Don't be mad about being called out, sweety. Just responding to your post. You don't want a response, then don't post.
Frankenstein (2025)
4,042 Views |
48 Replies |
Last: 5 days ago by agracer
Saw this tonight. Decent. A little long on the front half of it.
Saw it tonight. I liked it. Very well done even for a story I don't find that interesting.
Not sure how I felt about this version. Wasn't bad ... just didn't grab me much. The first couple of sections were actually a little boring. Lots of back story that didn't really add anything, IMO.
The scenes where the monster befriends the old man were the most interesting.
ETA: I feel like modern directors add a lot of unnecessary details to these remakes in order to set them apart from the original. But to me, they bog down the story and make it more complex without adding anything.
The scenes where the monster befriends the old man were the most interesting.
ETA: I feel like modern directors add a lot of unnecessary details to these remakes in order to set them apart from the original. But to me, they bog down the story and make it more complex without adding anything.
Watched it this morning. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Very pretty and very interesting, but not entertaining?
It's the kind of movie you want to analyze, write essays about, compare shots to famous paintings, look for Jesus allegories, etc. That makes for an interesting movie, but not necessarily an entertaining movie.
The look and feel of the movie absolutely nailed gothic horror.
Oscar Isaac was good. But I felt I needed more difference between his manic, in love, and regretful personalities. The movie talked about his calming down and moving on but he was acting pretty much the same as he did while manic and creating the monster.
Could they have found anyone more attractive to play Elizabeth (Imagine a young Scarlett Johansson playing this role)? and made the Monster uglier?
Pretty faithful adaptation of the book
Found it funny that the Monster was reading from Ozymandias at one point. A poem written by Percy Shelley, the husband of Frankenstein's author Mary Shelley.
It's the kind of movie you want to analyze, write essays about, compare shots to famous paintings, look for Jesus allegories, etc. That makes for an interesting movie, but not necessarily an entertaining movie.
The look and feel of the movie absolutely nailed gothic horror.
Oscar Isaac was good. But I felt I needed more difference between his manic, in love, and regretful personalities. The movie talked about his calming down and moving on but he was acting pretty much the same as he did while manic and creating the monster.
Could they have found anyone more attractive to play Elizabeth (Imagine a young Scarlett Johansson playing this role)? and made the Monster uglier?
Pretty faithful adaptation of the book
Found it funny that the Monster was reading from Ozymandias at one point. A poem written by Percy Shelley, the husband of Frankenstein's author Mary Shelley.
My opinion is along the lines as others. I found the entire movie interesting and would say it was good, overall. However, I just felt like it was missing something for it to really click with me.
The costumes and overall atmosphere was great. I loved everything about the look of this gothic horror world, which was what really drew me to the movie when seeing the trailers. The tower where everything takes place was awesome.
Really liked Oscar Isaac in the role, but agree with others on not seeing enough difference in his later character. I wouldn't necessarily put that all on Isaac, but would include Del Toro's vision of the character and the script. I like where we ended up with Dr. Frankenstein, but I never really saw the journey to get there, in the script. I believe I am supposed to glean from the story that the back half of the movie, where we get the Monster's story, that is what finally impacted Frankenstein. But other than the apology to his sister in law, I never really saw more character growth from him.
I never read the book and have actually never seen an actual adaptation of it, so I don't know if that's just Del Toro's adaptation or if that's also a flaw in the original story.
My biggest complaint is the CGI. It was incredibly distracting for me because just about everything looked to be CGI. Perhaps it's the CGI mixed with what seemed like UHD cameras that looked too clean for me and made the CGI stand out.
Overall, I would give it a 6.5/10. Good but not great.
The costumes and overall atmosphere was great. I loved everything about the look of this gothic horror world, which was what really drew me to the movie when seeing the trailers. The tower where everything takes place was awesome.
