When Netflix had “Frankenstein” and “A House Of Dynamite” premiere at the Venice Film Festival, they were both highly anticipated, presumed epics from Oscar-winning directors. But their receptions from Venice were very different, as Kathryn Bigelow’s “A House Of Dynamite” started in the high 80s on Metacritic, while Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein” was received in what looked like a far more underwhelming fashion. And yet with “A House Of Dynamite” days away from coming to Netflix and “Frankenstein” just starting in theaters before a November 7th Netflix premiere, their critical and audience receptions – and Oscar odds – have taken very different paths in the exact opposite direction ever since.
Although “A House Of Dynamite” had rave reviews and high critics’ scores at Venice, those have dipped significantly downward as more critics and other viewers see it. As of Sunday, October 22nd, “A House Of Dynamite” holds a score of 76 on MetaCritic and 81% on Rotten Tomatoes, with a 7.6 average critics’ rating. These are still respectable metrics, but the trend is fascinating to decipher.
In contrast, the more critics and other viewers see “Frankenstein,” the higher its scores go. Despite starting well below “A House Of Dynamite” on MetaCritic and Rotten Tomatoes, “Frankenstein” has now overtaken it on both, with a 78 on MetaCritic and an 87% Tomatometer score coupled with a 7.7 average critics’ rating. One might go so far as to say, “It’s alive!” As such, “Frankenstein” now has the best reception among the presumed top three Netflix Oscar contenders, which include “A House Of Dynamite” and “Jay Kelly.” Clint Bentley’s “Train Dreams” has the best reception overall, but it is still finding its audience and may enter the race more in the coming weeks.
How “Frankenstein” and “A House Of Dynamite,” from A-list Oscar winners, started so differently in Venice and then practically switched places ever since is becoming increasingly eye-opening by the day. Nevertheless, perhaps it wasn’t entirely surprising, considering how different these films and their target audiences are and how one may be more deliberately alienating than the other.
“A House Of Dynamite” is marketed as a visceral and unsettling film, akin to Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker” and “Zero Dark Thirty,” with the added nightmare scenario of an impending nuclear strike on America. Although its messages about the helplessness of nuclear Armageddon are meant to warn as wide an audience as possible, it is still not intended to be a populist movie. Truthfully, something like “A House Of Dynamite” was probably destined to play better with Venice’s smaller and select crowds than broader audiences in America – especially impatient ones likely to feel strung along by the film’s story structure choices and finale.
In contrast, “Frankenstein” is likely the kind of movie that appeals more to wider, populist audiences and to fans who are already familiar with the story, the monster movie genre, and del Toro’s work. Still, it’s not like Venice audiences are predisposed against those elements, given how they gave the Golden Lion to del Toro’s “The Shape of Water” in 2017 and launched its road to Best Picture. But for whatever reason, Venice crowds and critics were far more muted in their praise for “Frankenstein.” However, virtually every highly anticipated movie in Venice’s first few days had muted or worse receptions, too.
Maybe in that larger context, “Frankenstein” didn’t look so bad, yet its equally mixed reception at a surprise late-night screening in Telluride painted an ominous picture too. In essence, that made its screenings at the Toronto Film Festival feel like a last-chance gamble. But it turned out the third fall festival was indeed the charm. After “Frankenstein” was the surprise first runner-up to “Hamnet” for the People’s Choice Award, the path to victory has appeared to be smooth sailing ever since.
With two weeks still to go in theaters and with a Netflix premiere looming, “Frankenstein” is nonetheless building momentum at the same pace that “A House Of Dynamite” is possibly losing it. In fact, not only does “Frankenstein” now have better reviews despite its earlier gap, but it might also have better reviews than nearly every other film with a realistic place on the Best Picture bubble, aside from NEON’s bubble films. That is a greater indictment of the bubble thus far than it is an endorsement for “Frankenstein,” yet it is still telling.
It must be said that even after “A House Of Dynamite” soared higher at Venice than “Frankenstein” did, del Toro’s film was still the odds-on favorite to be Netflix’s top priority among its robust slate this year. For all of the early raves “A House Of Dynamite” got, it became clear that it had a minimal Oscar nomination package and remained on the bubble at best for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay. On the other hand, “Frankenstein” was already declared a lock for around three or four below-the-line tech nominations, which is at least something concrete to go on.
Between “Frankenstein” being a more accessible and perhaps audience-friendly horror/monster movie, and “Jay Kelly” being presumed as a future industry darling despite its even worse reviews, “A House Of Dynamite” was likely always going to struggle a little bit. The Venice reviews were needed as the beginning of its critical darling status, but instead, they have started to look incredibly misleading as subsequent critics and viewers have weighed in, muddying the waters. Considering its bleak and ultimately withholding story, it may have been inevitable in a way Venice viewers couldn’t or wouldn’t suggest.
As for why “Frankenstein” has been forgiven to a larger degree by larger audiences, that is still being worked out. It isn’t as if these new, higher scores have put it on the level of “The Shape of Water,” “Pan’s Labyrinth,” or del Toro’s other most beloved movies. While reviews are better, they are nowhere near unanimous raves yet. In fact, both “Frankenstein” and “A House Of Dynamite” do have a few things left in common, in that neither have been widely considered among their directors’ very best films, both have the odd complaint that their directors have told stories like this once before too often (debatable, but it still has come up), and both have critics divided on Netflix’s limited two week theatrical window before their streaming release (although, it appears del Toro is pushing for as many screens as possible for his film).
Regardless, whether it’s due to del Toro salvaging a few visual wonders, adapting a story he’s been building towards for decades, or placing Jacob Elordi’s version of The Creature at the visual and emotional center, “Frankenstein” has been winning over early skeptics at a higher rate each day. And by the standards of a relatively soft Best Picture race where contenders such as “Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere” and “After The Hunt” are dropping like flies – it might well be deemed good enough to make it into the final ten if this trajectory keeps going.
Currently, the Next Best Picture team has Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein” receiving the following Oscar nominations:
Best Picture
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Makeup & Hairstyling
Best Production Design
And it’s contending for additional nominations in the following categories:
Best Director
Best Supporting Actor (Elordi)
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Casting
Best Original Score
Best Sound
Best Visual Effects
Meanwhile, “A House Of Dynamite” is not currently predicted for any Oscar categories with its only contentions being for Best Film Editing (no. 6) and Best Original Score (no. 10).
Between the Academy’s traditional bias against horror and monsters, the fact that “Sinners” called dibs on the elevated horror and monster movie quota months ago, and the chance that del Toro’s Oscar wins for “The Shape of Water” might not be enough on their own to push “Frankenstein” in like Searchlight Pictures pushed “Nightmare Alley” in, there is a long road left ahead for it not only to survive, but to thrive. If “Frankenstein” can suddenly change its perception out of Venice in a good way (which it’s already doing with each passing day), there’s always a chance it could turn back the other way once everyone else sees it on Netflix and argues over it throughout the holidays. Either way, it’s yet another thrilling example of how one festival does not make a film’s Oscar narrative, and the winds of awards season fortune can always change. We’ll keep our eyes on both of these titles when they land on Netflix (October 24th for “A House Of Dynamite” and November 7th for “Frankenstein“) to see if perception shifts once more.
Have you seen “Frankenstein” or “A House Of Dynamite” yet? If so, what do you think of them and how do you think the Academy will respond to them? Do you see their current Oscar trajectories changing yet again? Please let us know in the comments section below and on Next Best Picture’s X account and check out the team’s latest Oscar predictions here.
You can follow Robert and hear more of his thoughts on the Oscars & Film on X @Robertdoc1984
