Frankenstein (2025) is not for fans of the book

Hello readers! Last week I watched Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, which released on Netflix on the 7th of November. The film has received very positive reviews from audiences and critics alike – but now that it has breached containment and is reaching people beyond the del Toro fanbase, I am sensing a shift in opinion. I wasn’t too impressed by it, although I could appreciate what it was going for, and it did have some stand-out scenes and memorable visuals. However, I suspect that the deciding factor in how much you enjoy this film is how much you revere its source material.

Put simply, this film is NOT a faithful adaptation of the novel, written by Mary Shelley in 1818. It isn’t a rehashing of earlier films, either; instead, it sits somewhere in-between. The film brings some parts of the novel to the screen for the first time, but its broader themes borrow more heavily from past film adaptations than the original work. And to be clear: I don’t consider this to be an inherent weakness. There are plenty of unfaithful adaptations that make fantastic films. No – the reason that I wasn’t blown away by this adaptation of Frankenstein is because it felt shallow. It didn’t challenge the audience. It didn’t encourage any self-reflection. But it set itself up as something much deeper, and invited comparison with the source material, which led to a sense of detachment and unfulfillment.

If you want a visual spectacle, mild horror and a bit of moody melodrama, you’ll probably like this film well enough. But if you want something complex and thought-provoking, you might be disappointed.

I’ll set out my thoughts in detail below – and there will be major plot spoilers! You have been warned.

A familiar tale

In the two centuries since Frankenstein was written, there have been many, many adaptations. You can’t go into this film blind; everyone has some level of familiarity with the story. Still, each rendition puts its own spin on the tale, and Guillermo del Toro’s version is no exception – indeed, it provides a fresh take on the narrative in many regards, and adds a few original ideas, too.

The film starts on a Danish ship stranded in Arctic ice, with the crew having just discovered Victor Frankenstein, badly injured. They bring him on board – only for a beastly roar to echo across the frozen sea. A tall, pale-skinned Creature emerges from the blizzard, kills several crew members, and demands to see Victor Frankenstein. His rampage is only stopped when the captain fractures the ice, sending the Creature into the water. The captain then turns to Victor for an explanation, establishing the film’s framed narrative.

Victor Frankenstein – the arrogant scientist

We learn that Victor grew up with a harsh father, and that his mother died when he was young. He becomes a surgeon in an effort to “cure death” – and is feared and derided by fellow doctors and scientists as he makes public attempts to reanimate corpses. A rich man named Harlander takes an interest in his work, and arranges an isolated tower for Victor to use as a laboratory. Their relationship is complex: Victor is besotted with Harlander’s niece, Elizabeth, who is also Victor’s brother’s fiancée.

To create life, Victor harvests body parts from a battlefield, and channels lightning into their lymphatic system to reanimate them. He ends up in a heated argument with Harlander, who falls to his death – but Victor succeeds. He brings his Creature to life.

From here, Victor grows ever more unlikeable. He chains the Creature in the basement, and when it struggles to learn to speak, he beats it, just as his father beat him. When Elizabeth comes to visit, she manages to teach the Creature her name – and in a jealous rage, Victor blows up the tower with the Creature still inside, and loses a leg in the process.

The Creature – confused and misunderstood

At this point, the film returns to the Danish ship, still stranded in the ice. The Creature has come back – but this time around, it agrees to speak with the captain, to provide its side of the story. So begins the second half of the film, told from the Creature’s perspective.

The Creature escapes the tower as it explodes, and runs into the nearby woods. He takes refuge in an isolated farmhouse, where he hides in an outbuilding, observing a family as they go about their lives. This is how he learns to speak. When the family go away for the winter, they leave an old, blind man behind. He cannot see the Creature, so does not fear him – and he teaches him how to read and speak fluently. When wolves attack, the Creature defends the old man, but when other men arrive to help, they shoot at the Creature, driving him away.

The Creature goes to find Victor, and bursts in on the night of Elizabeth’s wedding. He asks Victor to make him a companion – but Victor refuses, and expresses disgust that he made the Creature in the first place. When he tries to shoot the Creature, Elizabeth stands in the way and is killed by the bullet. Victor’s brother is then killed in the ensuing mayhem. The Creature flees, and Victor chases him down. They travel all the way to the Arctic, closing the framed narrative.

And so the story ends. Having heard the Creature’s tale, Victor apologises, and the Creature forgives him. Victor then dies of his injuries, and the Creature wanders off onto the ice. The Danish ship sets sail for home, and the credits roll.

I can see what it was going for, but…

The themes in this film are as conspicuous as the visuals – but while I can see the appeal of dazzling, bombastic set pieces and costumes, I don’t appreciate the overblown metaphors and heavy-handed dialogue. Del Toro’s adaptation of Frankenstein puts the theme of parenthood at the core of its story. It presents obvious parallels between the abuse suffered by Victor at the hands of his father, and the abuse perpetrated by Victor against the Creature, who is presented as his son. This is a well-worn tale of childhood trauma influencing adult lives – or, to put it more bluntly, it is a tale of “daddy issues”.

Still, the theme of parenthood isn’t the reason I felt so disengaged. Frankenstein has always been about the creation of life and the responsibilities associated with it – so there are obvious parallels between creator-creature and parent-child relationships. And there will always be an appetite for stories like this, which explore the apparent inevitability of mimicking your parents’ behaviours, or repeating their mistakes. It isn’t cliché so much as inherently human.

I think the issue with del Toro’s Frankenstein is that the theme of parenthood and generational trauma is only presented, rather than explored. We see Victor abused by his father, and we see him abusing the Creature – but we aren’t invited to question whether this was avoidable. This shallowness is epitomised beautifully in a line from Victor’s brother, who tells him quite simply:

“You are the monster.”

