Frankenstein (2025) Review — Would Mary Shelley Like Guillermo del Toro’s Film?

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is one of the most beloved horror novels ever written. It has inspired countless adaptations, retellings, and reimaginings. Shelley’s novel has influenced generations of writers and scientists alike. It has shaped technology, inspired new inventions, and become a cornerstone of how we talk about creation, imagination, horror, and humanity.

When a new version of Frankenstein comes along, it has to rise to the occasion. It has to bring something new, something innovative, something worthy of Shelley’s masterpiece. So, is that what director and writer Guillermo del Toro achieves with his new adaptation, and what would Mary Shelley herself think of this new film?

Frankenstein has a short theatrical release followed by a Netflix premiere on November 7. So if you’re trying to decide between seeing it in theaters or waiting to stream it, I hope my review will help you figure out which experience, if any, might be the best for you.

You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:

The Story — Victor and his Creature
Frankenstein is the story of two men: Victor Frankenstein and his creation. Victor is a driven scientist and medical doctor whose life is defined by the death of his mother and the cruelty of his father. That trauma sends him on a relentless quest to overcome death itself. He wants to conquer mortality and master the forces of life and death.

The other man is his creation, known simply as the Creature. He is the living result of Victor’s obsession, genius, and success, and his existence sets everything in motion.

What works especially well in this adaptation is how Guillermo del Toro structures the narrative. The story unfolds in three interwoven layers. The primary layer is the present-day confrontation between Victor and the Creature, which opens and closes the film and threads the whole narrative together. The second layer is told from Victor’s perspective. We see his formative years with his family, his adult relationships with his younger brother William and with Elizabeth, and his professional work that defines life.

The third layer is from the Creature’s perspective, revealing what happens after he is brought to life. We see the world’s reaction to him along with his confusion, their cruelty, and the experiences that shape his understanding of himself and how he is seen.

Del Toro’s version digs into the humanity that binds family together and shapes who we become, first through childhood and then through how our experiences as adults change our place within that family. We see both men wrestle with fear, compassion, and violence. Their stories mirror each other and lead to a final confrontation.

I’ll keep this review spoiler-free through the Recommendation section, so it’s safe to read up to that point. I get into a few key spoilers in my final thoughts at the end. So, if you prefer no spoilers, you’ll be able to stop before then and come back after you’ve seen the film.

Monster or Man?
Victor’s obsession with conquering death drives every moment of his life. Guillermo del Toro builds on that foundation to explore what it means to create life in a world that rejects those who are different. The film also asks tough questions like what it means to be human, to be alive, and to be unwanted.

Those are strong themes that are highlighted with precision. He does not try to recreate Shelley’s story beat for beat. Instead, he adapts the ideas behind those story beats, including grief, loneliness, ambition, and parental responsibility. He also brings those ideas into a modern frame by tapping into classic social issues in a way that is clearly designed for a contemporary audience.

The result is one of the most human interpretations of Frankenstein I have seen. The Creature feels like a man who is powerless to earn his father’s love and approval, and his presence inspires both horror and sympathy in those around him. He has a moral center that evolves through each new experience, which makes his humanity impossible to ignore despite his scars and rags.

Cast and Characters
Oscar Isaac plays Victor Frankenstein, and he does a good job in the role. His performance leans into Victor’s arrogance and obsession, which makes him less sympathetic and much more distant or insufferable as a scientist and as a man. However, I think that it works for what this version of Victor needs to accomplish, even if that choice makes him feel a bit flat at times.

Jacob Elordi, who plays the Creature, delivers a truly exceptional performance. He brings vulnerability, pain, and intelligence to a character that could easily have been reduced to an angry, disfigured man-child turned into a monster by his father. That is not the Creature we get. His body language and his eyes tell the story as much as the dialogue, and he makes you care about this strange being who was never meant to exist.

Mia Goth as Elizabeth is visually perfect for her role. Her relationship to both Victor and the Creature becomes the catalyst for conflict because she inspires jealousy and desire that fuels their conflict. She is the physical symbol of youth and beauty in this grim and grey world full of decay. Del Toro uses her as a young, vibrant lens through which the audience first sees the Creature’s humanity, and later that perspective is echoed in the mature perspective of the old blind man who befriends him. Through their compassion for him we understand the Creature as a man, and we feel his pain at not receiving any kind of affection from the one person he most wants it from.

The Heart of Frankenstein
Del Toro’s version of Frankenstein focuses less on horror and more on character development. There are moments of gore, but the real horror comes from the emotional and moral weight of the story. It reflects the way society reacts to the unknown and the way parents reject their children when they do not meet expectations.

What makes this adaptation stand out is its restraint. Del Toro understands that audiences already know the Frankenstein myth. We have seen the lightning, the lab, and the shouts of “It’s alive!” countless times. Rather than repeating those familiar scenes, he offers something more introspective that explores our own humanity through the relationship between Victor and his creation.

