Frankenstein (2025) dr. Guillermo Del Toro

Guillermo Del Toro never misses. Ever since Pan’s Labyrinth and The Devil’s Backbone (I won’t add Crimson Peak or The Shape of Water here because frankly I haven’t gotten around to watch it yet!), I knew he was a man of style AND substance. This movie, with its all-star cast, brings fresh morbid life into a timeless classic that is Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. 

There’s so much I want to talk about, and I’m afraid to ramble on about it… but I’m too excited not to write. 

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

Wardrobe

FIRST AND FOREMOST, as someone who LOVES period fashion and costume design. THE COSTUME DESIGN IS PHENOMENAL. The structure of the corsets, hoop skirts, PETTICOATS— the design of the dresses and the bonnets are absolutely sublime! Even from the male wardrobe perspective, you can time exactly what kind of person the man is just from looking at what he’s wearing. Now THAT is what costume design is about! Of course Elizabeth Lavenza’s costumes takes the cake! But also honorable mention to the costume of victor’s mother and the guests at the wedding (saw a period accurate Dutch lady with the collar ruffles). Even the crew from the ship had the correct materials and structure.

Set Design 

Set Design gives that classic GDT flare— gothic, haunting, and breathtakingly beautiful. It’s atmospheric in the best way. The kind of set design that drags the viewer into the world. Especially the urban/interior sets. We can feel Victor’s ambition and dark pursuits from the set design alone: dreary, absolutely devoid of all but a bit of light, notes and drawings scattered everywhere. The university’s debate (?) scene, anxiety ridden. The Gallows and war scene really shows Victor’s disconnect with humanity at that point. My qualms lay in some nature scenes where it’s really… obvious that it’s cgi. Not that there’s anything wrong with CGI, anything’s better than AI. But the forest and wolf scenes made me giggle a bit, not gonna lie. 

Acting

With such an all-star cast, it’s impossible not to be amazing, no? With legends like Charles Dance, Christoph Waltz, and Mia Goth. I do think Charles Dance always gives a good acting performance in whatever disappointed father roles needed lol. Christop Waltz as well, it’s amazing to see his character actively thinking behind those eyes, and seeing how without remorse he is in asking Victor to do such things; “One night with Venus, forever with mercury” just die, man. Mia Goth, I’ve been a fervent fan of (acting-wise) since the X trilogy, and “Emma”. Needless to say that she has a diverse acting portfolio. Oscar Isaac, of course, gives the performance as the main character spectacularly. Particularly the spectacular way Victor is literally one of the most self righteous person alive; though I do think he could’ve played into Victor’s madness more. Felix Kammerer, as William, I’m afraid it’s not as strong as I hoped it was. He was amazing in “All Quiet in the Western Front”, though. Now. JACOB ELORDI. First of all, it’s unfair that he looks that good even as a monster; but, mainly, I’m so happy he proved himself with this role. God, it really breaks out from his “teenage heartthrob” typecast. The way he played as the creature is phenomenal. The body language alone could get the story and emotions across. And god, the eyes? The expressions? One of the only qualms is that he could’ve raged more, lol. 

I was actually delighted in the opening scene, hearing mixes of other languages. I’ve noticed since forever that hollywood tends to slap an english accent (or whatever racist caricature accent) in wherever they are, and thinks it’s good enough to say it’s “a foreign place”.

Symbolism -

The monster as stages of life

It’s true that in the novel, Mary Shelley makes the creature out to be much like a newborn. He needed to learn, take the first steps, learn to speak and understand. What I appreciated in this movie was that the creature actively learned how to read, and that impacted his character so much. (What he read, I’ll talk about it in the next section) He was afraid of Victor, but revered and loved him; like a child would an abusive father. The scorn and helplessness after is, what I think, adolescence and coming of age. I think most would agree that this stage of life brought on the worst kinds of mental anguish. Questions like “why was I born?” “Why am I here?” “Who am I?” “What is the purpose in my life?” The way for most of the film, the creature acted like a child broke my heart. By the end of the movie is him reaching adulthood and the maturing of his emotions. He has learned the greatest lesson of all, and that’s to forgive himself of what he had no control of to begin with. 

The Monster Learning — mankind and its pursuit of knowledge 

I don’t know why it makes me so happy to see someone learn in a movie; maybe because the literacy rate in my country is in shambles, but that’s for another day. The creatures learned most when he was by himself. Victor caused him such pain and trauma it’s possible to call CPS on the guy. He learned to eat, drink, live, talk, read, all on his own. Poor guy. It’s very telling that he needed parental figures so desperately. And even in the book and in this film, I rejoice when the blind old man gave him a place he much desperately needed. This poor creature was basically an orphan forced to come to terms with his own existence. Alone. Isn’t that kind of relatable? That existentialism? 

