Frankenstein (2025)

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ fandomwire.com/frankenstein-review/

"Frankenstein is a powerful, visceral film that solidifies Guillermo del Toro as a master of atmosphere and emotion.

Thanks to Jacob Elordi's transcendent performance as The Creature and exceptional multi-departmental work, the movie takes the legendary tale and transforms it into a deep, complex meditation on human fallibility and the terror of rejection. It's a visual and thematic experience that demands patience and personal, intellectual, and emotional investment.

Shockingly violent, it's undeniably one of the most important stories of the year. The combination of geniuses in front of and behind the camera results in a feature that confronts us with an undeniable truth: the tale of Frankenstein isn't about creating a monster; it's about the eternal and necessary challenge of recognizing our own humanity in those we reject."

Rating: A-

This has got be Oscar Isaac at his best yet, depicting the obsessive scientist hell-bent on proving that he could use science to defeat death itself. He is the son of an acclaimed but rather brutal physician (Charles Dance) and is galvanised further to his chosen path by the sudden death of his mother. His theories disgust civilised society but the wealthy “Harlander” (Christophe Waltz) agrees to fund his experiments to what he hopes will be their logical conclusion. Now secreted away in his remote castle, and quite literally cannibalising spare parts from graveyards and mortuaries alike, he awaits that lightning storm that could just bring Jacob Elordi to life. The problem for the Baron is that he is disappointed with his creation and has no concept that it looks to him very much as a father. Imprisoned in the basement, the “monster” is befriended by “Elizabeth” (Mia Goth) who sympathises with it’s ghastly predicament - but before she can help a great conflagration sets in train a cat and mouse struggle between created and creator that takes them to the depths of the frozen wastes where an exploration ship is trapped in thick pack ice - where our story both starts and concludes. Isaac really does own his megalomaniac obsessive role here and the whole creative effort put into the production design turns this from simple science fiction into a multi-textured love story with it’s fair share of moral dilemmas, hate and loathing too. Elordi? Well he does bring back memories of Christopher Lee in this role, only here is is also rewarded with an extra degree of articulation and towards the end, more of a conscience and even an amount of personality - and he manages to portray his character’s frustrated and confused conflict well, if fairly sparingly. Whilst there are common points of reference with earlier iterations of this story, this enlivens it in a far more characterful and in many ways more justifiable way, and I thought it flew by. Big screen if you can, though Netflix does seem to have limited it’s cinema release quite a bit, because it might lose much of it’s stylish and gothic menace as well as it’s emotionally-charged nuance on a small screen.

I walked in at 44 minutes. The last hour and 45 has less whinging in accents. Bad Lighthouse. Swearengen in Wick 4.

I went to a restaurant and they were playing this as though it was a serious movie. One could not pass through the projector beam. I could see my hair in the letterbox. I'm glad I didn't see this all in the theatre. I watched the beginning later to see what I missed and I was not pleased.

Mia Goth touching his wound. Nice. Hoped for more from that treasure trove. Forest Spirit learns to read. Nice. Victor tries too hard in character and on screen. Fr-long-bullshit-stein.

Why is the creature a hot guy? WHY?

Netflix has a thing with hottening everyone lately, even Ed Gein, and I just don't get it.

As with any GDT film, it is exceedingly interesting visually, and I'd go so far as to say his visual language rivals Tim Burton in excellence. This film is a visual marvel in basically every scene, a veritable feast for the eyes.

There are some great performances, especially among the bit players: Charles Dance, Christoph Waltz, and David Bradley in particular.

The real bummer, though, is that much of the book is left out and/or reimagined, so if you like the story as it is written, you'll probably be a little disappointed as I was.

Also, read the book. It's great.

guillermo del toro brings frankenstein back to life with so much heart and atmosphere. the world feels dark and gothic, but never without compassion. the performances hit hard, especially in how they show the creature’s loneliness and longing to be understood

Such a Terrifying entrance for the film and the Horror of what is happening that we are to be witness to.
Mia Goth is a Force to be Reckoned with, and the more you're witness to her Veracity, the more she gives each character and she is Unparalleled.
The visuals are exceedingly spectacular and colorful, and the dark hues filled with a beautiful gothic macabre to each piece, making a whole.
A new perspective comes to light, one of Loneliness, Trauma, and of Yearning to part of this life as we call it. Life lessons are being learned and lived, even if only too briefly, and then once again, the inevitable search through the loneliness continues.
Such a Beautifully Haunting version of a favorite tale I've sought after, in so many many years, to see in any incarnation. This is a must-see for fans of Gothic Literature, Especially the Frankenstein Novel.

What a great movie! Definitely a masterpiece without any flaws. Beautifully executed. No propaganda and nonsense either. Best version of Franskenstein!