The film runs long at roughly two and a half hours. Cutting 30 to 45 minutes would have made the film tighter and more focused without sacrificing impact. The benefactor storyline in particular feels unnecessary and takes time away from the emotional core of the story.

Visual Artistry and Design
Visually, Frankenstein is stunning. Every shot is meticulously crafted, from the gothic landscapes to the muted Victorian color palette. The architecture, the lighting, and the costumes all contribute to the film’s dark beauty.

The stitching on the Creature’s body is intricate and artistic. Instead of grotesque seams, the lines are smooth and rounded, creating a deliberate, almost mystical pattern that turns his skin into a work of art. In her novel, Shelley described Victor as assembling the most beautiful features he could find, and del Toro carries that idea further by transforming imperfection into a strange beauty.

When it comes to the cinematography, production design, and visual effects, it is difficult to tell where the practical elements end and the digital elements begin. The film blends physical sets, AI-assisted visuals, and VFX work so naturally that everything feels grounded and real. It is one of the strongest examples of how visual storytelling has evolved in modern filmmaking, creating a new level of immersive realism.

Is it Ticket Worthy?
So, is Frankenstein ticket-worthy or stream-worthy? I think most people will enjoy the movie, if they are open to the changes made for this film. If you want to experience the full artistic impact of Guillermo del Toro’s vision, see it in a theater. IMAX, Dolby Cinema, or laser projection will give you the immersive experience this film was designed to create. If you wait for Netflix, you will still get a beautiful, well-told story, although it will not feel as monumental as it does in a theater.

If you are a Frankenstein purist, del Toro’s film does not follow Shelley’s novel point by point. Some of the missing story threads might frustrate you, although those changes are what give this film its distinct identity. Del Toro captures the essence of the original story, holding onto the atmosphere, the moral questions, and the evocative visuals of the period while reframing the themes for a modern audience. This is a subtle but powerful shift that makes the Creature feel uniquely human.

So, to answer my original question, what would Mary Shelley think of Guillermo del Toro’s adaptation? I think she would recognize her story and appreciate what he did with the Creature’s emotional depth. She might question the way responsibility and closure are shifted near the end, since her novel leaves the Creature with no true resolution and holds Victor accountable without emotional reward. Even so, I believe she would love how much humanity del Toro places in the Creature and how that humanity focuses the impact of her story.

If you are stopping here to avoid spoilers, please like this video, subscribe, and share it with a friend who might enjoy it. For those who want to go a little deeper, let’s talk about a few spoilers.

**SPOILERS ** and Final Thoughts

Possibly the biggest spoiler surprise is what is missing from the film. We never hear the Creature say, “Father, you made me.” That single line in Shelley’s novel is powerful. It defines the relationship between creator and creation, and between parent and child. Its absence feels like a missed opportunity, especially given how deeply the film explores their connection

In the closing moments, Victor asks the Creature for forgiveness and tells him to forgive himself. While the idea of forgiveness loosely echoes the book, forgiveness and accountability remain out of reach for both Victor and the Creature in Shelley’s story. There is nothing the Creature does in del Toro’s film that feels truly evil or in need of forgiveness. The violence on his part is always defensive. He is the one who suffers violence without retribution. So hearing Victor tell him to forgive himself rings hollow and is perhaps del Toro’s way of showing that Victor still refuses to take responsibility for the harm he caused.

One of the most significant changes involves Elizabeth. She is engaged to William, not Victor. This fuels Victor’s obsession with her, which becomes one of the emotional pivots of the film because she does not return his affection. Instead, her most genuine emotional connection is with the Creature, which Victor cannot accept. She shows the Creature kindness and compassion, seeing his humanity when no one else will. That empathy shapes who he becomes, and it also leads to Elizabeth’s death when she tries to save him. She dies from Victor’s bullet, not at the Creature’s hands, and that twist reframes the Creature’s character arc in a way that preserves his kindness and humanity. It turns Victor into the true monster and positions the Creature as the tragic protagonist.

Del Toro’s adaptation does not mimic the original story. It adapts its essence and translates those ideas into a film that will speak to today’s audience. There are other missing story threads that are not completed or included. Those choices are clearly intentional, and if you are familiar with the original novel, I think you will feel their absence. Even so, with its flaws and omissions, the film succeeds as a piece of art that questions morality, compassion, and the human cost of creation.

If you enjoyed this review, please give it a clap and subscribe for more. You can also visit my YouTube channel at @ErinUnderwood for more videos.

***

If you’d like to read FRANKENSTEIN, you can use my Amazon Associate links:

• Frankenstein by Mary Shelley: https://amzn.to/42OnUVt