Mentioned Literature and its implications

• Prometheus
  

Prometheus obviously is referencing the greek myth, while also referring to Victor Frankenstein himself. He who tests his limit, bringing fire to mankind and suffers for what he has done via wrath of the Gods. Prometheus did that for fame, glory, or the betterment of mankind, it’s not too clear. Most would argue Prometheus did that for humankind. Willing to scorn his maker to bring good into the world. But Victor Frankenstein is an arrogant man, and his creature did nothing but bring misery to the world. Sure, fire brought heat and could also be used as a tool of destruction. But what has Victor done if not made— gave life to a creature just to suffer? 

• Adam and Eve
  

Obviously this whole story is a grotesque retelling of the Bible. And I don’t mean it in a “this is blasphemous!” Kind of way— I mean it in a “this is a paralel and an exploration of what could and would happen if the polar opposite occurred, in the mind of a religious person.” Kind of way. 

Adam and Eve worked together harmoniously to birth a son, thanks to divine intervention. Here, “Adam” (Victor) is an incel who sees Elizabeth as a prize for her purity, and his own ego drove him to spite God and create a being that could transcend the natural order. “Adam gave birth to a monster, as satan cannot replicate but only immitate grotesquesly, sacred acts of God.” Is what I understood from the novel, and it is mirrored here. While “Eve” (Elizabeth) is not made for “Adam”, she is for someone else, and she is utterly disgusted by “Adam” for his lack of humanity. As “Eve” refuses to go along with “Adam” in “the garden”— here, it’s symbolized by the death castle/laboratory, the original sin is not there. Thus, the “mankind” that was born cannot die, as it’s out of God’s plan. And Adam cannot control what he tried to immitate. Also, I found it interesting that the “birth” scene— when Victor finally gets the creature to live. The set design really drives it home to the fact that it’s a “birth.” A channel of energy is driven from a hole to a chamber, where the creature (an egg) of sorts, wait for final fusion and the breath of life to come. It’s also very on the nose that Christoph’s character died so the creature came to life, even if it was an accident. “Adam” did not make life, he borrowed it by committing murder. 

• Paradise Lost
  

It’s very edgy. It’s hilarious to be honest. The creature, in its full existentially angsty and adolescent phase, comes to read Paradise Lost— a retelling of Lucifer Morningstar’s fall from heaven from Lucifer’s perspective.  As Lucifer questions why he is brought to life if he was made to be the source of suffering for all eternity. How he scorns his maker. Need I explain more?

• Victor Frankenstein’s Ego and downfall
  

This whole schtick happened because SOMEONE wanted to prove himself. In the film, it’s daddy issues and trauma mixed with arrogance. In the book, he’s just an arrogant git trying to do things he doesn’t fully comprehend because he wanted to spite his professor. Both bad. “His academic obsession caused him to lose himself to humanity” is what I keep hearing when people discuss his character. But honestly…? He wasn't ever good. He was always a self serving, self centered bastard. I mean in this film alone: his passive aggressiveness to his little brother, flirting and lowkey stalking his little brother’s fiance, spiting his dad and the academic board, spiting his sponsor (even tho it was reasonable and i agree with victor on this one, i must admit it takes balls of steel and absolute shit ton of audacity to pull that one off) The way he gazed upon his mom and Elizabeth makes me SO uncomfy. Like… virgin madonna complex much? And what was he expecting coming onto Elizabeth like that? He’s such an incel. He “loves” Elizabeth but literally scorns everything she stands for. Victor himself basically turned into his father, being an emotionally and physically abusive father to the creature.

• Elizabeth’s kindness/motherhood
  

Of course, Elizabeth in the film is given much more of a bigger role than in the novel. Here, she acts as Victor’s foil. She’s smart and perceptive, but most of all, she has heart and her principles. She’s willing to stand by and die for what she believes in. And she sees the good in everything. I’m happy she was one of the only two people that were kind to the creature. I’m actually sure that if Elizabeth could nurture the creature, the creature could become someone much better. 

Does it hold up as an adaptation of Frankenstein?

Absolutely! This whole experience was a treat, and I would absolutely rewatch it over and over again

Mary Shelley, the woman you are!