Frankenstein (2025)

✰✰✰½​ (out of five)

Synopsis: From Oscar®-winning filmmaker Guillermo del Toro comes the definitive retelling of Mary Shelley’s genre-defining novel of life and death — an epic drama about what it means to be human, to crave love, and seek understanding. Golden Globe-winner Oscar Isaac plays the brilliant but tortured scientist Victor Frankenstein, who embarks on an ego-driven quest to bring new life into this world, resulting in the Creature (BAFTA-nominee Jacob Elordi), whose very existence provokes questions about what it means to be a human and what it really means to be a monster. 

Review: Few pieces of literature from my high school and college days are ones that I grasped, let alone liked and enjoyed. Two stand out as both: A Christmas Carol and Frankenstein. While the former molded me as a human, the latter had a distinct impact on me culturally and spiritually. Never particularly religious, I found the exploration of creation and it's significance of questioning one's God historically in a society when it's rules and customs were deeply rooted in religion, specifically Christianity. Even so, Frankenstein can be viewed as representative of the advancement of science, faith, technology and maternity, but also civilization's progression as a society and exploration of the human condition. We have seen multiple film versions of the actual novel, but it's framework is fingerprinted all over more than just titled adaptations of the written work. With it's basis of a creation turning towards to and against the creator after society's rejection, from playful (Young Frankenstein, Edward Scissorhands, Weird Science) to dramatic social commentary (RoboCop, Blade Runner, Ex Machina). 

Now, director Guillermo del Toro goes for his vision and angle of the story.

Anyone who has seen even one of Del Toro's films can see the original Shelley novel is a major influence on his previous films, almost building from his own Victor Frankenstein-style craftwork to this as a crescendo. But the film feels, pardon the pun, somewhat lifeless despite some admirable points during the runtime.

Director Mike Flanagan with his adaptation of Doctor Sleep had to juggle and rectify himself to the fact that he needed to adapt a sequel book with elements of it's original film adaption that deviated from the source material (FYI Stephen King hated Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, hence the give and take). Del Toro faces the same high-wire act. He wants to be as faithful to the source material as possible while also acknowledging the existence of those classic Universal adaptations that deviate and add in their own way. Let's face it, no matter how masterful those films are, they are not faithful Shelley works, but clearly Del Toro sees the subtext of maternal instinct from Shelley while incorporating Bride of Frankenstein elements into his adaptation. He is a child of horror films more than anything. 

There is no doubt the film is wonderful to look at--sets, costumes, make-up, blood effects, and plenty of convincing practical effects to relish in. But the structure is disjointed. Del Toro allegedly meant to have the story be two films: Victor's story in part one, and the creature's in part two. But he was forced to adapt to a more concise singular work. Ironic, given the creature's desire for a companion: this Del Toro film could've benefitted from one, too with each story allowed to breathe. But that wouldn't have fixed it all. Each one would've needed to be lean, not overlong. While Elordi brings true spirit to his portion of the film, Isaac is a bit scattershot on the performance. Was this intentional to show Victor's madness? Perhaps, but it felt uneven and too wildly manic at times. He's a wonderful actor and fits into Del Toro's cupboard of characters, so let's hope they try for their own. Victor's story felt hollow at times, while the Creature's was one of engaging precedent. The problem is the paint-by-numbers final work. Del Toro does it with style, talent, and great craft.

And it's... fine.

One may say Del Toro committed to what feels like a superhero origin story, but why not? Is the original Shelley work not a work commenting and challenging the theory of creation, the origin story of man? And aren't superhero flicks part of the aforementioned influenced framework? Didn't Jack Nicholson's Joker and Michael Keaton's Batman not accuse one another of creating each other before going versus? Does Ultron not turn on his maker Tony Stark in Avengers: Age of Ultron, seeing humanity as a threat to themselves but the ultimate enemy of the world?  Again, the framework is older than the Shelley book itself, so having an adaptation now angling itself in modern mainstream tentpole films isn't a major qualm to have. Clearly, Del Toro would have a feast making a superhero film.

"Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather a fallen angel," Victor's creature theorizes in Shelley's novel. For Del Toro's Frankenstein, the film's final creation finds the same average results: neither really very alive, but also never truly dead.