By Luke Thomas, November 18, 2025
Among the dozens of interpretations of the classic novel, Guillermo del Toro’s take on “Frankenstein” doesn’t capture the depth of Mary Shelley’s original writing.
“Frankenstein” is a tale that’s been a part of cultural mythos since its inception, both from the staying power of Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel that still remains one of the greatest gothic novels written, and Universal Pictures’ 1931 film that set the stage for so much western horror despite, or perhaps because of, it’s irreverence for Shelley’s social commentary.
It’s not surprising then that the story of “The Modern Prometheus” would be picked up by an auteur in the present day, especially not Guillermo del Toro, who’s been a devout fan of Mary Shelley’s novel and a sympathetic for monsters, “Frankenstein’s” being no exception.
Extending from the Arctic landscapes to Victor’s cathedral laboratory, del Toro’s typical visual flourishes are on full display. The elaborate set pieces blending practical set-ups and CGI work great to create the dreary and vibrant environment of mid-19th century Europe, setting the events of the film around 50 years later than when the novel originally took place.
And while del Toro remains generally faithful to Shelley’s plot structure, he takes a lot of creative liberties throughout the film, notably depicting the Creature with far more innocence than Shelley’s counterpart, removing his novelized crimes from the story. In doing so, del Toro turns the Creature into a purely innocent victim of his creator’s abandonment.
As the Creature, Jacob Elordi is doing much of the heavy lifting for the film. He effectively captures the progression of the Creature’s mind and the mannerisms of a not quite human being brought to life. His performance invokes the innocence del Toro portrayed the Creature with.
All of that isn’t to say Elordi’s Creature isn’t capable of violence, but those moments are relegated to tropey action sequences and throwing around the feeble-in-comparison humans in swings of self-defense, lacking Shelly’s Creature’s personal vendetta toward his maker.
And with one of those sequences “Frankenstein” begins, as the Creature is showcased as some unrelenting action movie monster, tanking rifle gunfire and tossing around the crew of Captain Anderson in his attempts to reach his maker, Victor Frankenstein, who’s been stowed aboard Anderson’s ship in the Arctic.
After Anderson’s crew submerges the Creature, delaying his inevitable arrival to his maker’s refuge, the story is rewound as Frankenstein, played by Oscar Issac, retells the story of his follies. After his father fails to save his mother from death during childbirth, Frankenstein becomes fascinated with conquering death and dedicates himself to creating life.
Issac plays Frankenstein perfectly fine, but no particular elements of his performance stand out aside from a lot of hysterics. Also present are his brother William and William’s fiancée Elizabeth, played by Felix Kammerer and Mia Goth.
At one of Frankenstein’s demonstrations, Henrich Harlander, unique to the film and played by Christopher Waltz, decides to begin funding his pursuits of playing God, replacing Frankenstein’s novel counterparts need for grave robbing, but his role feels like more of a necessity for Frankenstein’s pursuits than a character actually important to the story.
Once the Creature comes alive on a stormy night, though lacking Colin Clive’s iconic line, Frankenstein chains him up underneath the laboratory as he fails to teach the Creature to say anything but “Victor.” But upon discovering him, Elizabeth treats the Creature with kindness, wherein the main problem of del Toro’s “Frankenstein” reveals itself.
As mentioned, the Creature’s crimes are pretty much absent in del Toro’s version, while Frankenstein is portrayed as even more of a monster to his novel counterpart, being directly told to his face as much. The reduction of the Creature into someone who does no wrong, only acting in self-defense, ends up reducing both his own and his creator’s character, stripping them of the depth written by Shelley.
Frankenstein is reduced to an abusive creator with no rational cause for concern, as the Creature never toys with the lives around him. The Creature lacks the novel’s nuance, as Shelley’s Creature never got a proper parental figure, he chooses to terrorize Frankenstein through taking other’s lives. Del Toro’s adaptation of the Creature, receiving Elizabeth’s kindness and being chained by Frankenstein, ends up taking away from who the character was.
That reduction ends up making the conclusion feel unearned, as the narrative must go through the same steps of Shelley’s novel to reach the Arctic the film opened in. The final moments feel like a reverse heel turn compared to Frankenstein’s portrayal throughout the film, as del Toro fails to effectively infuse optimism into the Creature’s future.
While most of them are, not all of Del Toro’s choices are for naught, as when del Toro expands on certain scenes of Shelley’s source material, he’s able to capture the spirit of the original text, especially with the blind man in the cabin the Creature meets.
More time is given for their interactions to flourish, as the scene has been extended beyond the one page of direct interaction the pair originally had, even if del Toro falls back on more problems when it’s time for their eventual farewell.
But in the end, del Toro’s decision to reinvent the Creature as purely good ends up inadvertently undoing the depth that humanized him. “Frankenstein” is a pretty picture, but not one that can capture the depth, nor the subtlety, of Shelley’s masterwork.