Frankenstein (2025) Review

              There’s a kind of irony in how one of the most re-made stories of all time is about a reanimated corpse trying to find purpose in a new, strange world. In the last year alone, there have been at least two films that were very clearly drawing from Frankenstein (Lisa Frankenstein and Poor Things), one of which would go on to dominate the award circuit; there’s also the upcoming Bride of Frankenstein and Soy Frankelda, Mexico’s first stop motion film. In this sense, Guillermo del Toro has accomplished the impossible. Much like the titular character of Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel, he stitches together bits and pieces of the source material to ultimately breathe a new life into one of history’s most revisited stories. But despite its departures, del Toro’s version manages to keep alive the spirit of the story that has captivated us for centuries.

               While numerous parts of the script diverge from Shelley’s classic, del Toro does so with great purpose. Victor has never been a particularly likable character, but this film, perhaps more than any other, leans into that with great effect. I feel like this was a more fully-realized character than past versions because it makes sense that a man in 1800s Europe whose family made their enormous fortune from the colonial system would be entitled, opinionated and sexist. This worldview colors the way Victor sees everything, including his creation. Once his lifelong experiment succeeds, and he has conquered more than just a foreign land, but death itself, only to realize the result is something far beyond his ability to comprehend or control, despite brutal efforts, Victor immediately regrets his decision. Del Toro adds depth to what could have been a very flat antihero with an interesting love triangle between Victor, his brother, William, and Elizabeth. I think honing in on this aspect of his personality, and changing some key elements to help highlight said aspects, was very smart. Similar to Frankenstein’s monster, one enters this movie wondering how this resurrected story will find a purpose in modern times. It is through del Toro’s handling of Victor’s character that viewers are offered a window into the themes of this story, realizing it is one about powerful, wealthy men who overreach, and about all the marginalized classes who are given no choice but to revolt.

              This focus on the underclasses is a central part of the film, visible in how the narrative is bifurcated by first introducing Victor’s version of the story, only to then contradict many of his claims by allowing the creature to tell his version. For the first time in recent memory, the ‘daemon’ is not limited to grunts and a semi-intelligent bloodlust. Instead, he is as eloquent and articulate as the monster in Shelley’s novel, and I don’t think anyone was better qualified to humanize the monster than del Toro. A big part of this comes from seeing the cruelty Victor inflicts on him, but also in the moments of tenderness he shares with Elizabeth. It should be no surprise that a woman in the 1800s would see part of herself in the creature: misunderstood, relegated to a societal role that couldn’t possibly capture all his nuance, etc. Their sense of connection, especially when compared with Victor’s self-enforced isolation, forms the primary linchpin for the film’s social commentary. The film’s political aims would not have been as effective as they were without the excellent cast.

              There are some moments where I genuinely wonder if Oscar Isaac was the right actor for this role. His accent gets a bit wonky at times, and he’s clearly having a lot of fun hamming it up but in the more intimate moments it’s sometimes hard to really connect with his character. There are several scenes where his commitment really shines through, but in general it felt like a very stiff performance. It was fun to see Mia Goth show that she can slide into sleek period pieces with just as much commitment as her more high-octane horror flicks. Maybe it’s because I’m used to seeing her in full technicolor, but she did feel a tad muted here, and there was certainly more that del Toro could have done with her character, especially if Elizabeth’s connection to the creature is so important to the film’s thematic underpinnings. Despite that oversight, I found it amazing what she could convey with a simple gesture or expression. Speaking of great performances, Jacob Elordi gave one of the most surprising renditions of the monster I’ve ever seen. We are used to seeing him play the menacing heartthrob (Euphoria and Priscilla), and that cool fury is what I expected to find here; so imagine my surprise when he gave one of the most tender, embodied performances since Boris Karloff first brought the character to life in 1931. It isn’t just his ability to convey the entire spectrum of emotions with his eyes, or his razor-sharp delivery. Elordi’s entire body contorts and shifts, like a marionette come to life, portraying both innocence and, at times, deadly anger. Despite him being a relatively last-minute replacement, I can’t think of a better actor for this role.

              This isn’t to say it’s a perfect movie. The score is a bit sentimental, telling audiences how they should feel instead of accentuating the images onscreen, and there are times where the lighting and color grading certainly look more like a Netflix or Hallmark production than a del Toro film, but I still think it’s worth a watch. The set design is fantastic, perfectly capturing Shelley’s masterpiece in all its Gothic magnificence. Despite its departures, it’s perhaps the most faithful of all the previous adaptations, and certainly has the most fleshed-out version of Victor Frankenstein (and his monster) we have ever seen placed on the big screen. It hits Netflix on November 7^th, but you should absolutely watch this on the biggest screen possible while you can! Like all Netflix movies, it has a very limited theatrical run, so make it your Halloween watch! You won’t regret it.