Really liked Oscar Isaac in the role, but agree with others on not seeing enough difference in his later character. I wouldn't necessarily put that all on Isaac, but would include Del Toro's vision of the character and the script. I like where we ended up with Dr. Frankenstein, but I never really saw the journey to get there, in the script. I believe I am supposed to glean from the story that the back half of the movie, where we get the Monster's story, that is what finally impacted Frankenstein. But other than the apology to his sister in law, I never really saw more character growth from him.
I never read the book and have actually never seen an actual adaptation of it, so I don't know if that's just Del Toro's adaptation or if that's also a flaw in the original story.
My biggest complaint is the CGI. It was incredibly distracting for me because just about everything looked to be CGI. Perhaps it's the CGI mixed with what seemed like UHD cameras that looked too clean for me and made the CGI stand out.
Overall, I would give it a 6.5/10. Good but not great.
I watched the first 1/3 to 1/2 of this last night...and Im not sure I'm going to finish. The set up and scenery was great, but the story didnt really do much for me. Tuned in here to see if I should and there's not really any ringing endorsements
Speaking of Oscar Isaacs, he's great in A Most Violent Year.
Speaking of Oscar Isaacs, he's great in A Most Violent Year.
I would definitely say it's worth finishing. Some of my favorite parts are from the second half of the movie.
I just had some high expectations because I love gothic horror, I was excited about the roll for Isaac, and was interested int he aesthetic we would get from Del Toro. All of that was still up there.
In Rotten Tomatoes' binary style, I would say the movie is good, not bad.
I just had some high expectations because I love gothic horror, I was excited about the roll for Isaac, and was interested int he aesthetic we would get from Del Toro. All of that was still up there.
In Rotten Tomatoes' binary style, I would say the movie is good, not bad.
Quote:
My biggest complaint is the CGI. It was incredibly distracting for me because just about everything looked to be CGI. Perhaps it's the CGI mixed with what seemed like UHD cameras that looked too clean for me and made the CGI stand out.
Agree on the CGI. There were some spots like the Monster escaping from the tower and fighting wolves that stood out as not great.
EclipseAg said:
Not sure how I felt about this version. Wasn't bad ... just didn't grab me much. The first couple of sections were actually a little boring. Lots of back story that didn't really add anything, IMO.
The scenes where the monster befriends the old man were the most interesting.
ETA: I feel like modern directors add a lot of unnecessary details to these remakes in order to set them apart from the original. But to me, they bog down the story and make it more complex without adding anything.
Have you read the book? Don't mean to give you homework, but what did Del Toro add to the story? Genuinely curious how it differed.
Been a while since I read it some of the details on the brother are different. I think he's a child in the book. But Elizabeth is quite different, she has a lot more to do in this movie.
Just watched it on Netflix.
Very good as a gothic horror film. Very disappointing as a faithful adaptation of Mary Shelly's book. Del Toro took MANY liberties.
Very good as a gothic horror film. Very disappointing as a faithful adaptation of Mary Shelly's book. Del Toro took MANY liberties.
Ol_Ag_02 said:TXAG 05 said:Vitani said:TXAG 05 said:Urban Ag said:
I too am encouraged to see highly talented Oscar Isaac representing the BIPOC acting community in a role that has been traditionally reserved for European males. Fitting in that Isaac has made great strides in breaking stereotypes of Latino characters in Hollywood. Was hopeful that the monster would be depicted as gender fluid or at least non-binary but remain happy for this achievement.
Please star my post and follow me on X (formerly Twitter).
I thought he was just a regular old white guy
You mean Oscar Isaac Hernandez Estrada?
That's his actual name? Would never have guessed, but not sure if I've seen him in anything but Star Wars.
He's a really good actor whose talents were wasted on Star Wars.
or did Kathleen Kennedy waste his talent?
Featured Stories
See All
17:31
18h ago
12k
2027 Waxahachie safety JayQuan Snell commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
5:49
11m ago
786
5:39
18h ago
3.0k
Highlights: Texas A&M 31, South Carolina 30
by TexAgs Studios
ag87#
Anyone know why SC got the ball on the 20 after bond's short boink?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
87