Hollywood’s fascination with classic literature continues with Guillermo del Toro’s latest take on Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein.” This adaptation faces a daunting challenge: how to breathe new life into a story that has seen countless retellings since its original publication in 1818. The 1931 film featuring Boris Karloff set a high bar, not just for its impact on horror cinema but for its cultural significance. Del Toro, known for his imaginative storytelling and strong record with films like “Pan’s Labyrinth” and “The Shape of Water,” leads many to wonder if he could bring something fresh to this timeworn narrative.
The film opens with a gripping prologue set in the Arctic, where a ship encounters a badly injured Victor Frankenstein (portrayed by Oscar Isaac). Stranded in the ice, the crew unwittingly invites danger aboard as they rescue him—unbeknownst to them, The Creature (played by Jacob Elordi) is close behind. This early tension sets the tone for a film that intricately weaves between the past and the present, exploring Frankenstein’s troubled history and his obsession with creating life.
Del Toro dives deep into the psyche of Victor, highlighting his tumultuous relationship with his father and the dark legacy that fuels his ambitions. As Victor recounts the trauma of his childhood and his revelatory experiences at medical school, the viewer begins to understand the tragic roots of his descent into madness. He faces rejection from his peers, a theme that resonates as questions of ambition and the human condition emerge. Christoph Waltz’s character, Henrich Harlander, provides support and a foreboding undertone, symbolizing the ethical dilemmas faced in the pursuit of innovation.
The film’s narrative split allows The Creature to share his perspective—a fresh take on the story that challenges the notion of villainy and morality. Jacob Elordi’s portrayal shifts expectations, imbuing The Creature with pathos rather than pure horror. This nuanced representation aims to evoke empathy, though it raises questions about the emotional impact del Toro ultimately achieves. Despite the ambitious reworking, critics may find that this twist fails to generate the necessary emotional investment; the audience might leave feeling intrigued yet unfulfilled.
Visually, del Toro’s “Frankenstein” excels, showcasing remarkable production design, sumptuous costumes, and breathtaking cinematography. A powerful score by Alexandre Desplat complements the film’s lavish aesthetic, elevating the experience even if the story struggles to resonate deeply. As this adaptation unfolds, it mirrors the lavishness of its visuals with a production value that promises to captivate yet risks overshadowing the essence of the timeless tale.
While del Toro’s adaptation of “Frankenstein” endeavors to revitalize a horror classic, it runs the risk of being categorized as just another spectacle rather than a meaningful commentary on the human experience. As with many adaptations, the key question remains: can it match the emotional weight and lasting impact of its predecessors? Viewers may savor the artistry and craftsmanship but find family connections and moral dilemmas falling short of the original’s haunting poignancy.
With a runtime of nearly two and a half hours and an R rating for bloody violence and grisly images, this “Frankenstein” is poised to offer a chilling cinematic treat that appeals to genre fans. However, despite del Toro’s formidable skill, the lingering question remains whether his retelling will leave a mark comparable to Karloff’s iconic performance nearly a century ago.
In select theaters and streaming on Netflix beginning November 7, 2025, del Toro’s offering invites viewers into a visually stunning world. Yet, as the credits roll, audiences may find themselves pondering whether this adaptation managed to do justice to a timeless tale that continues to resonate through the ages.
"*" indicates required fields
