Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein
A Monsterously Good Adaptation
For people who have read the original “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelly, it can really feel like no one gets what the original novel is all about.
After all, people today still refer to the Monster as “Frankenstein“, and all too often people think of old mad scientists in evil labs set in old gothic castles, full of lightning and science equipment, and hunchbacked little men waddling after the cackling scientist on his journey to play god.
Yet the original novel was nothing like that. In fact, many of the tropes we consider for “Frankenstein” actually come from the 1931 Universal Classic “Frankenstein” by James Whale, where Boris Karloff dons the bolts and cemented the monster’s classic look as it has appeared in popular media for nearly 100 years.
However, that movie, and any subsequent adaptation, is entirely wrong, and worse, doesn’t really get the essence of what the original novel is all about. While yes, it’s gothic horror, the original novel is more about the ideas of man playing god, and bringing something into the world he does not understand. It also touches upon the themes of how human qualities, such as love, kindness, and compassion, make life better, and the lack of them can create monsters in even well-meaning people and creatures.
After all, you’ve probably heard the meme “Frankenstein is not the name of the monster” and then follow it with “But Frankenstein was,” to imply that Victor Frankenstein – the eponymous scientist – is the actual villain of the story, when in truth it’s… more complicated than that. Neither Victor nor the creature are truly evil, but their actions have consequences for those around them.
And famous director Guillermo del Toro has said that the original novel is the version of the story he wanted to adapt. To return to those classic themes and bring them into modern cinema.
Did he succeed in that?
Well, that’s something we’ll discuss in this review. While I intend to keep this review as spoiler-free as I possibly can to entice you, the reader, to go see it – as it is worth it – I also do want to make it clear here at the start that it is not a 1:1 on the novel with the same story beats. While many of the character names remain, their actions and, indeed, their relationships are completely different.
But I do want to make it clear that it was a fun movie, though it is long at two hours and thirty minutes. If that doesn’t deter you, and you’re a ‘del Toro fan like me, then continue on! I intend to discuss what worked, what didn’t, and whether or not this movie might be right for you.
Cinematography
What can be said about the way it looks? It’s a del Toro film. They all look gorgeous.
For real, though, there’s just something that’s almost otherworldly about the way that Guillermo del Toro constructs the world around him that almost feels emblematic of his directing style. All authors have that, of course. Tim Burton is naturally modern gothic in how everything is in heavy shades of black, grey, whites, and desaturated colors. Joss Whedon is overly saturated in bright colors. Steven Spielberg is big on long shots of set pieces, and Michael Bay is big on frenetic action and big explosions.
Often, a film’s look is determined by who directs it, and this film is no different. There are so many details to the sets and the characters themselves that you often find yourself lost in the sauce of just wanting to look at it all because it comes across as something more than just gothic, but very fairy-tale-like. Cinematographer Dan Laustsen and Set Decorator Shane Vieau really did amazing work, especially in places such as the Laboratory where Victor Frankenstein conducted his experiments before the creature was made, the very opulent mansion of the Frankensteins, and the closed, almost claustrophobic room on the ship Horisont.
And that’s not even including the rustic, simple set of the cabin and the woods, which only adds to the Germanic, fairy-tale-like feel of the film, with fluttering autumnal leaves, dust filtering from beams above, and slowly falling snow.
Overall, “Frankenstein” is a very pretty movie to watch.
Music and Sound
Sound-wise, the effects were fine, if not average, in most cases. However, where it truly stood out were the moments of silence when the music was lowered to enhance the scene. The crunch of feet atop of snow, the sounds of the lightning storm in the middle act, the groans of Victor’s earlier experiments, and the screech of the ship at the start and end of the film. It was all evocative and enhanced the scenes when the characters were given a rest from speaking.
However, the true star was Alexandre Desplat’s musical score. He had worked with ‘del Toro before on several earlier projects, and this was no different than before. Orchestral with rich, grandiose overtones, it was indicative of the timeframe in which the movie was set, feeling as if it were in line with the Victorian era of the 19th century, as well as evocative of the Swiss mountain kingdoms in which “Frankenstein” is set. Despite the heavy use of synthetic undertones in a lot of the pieces that almost feel discordant, as if a peek into the fractured mind of the creature and Victor’s own emotional turmoil for what he had wrought.
