Version Control: Which ‘Frankenstein’ movie should you watch this Halloween?
Remakes, reimaginings and re-adaptations have been a part of movies for as long as the medium has existed. With the chain Version controlJesse Hassinger explores stories with multiple notable incarnations throughout cinema history, to help determine which film version might be right for your streaming needs.
Frankenstein, the doctor from Mary Shelley’s classic gothic novel, may be the most enduring moniker ever associated with monsters. Sure, Dracula might be just as popular (and generate less confusion about the name he actually had), but the eponymous novel Frankenstein was published earlier, in 1818. Since then, various combinations of a mad scientist creating life from dead body parts and the resulting monster have appeared (and reeled) across countless films over the years. Not all of these are close adaptations Mary Shelley Frankenstein; Many of them are not adaptations at all, but simply re-appropriations of the same basic idea. (The difference is how few of these differences go without mentioning Frankenstein, versus the sheer number of non-Dracula vampires.) This can make sorting through Frankenstein movies particularly stressful, especially when a new movie comes out bearing the good doctor’s name.
It’s happened again, as it happened with Guillermo del Toro Frankenstein It arrives in theaters before Netflix launches – and boasts a more toned-down pedigree than many recent monster movies, but carries the same basic title as many of the others. This is just another reason why you need version control, to sort out the most notable modifications Frankenstein And decide what you want to prioritize for Halloween (or later) viewing.
-
Image: Goosebumps James Whale’s classic 1931 film features the version of Frankenstein’s monster that most people probably envision when they hear the name: a long, flat, spiked haircut for the neck. It is also interesting that it is a significant departure from Shelley’s novel. Instead of filling in Victor Frankenstein’s personal history, the story begins midway through the film (many of Wyle’s horror films are similarly appropriate) — oh, it’s not Victor, it’s Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) for some reason. There are a lot of strange changes like this that set the film apart from Shelley’s and also distinct from some of its more famous icons. For example: Henry has a hunchback assistant, but he is called Fritz, not Igor – and there is no such character in the novel anyway.
Moreover, Boris Karloff’s performance as Frankenstein’s monster adheres to the earlier, more childlike version of the character – who in the novel continues to learn language, read, and write, and becomes quite articulate in the process. Karloff’s character remains, perhaps realistically, in a suspended form of compromised communication, giving the film a different tragic dimension from its source material. Sincerity isn’t everything, after all. Truly iconic, cut into 70 minutes, and featuring one of cinema’s most memorable performances, Frankenstein It would be an easy winner under most circumstances… if it weren’t for the fact that Part 2, Bride of FrankensteinIt’s even better! The 1935 sequel Whale builds on a plot point in Shelley’s script but takes it further, while the film itself is weirder, funnier and even cooler looking than its predecessor. (It may get its own version control when the Maggie Gyllenhaal reimagining hits theaters in the spring.) It’s the superior sequel to the original. So where does that leave this wonderful asset? It’s still a must-see, but not necessarily in the first Frankenstein situation. Let’s continue examining the competition.
-
New success Bram Stoker’s DraculaFrancis Ford Coppola has turned his sights to another popular lit monster, but not as a director this time. He produced Kenneth Branagh’s similarly frenetic film Mary Shelley’s Frankensteinwhich was an immediate hit at the box office, serving as an effective sequel to Coppola’s film Draculawhich polarized audiences in 1992. Branagh cast himself as Frankenstein, Helena Bonham Carter as Victor’s childhood love (and in this novel, his adopted sister, yesh!) Elizabeth, and none other than Robert De Niro as the creature. Given the film’s pedigree, expectations were understandably high, and both critics and audiences seemed disappointed with the film’s shift from overblown melodrama (particularly in the earlier monster half) to more introspective material featuring De Niro, whose performance here has been underrated (and perhaps unfairly compared to Karloff).
While the film lacks the pure craft of madness of Coppola’s madcap (and certainly of the century) film, DraculaIt’s a worthwhile companion piece to this film, and more faithful to the source material than the 1931 film. Interestingly, Branagh pays homage to the older films by starting from the plot point that Shelley inspired Bride of Frankenstein And pursuing an idea more closely related to the Whale sequel, is a smart solution to the lack of surprise in many remakes/re-adaptations. The film is also unavoidably directed by Branagh, which means you get more of Branagh than you need or want, and he’s often presented shirtless. But isn’t that kind of appropriate for… Frankenstein Is the film directed by an egomaniac who loses control of his creativity?
-
Guillermo del Toro has long been considered… Frankenstein As a dream project, and with this situation comes a lot of risks: sometimes dream projects float in the director’s head for so long that they become blurry and vaporous, and it is impossible to properly translate them to the screen with the necessary intensity. Moreover, wouldn’t it make sense for del Toro to take advantage of that? Frankenstein Without conditioning it, the way Water shape Not actually a remake of Creature from the Black Lagoon? But despite these and many other odds (Netflix’s involvement, for example), del Toro succeeded in achieving his goal. Frankenstein Both are satisfying adaptations that are very special. The sets and costumes are as elaborate and lavish as you might expect, although del Toro relies largely on the Gothic style. Crimson peak Where it’s at, man, he’s also working overtime to deliver new horror visuals that are both gruesome and wonderful, whether through Frankenstein’s earlier trial-and-error experiments or the subsequent bloody rage of the creature (Jacob Elordi), who has been granted superhuman powers of healing and strength. Elordi does some of his best work ever in the role, Oscar Isaac is great fun as the mad doctor, and Mia Goth does a great job as Elizabeth, recast here as Victor’s brother’s fiancée and given some monster-related scenes.
If there’s a problem with the film, it’s a carryover from the initial unease about del Toro’s handling of the material that informs much of his work: he telegraphs his “man is the real monster” view early and too often, and ultimately seems uninterested in showing much sympathy for Dr. Frankenstein — his main character, despite the monster’s sympathies! This isn’t an inherent problem, but in the context of del Toro’s work and other monster films, it feels a bit familiar. Then again, as a reimagining of a book that’s been around for 200 years, Frankenstein Remarkably fresh, especially as a visual experience. Netflix may not give it the saturated theatrical release it deserves, but it’s worth seeking out on the big screen if it’s playing near you (and it’s hitting more independent theaters than usual for a Netflix film before it debuts on November 7).
Version control rule: Frankenstein (2025)
To be clear, 1931 Frankenstein It is a classic and a must see (and Bride of Frankensteinwhich is even more fantastic, and probably one of the ten best horror films of all time). However, if you’re looking for an adaptation of Mary Shelley’s novel specifically, Del Toro’s new version is the one you should check out. It is faithful to much of the plot and thematic concerns of the book while offering enough variety not to sound like rote recitation.
Share this content:
Post Comment