Opinion: Monstrosity or masterpiece? A review of Guillermo Del Toro’s ‘Frankenstein’

Frankenstein's Monster reading a book. Art by Dasha Allyn.

Since its original publication in 1818, Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" has maintained an enduring presence in academia and popular culture. The most recent film adaptation of the gothic science fiction novel, directed by Guillermo Del Toro, hit theaters in October of this year. Diverging from the exaggerated horror that often defines “Frankenstein” films, Del Toro successfully shifts the focus of the film onto the thematic explorations of Shelley's novel.

While the highly anticipated film has received a lot of positive feedback from viewers and boasts strong approval ratings, not everyone is happy with Del Toro’s take. Film critic Eileen Jones referred to the movie as “baggy” and "distracted” in her article, arguing that the film was weighed down by Del Toro’s own preoccupations and strayed a step too far from Shelley’s original plot. ​Another critic noted disappointment with the softness of Del Toro’s interpretation of the creature itself. 

Compromising the fear factor of Frankenstein’s monster, Del Toro delivered one of the most sympathetic and humanized versions of the creature thus far. For comparison, James Whale’s 1931 "Frankenstein" presented an almost comedic grunting and shuffling monstrosity that was completely mute and a far cry from Shelley’s literate creature. 

Admittedly, there was a lot wrong with the most recent adaptation of "Frankenstein.” For a 2025 release, the special effects were underwhelming. The scene where the creature (Jacob Elordi) fought off a pack of obviously CGI wolves was one of the most egregious instances of this. 

Aside from its cosmetic shortcomings, the film omitted fan favorite characters such as Henry Clerval, Victor Frankenstein’s best friend. Del Toro also resurrected William Frankenstein, who was canonically murdered by the creature in its mission to destroy Victor’s family. ​

There were other small deviations here and there, but the change that has been getting a lot of attention on social media was Del Toro’s reframing of Elizabeth Lavenza. Elizabeth’s character in the novel was ornamental, with her greatest contribution to plot being her strangulation at the hands of the creature. Del Toro entirely reimagined her role in his adaptation, instead casting her as William Frankenstein’s fiancée. Most unexpectedly, the director portrayed Elizabeth as being strangely infatuated with the creature after only a few brief interactions.  

The oddly romantic connection between Elizabeth and the creature leads to the next contested aspect of Del Toro’s take — the creature itself was not that scary. Juxtaposed with most other adaptations and Shelley's description of the creature, a gray, body-painted Elordi wasn't up to par. Since having a hideous appearance was exactly what led to the creature’s isolation from the rest of humanity, Del Toro’s lighthearted take on the creature’s look was a weak point of his adaptation. 

That being said, the film was not completely bereft of qualities that made it a worthwhile watch. A redeeming feature of Del Toro’s "Frankenstein" lies in the creative liberties he took with Victor Frankenstein’s father and the subsequent exploration of the film into parent-child relationships. 

Veering completely away from the novel in this regard, Del Toro depicted Victor’s father as a domineering and abusive man who pressured his son to live up to the family name. Viewers were given an unexpectedly intense depiction of young Victor’s upbringing in a gilded cage, which deepened his character beyond what can be found in other notable adaptations.

The creature’s body language in the moments after he came alive mirrored Victor’s movements exactly, an inspired move on the part of Del Toro that set up his exploration of how Victor’s childhood trauma was projected onto the creature. 

Instead of immediately rejecting the creature and falling into a fit of hysteria as Victor did in both the novel and Kenneth Branagh’s 1994 "Frankenstein,” Del Toro had Victor take a different approach by trying to form a parental bond with his creature. As Victor became frustrated with his creation’s inability to learn language, he began abusing the creature in much the same way his father abused him.

The emotional wound from abandonment was one of the fundamental aspects of the creature's psychology in the original novel. Del Toro clearly recognized the importance of capturing this aspect of the creature, and he dives deeper into themes of generational trauma and emotional abuse that “Frankenstein” films often gloss over. The creative liberty Del Toro takes to deepen Victor’s relationship with his creature pays off by making Victor’s eventual rejection of the creation that much more powerful.

All things considered, Del Toro's "Frankenstein" justifies its existence through its creative ambition and the respect it paid to the most essential thematic explorations of Shelley’s novel. It was an adaptation that did not strive to emulate the novel exactly, nor did it disregard Shelley’s intention by milking the horror of the creature. Instead, Del Toro delivered a thought-provoking film that is a valuable contribution to the ongoing legacy of “Frankenstein.”