Guillermo del Toro Frankenstein, a new adaptation brought to life by esteemed Gothic fantasy director Guillermo del Toro, premiered in theaters to high expectations but has left some audiences disappointed, as it adheres closely to Mary Shelley’s iconic novel without offering much innovation. While the film introduces standout performances and impresses with its technical artistry, it struggles to fully capture the poetic depth and enduring tragedy of its source material.
Del Toro’s Vision Remains Faithful but Lacks Fresh Perspective
Guillermo del Toro’s reputation as a master of Gothic fantasy fueled excitement for his take on Frankenstein, especially as the film promised a cinematic experience deeply rooted in the classic narrative created by Mary Shelley. Del Toro’s adaptation follows Victor Frankenstein, a biologist driven by a desire to conquer death, who assembles a being from cadavers and brings it to life. This creation, known as Frankenstein’s monster, becomes central to Del Toro’s story.
While some creative liberties are taken with character omissions and additions, Del Toro remains remarkably faithful to the source material, to the point that the film at times feels like a direct translation of the book rather than a reimagination. Unfortunately, these changes, or lack thereof, do little to alter the outcome or leave a marked impression on viewers.
One outstanding feature is Jacob Elordi’s portrayal of Frankenstein’s monster. The casting of Elordi as the iconic character is arguably one of the director’s most successful choices, delivering an imposing and deeply sympathetic performance that captures the complexity and anguish of the creature. Elordi’s onscreen presence, highlighted by skillful manipulation of lighting and camera angles, allows the monster’s inner turmoil to resonate with the audience.
Oscar buzz is already swirling around the film, particularly with predictions that Netflix’s Frankenstein could receive nominations for Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Costume Design, Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects, and Best Production Design. These technical merits showcase del Toro’s command of atmospheric world-building and his continued flair for visually arresting cinema. Yet, despite these accolades, the film’s mood is more muted and less captivating compared to the director’s previous works.
The Emotional Poetics of Shelley’s Novel Get Lost in Translation
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is celebrated for its poetic exploration of tragedy—the idea that Victor achieves the power to create life, only to realize the horror and consequences of his actions as his creation brings suffering and death. The intricate relationship between creator and creation, and the inexorable fate that binds them, stands as the heart of the original novel.
While these themes are certainly present in del Toro’s film, they are rendered with little subtlety. The movie often states its points explicitly, including the notion that Victor is, in fact, the true monster of the tale. This heavy-handed approach dulls the impact of the tragedy, detracting from the nuanced storytelling that gives the novel its lasting power.
The film, as a product of Guillermo del Toro’s imagination, becomes a kind of reflection of the monster itself: constructed expertly, imbued with technical prowess, and reverent to its origins, but unable to evoke the same awe or depth of feeling. Instead of reinventing the narrative or exploring brave new interpretations, the adaptation feels more like a reverent remake, offering little beyond what audiences might expect from a straightforward rendering of the classic story.
Del Toro’s Humanistic Approach Misses Crucial Dimensions
Victor Frankenstein’s reluctance to embrace the responsibilities of his actions condemns both himself and his creation, a central lesson of Shelley’s work. Unfortunately, Guillermo del Toro’s film echoes this theme to its detriment—his affection for monsters imbued with human qualities results in a portrayal that oversimplifies the creature’s destructiveness, and fails to explore the more menacing aspects of its existence.
While the conclusion of the movie seeks to inspire empathy for the creature, the emotional momentum leading to this finale feels unearned. The narrative wanders and loses focus, making the film’s resolution seem inevitable but not necessarily satisfying. Del Toro’s interpretation encourages sympathy chiefly for the creature while painting Victor almost exclusively as a cold and tormented antagonist, even offering glimpses of his troubled past that fail to justify his extreme behavior.
This overt direction of sentiment, which tells the audience how to feel rather than guiding them through an emotional journey, weakens the movie’s impact. The lack of emotional subtlety ultimately prevents the film from reaching the heights of a true cinematic masterpiece, causing it to fall short of being the powerful testament to tragedy and ambition that the story aspires to be.
The Film’s Purpose Feels Overstated and Restrictive
Del Toro’s Frankenstein is so intent on delivering its message that it comes across as didactic, as though audiences are being lectured rather than engaged with the complexities of Shelley’s tale. Rather than utilizing the unique strengths of film to interpret and expand upon the novel’s meaning, the movie functions primarily as a visual echo of the original story, missing opportunities for creative reinterpretation.
Although Guillermo del Toro Frankenstein stands as a technically adept and visually impressive addition to the long list of adaptations, it offers little innovation, instead serving as a cautionary reminder about the risks of remaking beloved classics simply because it can be done. The film’s existence perhaps better embodies the novel’s themes of creation, consequence, and the limitations of human ambition, than its actual execution does on screen.
In the end, while fans of del Toro and newcomers to Mary Shelley’s tale will find much to admire in its craftsmanship and performances, the film falls short of the emotional resonance and lasting significance that elevate great adaptations. Its legacy may lie in prompting both viewers and filmmakers to consider the value of bold creativity over strict fidelity to the familiar.