Overall, the soundtrack is worth a listen, as it feels very classical, as if it wouldn’t be out of place in early film or even stage or opera productions.
Cast and Crew
Every choice that was made for the main characters was very well done.
Oscar Isaac as Victor Frankenstein was a good choice, despite the age difference between the novel and film counterparts. In the novel, Victor Frankenstein is in his early twenties, whereas Oscar Isaac appears older. Yet he brought a dark, brooding manicness to the character that was equal parts narcissistic and vainglorious.
What I liked about his performance is that the novel Victor is sort of meek and quiet. He wanted to discover the essence of life, and any of his professors who belittled his education or desire, he quietly seethed, but did what he could anyway, without hesitation. Yet, when push came to shove, such as the act with Justine in the novel (who is not in this film), he kept quiet. Isaac’s Victor, however, is loud and boisterous to what he fully intends to do, not dropping out of college because he lost his lustre and desire for his studies, like in the novel, but because his outspoken nature gets him in trouble. Plus, this version of Victor Frankenstein is willing to lie to hide his actions. He openly does so several times!
Jacob Elordi as the creature is a good equal to Victor. Lithe and skinny, he has a quieter, somberness to the character than most adaptations have, coming off as pained, curious, but ultimately vulnerable until his rage and hatred takes over. Unlike other adaptations where the creature is monstrously wrathful even after awakening, this version has a sort of childlike naivety to him. It’s often said that the creature is the true victim of Frankenstein, and while the novel counterpart has done immoral things and harmed innocent people, this version is very much a victim, and when Elordi is allowed to emote with the creature’s full capacity for speech and emotion, it’s very deserved.
Props as well should go to both Mia Goth, and Felix Kammerer for playing Elizabeth and William respectively. It is nice that their roles in the film adaptation were expanded rather than mere footnotes or plot conveniences in the novel. Even if Elizabeth’s portions of the story were… questionable (which I won’t spoil), she did a great job of playing a woman who knew what she wanted, and wasn’t demure when it came to dealing with Victor. Even going so far as to put him in his place when he stepped out of line.
The crew, who worked behind the scenes, did an amazing job bringing Del Toro’s work to life. Alexandre Desplat – whom I praised above – should get another mention, and everyone from Art Directors to Set and Costume designers to Makeup artists deserves a round of applause for this film being as gorgeous as it is. It’s a visual treat, as many of the background set pieces looked baroque, with intricate details, and the costumes and makeup were exceptionally believable without looking cheap.
Was It A Good Adaptation?
I thought it was. Though some differences made me kind of screw my face up and go “that wasn’t how it was in the book!”
And trust me, if you enjoyed the original gothic horror classic, you’ll be doing that A LOT, and I had to stop myself at least half a dozen times and remind myself that this is an adaptation meant for film.
Really, the best way to put this is that it takes the themes of the original novel and transplants them into the film. In the novel, the themes are typically less “creature feature” style monsterfest that most adaptations of Frankenstein tend to skew towards, and instead brings it back to how our actions affect those around us. Spoilers for the novel, unfortunately, if you want to read it, but in Mary Shelley’s story, Victor’s callousness and discarding of the creature leads it to seek out other humans to try to connect with them, only to be abused at every turn because he’s frightening in appearance. Cursing Victor, he sought him out, killing his friends and family and even the love of his life along the way the more Victor denies the creature’s existence and his part in his creation.
At first, the deaths were accidental and fueled by a building rage. Then, after demanding that Victor create for him a companion/mate so that he may at least have someone he can connect with, Victor denies him and enrages the creature even more. After that, the deaths start to pile up and are wholly connected to Victor’s happiness, driving him into a hate-induced psychosis. In the end, Victor gives chase to the creature all the way to the North Pole.
In the film, it doesn’t exactly play out that way. Scenes from the novel ARE there, but ultimately it’s structured differently. Without spoiling too much of the film, as the differences do warrant a watch, all of the deaths in “Frankenstein” are both accidental and incidental. In fact, the creature doesn’t even actually seek to kill anyone; it simply wants something from Victor, and when denied it, it torments him in other ways.
So, while not 100% faithful to the source, its themes are faithful, and it’s actually fun to think about after reading the novel. I actually recommend reading the original Gothic horror novel (whether normally or in audiobook format or even just watching a YouTube summary) and then follow up with this movie to compare and contrast and see how similar they are. That’s actually what I did a week before the movie was released.
