Frankenstein - Review

To my mind, Guillermo del Toro’s films usually tend to fall (quite neatly) into one of three categories:

• “The Masterpieces” (Pan’s Labyrinth, Nightmare Alley)

• “The Good-But-Not-Quite-Great” (Hellboy 2, The Shape of Water, Pacific Rim)

• “The Not-So-Good” (Crimson Peak, Hellboy)

  
  

“Frankenstein,” his newest release – and one that he has been very vocal about wanting to make for literally decades now – is probably the movie in del Toro’s filmography that comes the closest to climbing categories from “The Good-But-Not-Quite-Great” into “The Masterpieces": shot-for-shot, frame-for-frame, “Frankenstein” looks and sounds SPECTACULAR. Del Toro has wasted no amount of effort (or Netflix’s money) to ensure that his vision is fully realized, and the results are stunning: never before has Mary Shelley’s classic novel been adapted in a way that is quite this lavish.

Helping matters immensely is the cast, comprised of a who’s-who of talent, including Oscar Isaac (as Victor Frankenstein), Mia Goth, Christoph Waltz, and Jacob Elordi (yes, THAT Jacob Elordi) as the Creature. Everyone here brings their A-game, treating the material with just the right amount of gravitas and gothic melodrama. Isaac, in particular, is very strong here, imbuing Victor with a tormented arrogance that is both recognizably human and yet also admirably unsympathetic, even bordering on detestable. “Frankenstein” is a story that has seen more than its fair share of adaptations over the 200-plus years since its original publication, but between del Toro’s eye for visuals and the game cast, I would argue that this particular version is among the more compelling entries we’ve gotten as of late.

What holds the movie back from full-on greatness – at least to my mind – is its refusal to go boldly off-book. Say what you will about Kenneth Branagh’s much-maligned 1994 adaptation, but that film at least took chances, particularly with tone and theme, daring to elevate the story to a heightened, almost operatic level. Del Toro’s approach, on the other hand, is more straightforward, narratively and thematically-speaking.

The upside of this, of course, is that left on its own, “Frankenstein” is stil a great tale with base elements that still resonate strongly, and for most of its 130 minutes, del Toro’s film does a marvelous job of “hitting the notes.” The downside is that if you’ve seen or read any variation of Shelley’s seminal story, much of the way that del Toro chooses to approach the material will likely be familiar, at best, and even a little stale, at worst. As someone who has always admired del Toro specifically for his audacity and narrative risk-taking, his refusal to treat Shelley’s story with anything more than the utmost reverence is disappointing (and perhaps a little confusing, as well).

Still – that all being said, “Frankenstein” is never less than watchable (oftentimes compulsively so). It’s no secret that del Toro has a lifelong affection for monsters and outcasts; pretty much all of his films are love letters to the misunderstood, with Shelley’s novel effectively acting as the template for pretty much his entire filmography. So it makes total sense that he would, finally, after 30 years, get around to adapting what is essentially the “ur-text” of his career. That his adaptation is beautifully mounted and only occasionally brilliant is a bit disappointing, but hey: B+ del Toro is still better than most others’ A-quality.

Grade: B+

Spiritual Overview

*SPOILERS*

At the core of Mary Shelley’s novel is a deep question: What happens when man tries to become God? It’s a moral (and spiritual) paradox that Guillermo del Toro is clearly grappling with, as well.

The Victor we meet here is driven by obsession: in the film’s early goings, we see that he’s obsessed with conquering death (a fixation birthed via the loss of his mother and his stepfather’s inability to save her). It’s a grief-rooted pursuit that soon turns into arrogance and even mania, as Victor – seeing himself as a god and effective creator of life – works to defy the natural order. Of course, his creation rebels, and Victor himself pays the price, eventually coming to regret and even despise his own ambition and creation.

It’s a theme that has reverberated throughout literature, film, and theology ever since the novel’s initial publication. From “Jurassic Park” to “Ex Machina,” no shortage of artists have been haunted by the idea of humans playing god, and how our unchecked ambition can frequently lead to our ruin. That notion – that an individual might pursue godlike power and lose their soul in the process – is terrifying, and it also raises another interesting question: who really holds control of our lives – us or our Creator?

One of the things that del Toro’s film caused me to think about is how often I personally seek to maintain strict control of my own life…or at least, the “illusion” of control. The temptation to think ourselves better and smarter than God is a real one, something that most of us struggle with at numerous points in our life. While the majority of human beings aren’t literally creating monsters, most of us do tend to fall easily into the trap of believing that we’re self-sufficient, that we’re capable of mastering everything on our own. Scripture, of course, argues the exact opposite of this, with Proverbs 16:9 stating explicitly, “In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps.” 

As believers, it’s worth remembering the importance of surrendering and trusting His authority, even when we don’t fully understand His plan….lest we, like Victor, find ourselves shocked when our “perfect creation” turns into a monster of our own making.

What are your thoughts? Did the film work for you as well as it did for me? And did its spiritual undercurrents strike you the same way? Share your thoughts below.