18.7 C
New York
Wednesday, September 10, 2025
spot_img
More

    Latest Posts

    Frankenstein Review: Guillermo Del Toro Makes The Monster His Own [TIFF 2025]

    RATING : 7.5 / 10

    Pros
    • GORGEOUS
    • Jacob Elordi gets close to the creature of the novel
    • Changes to Oscar Isaac’s Victor make sense
    Cons
    • The horror/revenge elements feel a bit too softened
    • Mia Goth is underused
    • Guillermo del Toro’s done many of these ideas better before

    I come to Guillermo del Toro’s version of “Frankenstein” primed to have strong opinions. Del Toro is one of the most talented directors working today; his masterpiece “Pan’s Labyrinth” is my go-to pick when asked to name a favorite movie. “Frankenstein,” meanwhile, is one of my go-to picks for my favorite book, and while it has been adapted to the screen countless times before, no movie version has fully captured what makes Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel so radical and powerful even after two full centuries have passed. Del Toro has talked about wanting to make a “Frankenstein” movie since 2007, promising something more faithful to the book, so getting to finally see his vision is cause for excitement.

    On certain levels, Del Toro’s “Frankenstein” is closer to the spirit of Shelley than other films that have come before. He preserves the multi-narrator story-within-a-story format, and most significantly, he makes sure one of those narrators is the fast-learning, hyper-literate Creature (Jacob Elordi) himself — a huge contrast from the barely verbal Boris Karloff version that’s loomed largest in the cultural imagination. A direct adaptation of the novel, however, this is not, with the writer-director changing significant aspects of the story and characterization to fit his own preoccupations. This isn’t Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein,” but Del Toro’s. 

    Some of Del Toro’s changes are fascinating and effective. Others might have been more exciting if he’d made this back in 2007, as he’s developed many of these twists better in the films he’s made since then. Taken on its own terms, “Frankenstein” is a compelling, at times moving, and utterly gorgeous epic. As a fan of both Del Toro and Shelley, I can’t help but nitpick the details.

    Different angles on monsters and bad parenting

    Speaking before the screening at the 2025 Toronto International Film Festival, Guillermo del Toro explained his interest in the “Frankenstein” story as a tale of fathers and sons. The biggest overall shift in his adaptation is the nature of this father-son conflict. The book’s Victor Frankenstein is a well-off kid who becomes a deadbeat dad, so frightened of his “son” that he runs away immediately after the Creature’s birth. In contrast, this adaptation’s Victor is an abused kid (Christian Convery) who grows up to be an abusive dad (Oscar Isaac), not scared of his creation but holding him in contempt.

    Del Toro has been insistent this “Frankenstein” isn’t a horror movie. The movie’s one intensely frightening moment early on, where Victor presents his tests in reanimating dead tissue before a gathering of his disgusted fellow academics, exorcises fear from the film’s driving psychology — if Victor wasn’t scared by that, no way he’s actually scared of the finished Creature. Instead, he hates his creation for not living up to his high expectations, and out of a general sense of emptiness after reaching the accomplishment he’s madly dedicated his whole life toward achieving. Seeing Victor deny that his obviously pained Creature even has feelings is heartbreaking, especially viewed as an allegory for the abuse of people with disabilities.

    Where Isaac’s Victor exudes sheer nastiness, Jacob Elordi’s Creature is a sensitive soul experiencing the world for the first time. The sequence closest to the book, where he secretly cares for a family as the hidden “Spirit of the Forest,” picks up language from observing them, and befriends their blind patriarch (David Bradley), is beautiful. The way this chapter concludes, however, is the sort of change where I question this “not horror” approach to the material. Because simple fear isn’t treated as motivation enough for people rejecting the Creature, Del Toro has to also have the Creature framed for murder — a thing that happens three different times in the movie. I’m not sure if trying to rationalize people’s fears like this really helps the movie, and I find myself disappointed in how the Creature’s quest for revenge has been softened. Del Toro loves his monster so much that he can’t bear to have him choose to be too monstrous — it’s telling that in his Biblical references, the Creature still compares himself to Adam but no longer expresses kinship with Lucifer.

    A beautiful Frankenstein, but not a definitive one

    It goes without saying that “Frankenstein” is one of the most beautiful-looking movies you’ll see all year. With its enormous Gothic sets and colorful Victorian outfits, it’s an easy frontrunner for the production design and costume design Oscars, and the elegant scarring of the Creature makes it a strong contender for the makeup and hairstyling award. The film took so long to make in part because Guillermo del Toro demanded to make it on an epic scale with no expenses spared, and the wait paid off in that sense.

    That Del Toro completed several other dream projects of his in the meantime makes a few of his fresh twists on the material less fresh. His decision to make the Creature not merely strong but full-on immortal resembles his version of “Pinocchio,” as does the more hopeful perspective on mending cycles of familial trauma, while the connection between Elizabeth (Mia Goth) and the Creature is just a few inches away from going full “Shape of Water.” The potential for this version of Elizabeth feels unfortunately wasted — she makes a strong first impression, and her early rebuffs of Victor offer the film’s best moment of comic relief, but the film fails to make great use of her.

    This “Frankenstein” runs two and a half hours, and with its bifurcated structure, Netflix might be preparing for some viewers to make their own little intermission. I wish it came with an actual intermission in exchange for a longer runtime to allow a fuller adaptation of the book’s darker final third. This is not the be-all, end-all “Frankenstein” movie I had hoped for, though it’s still a stunning filmmaking accomplishment in its own right. My favorite movie based on the “Frankenstein” concept is still “Poor Things,” and the best adaptation of Mary Shelley’s novel is Nick Dear and Danny Boyle’s National Theatre production with Benedict Cumberbatch and Johnny Lee Miller.

    “Frankenstein” screened at the Toronto International Film Festival. It opens in select theaters on October 17 before streaming on Netflix on November 7.

    Latest Posts

    spot_imgspot_img

    Don't Miss

    Stay in touch

    To be updated with all the latest news, offers and special announcements.