Is It Scary?
It depends on what you define as scary.
Was it terrifying? Disturbing? Dreadful? No. In fact, it’s less gothic horror and more gothic tragedy, with a dour, bittersweet ending involving reconciliation after years of abuse that might resonate with some people.
What it does excel at is worming its way into your mind and sticking with you. If you’re anything like me, who likes to analyse stories, their themes, and any deeper meanings behind them, then this is a movie that you’re probably going to be thinking about for quite some time. The horror of the film isn’t so much the terror it induces but the melancholy and what-ifs you’ll be thinking about.
If you’re the type of person who is looking for a creature feature, then this film might not be for you. It’s not exactly a popcorn muncher where you peep between your fingers, shivering while waiting for the monster to strike, while the music builds up the tension of the attack. There are long, slow panning scenes and long takes of the Swiss countryside or the desolate, frozen wastes. Detailed gothic architecture that looms in the background, reminiscent of ‘del Toro’s other works and Fritz Lang’s silent era films. Moments of silence, but not to build tension, but to inspire introspection.
In essence, it’s not scary, but it is sublime, leaving you to think about its themes, how you deal with them in your life, and the mark you’re leaving. It’s something that forces a viewer to be contemplative, if you’re the sort to leave a movie thinking about it rather than enjoying it. So it’s more gothic, and less on horror, but still fun.
You’ll Like This If-
You’re a fan of gothic horror, tragedies, Guillermo del Toro’s work, or the original Mary Shelley’s novel.
Now, as stated previously, this film is not a complete 1:1 of the original novel, but it is perhaps the closest adaptation that we’ve seen of it in film (unsure about stage work or the like I’m afraid). It has everything that the novel had, even if some of the characters don’t exactly match up.
However, what this film excels at is filling the screen and giving you things to chew on, which I already covered in the Cinematography section above. There’s so much that’s in the background that’s intricate and detailed for you to look at – from the mad scientist-style laboratory to the lonely cabin of the woods, and even to the icy nothing of the North Pole. Plus, there’s so much of the dialogue that’s layered in there when the characters speak. Even the silence is saturated with unspoken words and meanings based on the character’s actions and body language.
All in all, this is a movie that is just packed with substance, and you really don’t want to look away from it. If you’re the type of film lover who loves watching films that are just inundated with STUFF but not constant action or sound, and who can let actors slow down for a breath, then this film is a treat in style and substance both. It’s gothic in all senses of the word, in that the world seemingly is decayed and moldering, but there’s plenty of life and stuff there that’s a feast to behold.
Essentially, it’s evocative of everything that Guillermo del Toro has done before, but does it well. Plus the story is really good too. For people who like heavy substance in their films and a story that leaves them thinking about it, you’ll enjoy this.
You’ll Not Like This If-
You were expecting an exact, faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley’s novel. Or if you don’t like ‘del Toro’s movies in general. Or if you don’t think you’re able to sit long enough for a two-and-a-half-hour movie.
While this is perhaps the closest adaptation to the novel that you’ll get, it’s still different enough to be its own thing. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as there are some things in the original novel that won’t really carry over to film. Such as Victor’s tendency to go on long tangents about his surroundings, especially the Swiss Alps. In the novels, this was fine, even if it felt somewhat meandering and could have been better done in a travel guide, but in a film that’s evocative of certain themes, it’s best we don’t linger too long on the background if it’s not pertinent to the story.
Likewise, the film’s length might be a turn-off. The original 1931 film, from which many modern adaptations draw inspiration, was a spry, hour-long affair that told a compact story of a Mad Scientist whose experiment to create life gave birth to a monster. In that, we didn’t linger on the monster’s point of view or explore his motivation and thought processes, treating the creature as nothing more than a spectacle rather than a character with its own desires.
Yet ‘del Toro’s “Frankenstein” is twice and a half the length of that film, and in it we delve into both the minds of Victor and the Creature and what makes them so hateful and resentful of one another, and the effects it has on those around them. It’s a character study of the power of grief, madness, an unbridled will to conquer death, and, in the creature’s case, the wish for acceptance by both self and the creator.
For those who just want to see pretty action, terrified screams, and a monster rampage, they’re not going to get it here. It’s a slower-paced character study, so action and terror are pretty minimal. For others who don’t care about deeper themes and want a popcorn flick to watch while scrolling their phone on occasion and to turn off their brains, they also might find that this doesn’t suffice, as it requires thinking to understand the subtler subtexts of the story.
