5 hours, I just didn't see a single frame from a weak technical point of view, this is literally the perfect performance of a fairy-tale world with jagged graphics, honed landscapes, as soon as winter appears in the frame, flakes of snow and snowflakes immediately wrap around the focus and dissolve into an abundance of colors and angles, and at nightfall it lowers shadows on this canvas. tremblingly covering the heroes with mournful reflections in the corners of the dim palace. Specks of rain and icing on the brig of the ship, with changeable tones from the change of weather, the timbre of the narrator and changes in the characters of the characters, as well as clothes with the interior change from row to row, speaking to the viewer.

It is almost impossible to get bored in 2.5 hours, a Shakespearean tragedy with grief from the mind, where the alchemical question is asked whether the soul exists or whether it is a muscle spasm and a technical component of our body, a skillful form of evolution or the idea of the almighty. And only Victor himself remained a controversial figure in this whole version for me, although he explained how he became bitter, but he put little effort, patience into his creation and destroyed the main progress of his life too quickly, which makes the main conflict insufficiently thought out for me. But otherwise, the dilemma of fathers and children here qualitatively acquires a powerful base due to the dialogues, and the final lines literally broke my heart into pieces, it was hard for me not to shed a tear, but even harder, my heart was pounding, and it was as if I had received a new impression in life that had never been seen before. the brain, Guillermo COULD.

The orchestral tragic symbolism to the point of stupefaction is that when we are happy, we cannot fully experience this life, and only suffering allows us to reflect on what is left behind, and the most deadly painful thing is if a person has lived his whole life as a monster, having intelligence, talent and once love, but all this so ignominiously lost to himself to yourself, to your more meager qualities. The Fall of Man is straight from the Bible, friends, well, a great work from Mary Shelley, who became the personification of the future of cinema in Germany and around the world.

in a word - masterpiece..

The film is amazing in depth. Deserves to be seen.

This is not only an interesting film that shows a familiar story from a different angle, but also incredibly beautiful. I'm generally a fan of the Gothic atmosphere, which is why I really loved Tim Burton's films when I was a kid, but Guillermo del Toro is also very good at this. There are so many gorgeous shots in this movie, it's a delight for the eyes. When I turned on "Frankenstein," I expected it to be just as good as, for example, last year's "Nosferatu." But in the end, I really liked it.

Out of a dozen or more films about F. this one penetrated the consciousness most deeply and the afterthought from watching it lasted for several days. Beautifully tailored, just like F. The story and cast of the actors showed a high level.

It's a wonderful movie! Everything is good in it: the picture, the visual, the acting, and the plot. Jacob Elordi played the monster perfectly, provided that he was in full makeup.

a gorgeous film adaptation of the novel, it's a pity the plot is a little different from the book, but it even brings a certain charm, especially the love scene and ending

It's like "beauty and the beast"

The whole movie was very pitiful of "the monster."

A very beautiful film with a wonderful cast and masterful narration from Guillermo Del Toro.

Probably his favorite movie now.

I'm not a fan of dramas, so somehow it didn't work out. 3/5

Frankenweenie>>>Frankenstein

It's a very good movie! beautiful picture and insanely good plot! I felt very sorry for the creature, how Victor treated him... Well, in general, I can definitely say that the film is Oscar-worthy) I highly recommend it!! Jacob is really good.

I haven't read a book, or seen any other film adaptations. I'm not familiar with the classic original.I don't know the director either, but I liked his vision of the story.
Great movie, great acting.
It was a pity for the creature, the poor one had been found to wander and be alone forever.