Did everyone get that? Even the ones half-watching this film while doom-scrolling on their cellular devices?

We don’t need to be told these things. We should form our own opinions, based on the evidence presented. And let’s not dumb things down to “monster” or “not monster”. Victor has made some questionable decisions, certainly, but bringing the Creature to life wasn’t an inherently monstrous act. Beating the Creature might have been – but Victor’s brother wouldn’t have thought so, as it was perfectly acceptable to beat children at the time. So why does he call him a monster? Is it due to his arrogance? He is an unlikeable protagonist, yes, but not a monster.

The real problem at the heart of this film, captured so perfectly in this one line, is that what we see does not align with what we are told. We are told that Victor is a monster for creating the Creature – but we aren’t invited to question why the creation life should be a monstrous act. Indeed, given that the main theme of this film is parenthood, we end up with very mixed messages. Are all parents monsters? Or are parents only monsters if they beat their children? Or if they create their children in an “unnatural” manner? And if Victor is a monster, is that only because his father was also a monster?

These are the questions which the film doesn’t bother to ask. It might have awe-inspiring visuals and costume design, but this is where the effort ends. Everything is surface-level. There’s nothing underneath. And maybe, for a lot of people, that is perfectly acceptable. Audiences seem to be enjoying this film to no end. But speaking personally, I want something more from a narrative which combines science-fiction and horror.

I liked the Creature’s perspective.

For me, the best part of the film is when we see the Creature’s perspective, after he has escaped from Victor’s exploding laboratory. The way he spies on the family, learning about human relationships, is one of the most engaging parts of the story, and his interactions with the blind old man, who accepts him for who he is because he can’t see his unusual form, is one of the most affecting parts of the film. But unfortunately, it is very short-lived – ended by a pack of CGI wolves that look less believable than the Creature himself.

Speaking of the Creature’s looks… It was nice to see a design so different to the green, rectangular-headed monster that people might expect. The Creature is tall, pale-skinned and shambling, and lined with stitches that hold him together. Perhaps my only complaint is that from a distance, when he is wearing a long coat and a hood, he just looks like a very tall man. Which is problematic, because there are multiple times in the film when people shoot at him from quite a long way away, while shouting that he is a monster. Why would they think that, without seeing him close up? It felt off to me. There would be plenty of people in Victorian-era Europe who looked more disfigured than the Creature, due to war wounds, disease, or industrial accidents – and although they might have been shunned, they wouldn’t have been shot on sight. It’s just another plot hole that left me feeling disengaged.

The runtime is bloated…

My final major criticism of this film is that there were sub-plots and scenes that served no purpose, which gave the film a drawn-out runtime of two and a half hours. There was no need to include Harlander as a character, and there was especially no need for the lie sub-plot that arose from his death. None of this contributed to the main theme of parenthood.

Similarly, while I appreciate the attempt to make Elizabeth a more well-rounded character (she serves only to be murdered by the Creature in the original novel, spurring Victor to chase him down), some of the character-rounding is just bloating. She facilitates a romance sub-plot, and plays with Victor’s feelings before ultimately rejecting him. However, his feelings for her serve little purpose. He didn’t need a love interest to make him a monster. The film wouldn’t have lost much if she hadn’t been there.

Also, Elizabeth’s sub-plot feels muddled. When she meets the Creature, she immediately forms a bond with him, which throws Victor into a jealous rage. This conflict feels half-baked at best, and patronising at worst. Are we to believe that Elizabeth formed a bond with the creature simply because she is a woman? Does this mean that Victor is only doing a bad job at parenting because he is a man? How very traditional. There could have been more to unpack here, but instead the film wastes several minutes having Elizabeth and Victor flirting in a confession booth. Is she just a shallow love interest? Is she just an ill-thought-out attempt to inject femininity into the oh-so-macho Frankenstein, a story written by a woman? There was the chance to do something great with Elizabeth’s character, but instead, I ended up wanting to see less of her.

Do I dare to compare it to the original novel?

Before this film released, del Toro claimed that Frankenstein has become a “myth” that has risen “above the original material”, meaning that “any interpretation is equally faithful if done with sincerity, power, and personality.” This is an interesting take, given that Frankenstein is most certainly a book, still in print, with a known author. It isn’t really a myth. And fans of Mary Shelley would probably dispute del Toro’s definition of the word “faithful”.

Given that the film is so different to the book, I don’t think there is much point in comparing them – especially not in terms of plot or characters. However, I can at least complain that by making “daddy issues” the thematic focus of the film, del Toro has overlooked the deeper moral and philosophical questions posed in Shelley’s novel. That’s his prerogative, of course, and I have tried to judge the film based on its chosen stance – but even so, I can’t help feeling disappointed.

And the Lord Byron quote at the end of the film felt like a slap in the face. If you’re going to neglect Mary Shelley’s genius in pursuit of a cinema-friendly plotline, don’t go and end the film with a quote from one of her male contemporaries. Especially not bloody Byron…

In summary…

I did not enjoy this film very much, although I’m aware that many people love it. It is certainly a spectacle, so if you can allow yourself to be wrapped up in the stunning set pieces and transported away, more power to you. I, unfortunately, couldn’t help but feel detached for the entire runtime (and it’s a long runtime). Perhaps I wouldn’t have been so disappointed if I wasn’t so familiar with the original novel. If you haven’t read it, I’d recommend it, especially if you’re a fan of classic literature or science fiction.

Happy reading, and have a lovely week!

(And if you’re interested, please see my review of the original Frankenstein novel, and my brief summary of Mary Shelley’s fascinating life).