Overall, if you want a fast-paced movie, this might not be for you.
Personal Opinions
Wow. What a film!
I enjoyed it a lot, honestly. While there were some stylistic choices in the story that I wasn’t too fond of, I saw the direction it was going and why those choices were different from the original novel. The themes are essentially the same, but the way that they show them are vastly different, and personally? In the end, all I really wanted was to see those themes at play, compared to the themes the 1931 Universal Classic film established in the modern interpretation of the story.
Was it the best of Guillermo’s movies? Personally, I think “Pan’s Labyrinth” is his best one still in terms of how it’s still discussed as a film even today, and how every year there are so many essays, dissections, and deeper dives into that movie’s themes, hidden subtexts, and history. I don’t think that “Frankenstein” will ever quite be that way, but in terms of raw emotion, I quite liked this a lot.
Mostly because I’m a sucker for good stories about Fatherhood. I’m not a Father myself, but I had a good relationship with mine growing up, and I’m always intrigued by how other stories approach it, especially when the Fathers in question are not perfect. Mine cheered me on when I wanted to engage in art, as he was a film buff who, at one point, wanted to direct films, and so he knew the value of having a creative outlet tempered by expectations. He also gave me good advice when I needed it, and never demanded anything other than that I work hard when I’m able to and to keep my promises.
So to see how Victor’s father treated him, and how Victor took that treatment to the creature, who in turn just wanted Victor to treat him with the kindness he wanted to give him back, was perhaps what elevated the film for me, especially their parting words at the end. Some things I thought the novel did better, others I thought Guillermo did better, and the ending is one I thought was better than the book.
Would I want to revisit this film in the future? Perhaps down the line. Unfortunately, most films I revisit tend to be quick, action films where you can shut your brain off, and an hour and a half feels like twenty minutes while you’re eating snacks and need a brain rest. This film is two and a half hours and felt like four simply because I paused and wanted to think, analyze, and compare, and while that IS fun for me as I write essays on stories, tropes, and what makes them work and more on my Substack, that also doesn’t leave much room for resting my brain.
So I might revisit it for a fun analysis, or if I want to watch it with someone who is interested in good films. I definitely give it a 9/10; however, I do rate it highly on a “Best of Gothic Horror” list.
If You Liked This, You Will Also Like
Pretty much the rest of Guillermo del Toro’s other films. This is practically his style and has been that way since forever. You’ll also quite like the original novel by Mary Shelley as well. If you’ve not read it, I recommend it.
The following suggestions pretty much follow the “Gothic Horror” line, as well as the story themes of playing god and the like. While a lot of them won’t be completely analogous to “Frankenstein“, a lot of them will be similar in tone, or in some cases, a retelling. Some might even be scarier, so keep that in mind if you’re looking for something similar that’s light on terror.
Movies and Shows
- – Any Universal Classic Monster Horror (1930s – 1950s)
- – Blade Runner (1982)
- – Edward Scissorhands (1990)
- – Ex Machina (2014)
- – The Golem by Paul Wegener (1920)
Books and Comics
- – Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson (1886)
- – The Isle of Dr. Moreau by H.G. Wells (1896)
- – The Djin Waits A Hundred Years by Shubnum Khan (2024)
- – This Monstrous Thing by Mackenzi Lee (2017)
- – Full Metal Alchemist (Both “Brotherhood” Anime and Manga) by Hiromu Arakawa
Video Games
- – SOMA (2015)
- – Amnesia: The Dark Descent (2010)
- – Planescape: Torment (1999)
- – Torment: Tides of Numenera (2016)
- – The Wanderer: Frankenstein’s Creature (2019)
Final Words
Overall, the film was a work of art that many who enjoy this genre will appreciate. Guillermo del Toro always does amazing work, and each of his films are carefully constructed to be things that people will want to rewatch again and again to come to understand new things about it that they might not have before.
While I wouldn’t say it’s his most layered film, it is certainly one of the best adaptations of the classic story for years to come. There are over 900 adaptations of Mary Shelley’s masterpiece, and this film is currently near the top ten, if not the top five.
And if you go to watch it, I recommend it in the comfort of your home, with a hot stew, a nice, warm drink, and with eyes wide open. It’s worth it.