_“An idea, a feeling became clear to me. The hunter did not hate the wolf. The wolf did not hate the sheep. But violence felt inevitable between them. Perhaps, I thought this was the way of the world. It would hunt you and kill you just for being who you are.” _

_**Frankenstein** (2025)_ is truly a gem. This reminded me a lot of the original and the connection between what is human and what is monstrous was reflected well in the script. The cinematography and editing fit this story perfectly.

Why is it always women who humanize what others perceive as dangerous? Mia Goth portrayed Elizabeth beautifully and she fits the gothic genre to a T. I love how they showed the way each character interacted with him and how one humanized him (pronouns: he) and the other dehumanized him (pronouns: it).

Some things were a little too on the nose. But Im letting it slide for the pure enjoyment and emotion the film provoked in me. If you’re going to ask if I cried, act like you know me. You know I did.

Of course, I always praise Oscar Issac for any and everything he’s in. He brings characters to life so well I’d watch a film of him watching paint dry. I didn’t know Jacob Eldori was in this until the credits and bravo to him for being a convincing son of Frankenstein. Would definitely watch this again!

"Frankenstein", Mary Shelly's epic work, is, at its heart, a cautionary tale, of man's scientific hubris, defying both God and nature.

Lets start by saying this film is, in most respects a more than decent. Acting is, for the most part, outstanding, as are the creature effects. What can be honestly said, however, is this film bears only a remote resemblance, to Shelly's novel.

The core of this story, as I see it, is a dysfunctional father son relationship. Victor Frankenstein's own failed relationship, with his father, is mirrored in his callous and at times, cruel, treatment of his surrogate son, the creature, he conjures into existence.

Is that a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. As an ardent Shelly fan, (I was actually in the process of re-reading Frankenstein, when this was released) it felt a little lacking.

The relationship between the creature and Frankenstein, is markedly less complex, than that portrayed in the novel. The creature in the book, is a tragic, ultimately sympathetic figure but also capable of considerable guile and cruelty. These aspects of its personality, are downplayed, in this tale. Victor Frankenstein is, for his part, more someone who has showen an horrific, irrevocable, error in judgement and is now trapped, as opposed to being overtly cruel and callous.

In summary, "Frankenstein" bears only a passing semblance to Shelly's remarkable work. This is a decent film, of that there can be no doubt but it needs to viewed in isolation from the novel. The underlying message is something of a departure. Certainly its not as sophisticated, in terms of the relationship it establishes between Frankenstein and his creation. Nonetheless, worth a look.

"Frankenstein", Mary Shelly's epic work, is, at its heart, a cautionary tale, of man's scientific hubris, defying both God and nature.

Lets start by saying this film is, in most respects a more than decent. Acting is, for the most part, outstanding, as are the creature effects. What can be honestly said, however, is this film bears only a remote resemblance, to Shelly's novel.

The core of this story, as I see it, is a dysfunctional father son relationship. Victor Frankenstein's own failed relationship, with his father, is mirrored in his callous and at times, cruel, treatment of his surrogate son, the creature, he conjures into existence.

Is that a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. As an ardent Shelly fan, (I was actually in the process of re-reading Frankenstein, when this was released) it felt a little lacking.

The relationship between the creature and Frankenstein, is markedly less complex, than that portrayed in the novel. The creature in the book, is a tragic, ultimately sympathetic figure but also capable of considerable guile and cruelty. These aspects of its personality, are downplayed, in this tale. Victor Frankenstein is, for his part, more someone who has showen an horrific, irrevocable, error in judgement and is now trapped, as opposed to being overtly cruel and callous.

In summary, "Frankenstein" bears only a passing semblance to Shelly's remarkable work. This is a decent film, of that there can be no doubt but it needs to viewed in isolation from the novel. The underlying message is something of a departure. Certainly its not as sophisticated, in terms of the relationship it establishes between Frankenstein and his creation. Nonetheless, worth a look.

"Frankenstein" is a departure from Mary Shelly's epic work. The novel is, at its core, a cautionary tale, of man's scientific hubris, defying both God and nature.

This is, in most respects a more than decent film. Acting is, for the most part outstanding, as are the creature effects but what can be honestly said, is this film bears only the remotest resemblance, to Shelly's work.

The film establishes a dysfunctional father son relationship, mirroring Victor Frankenstein's own failed relationship, with his father, in his callous and at times, cruel, treatment of his surrogate son, the creature, he conjurs into existence.

Is that a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. As an ardent Shelly fan, I was actually in the process of re-reading Frankenstein, when this was released. For me, it felt a little lacking.

The relationship between the creature and Frankenstein, felt markedly less complex. The creature in the book, is a tragic, ultimately sympathetic figure but also capable of considerable guile and cruelty. These aspects of its personality, are laregly absent, in this tale. Victor Frankenstein is, for his part, is more someone who has showen an horrific error in judgement and has no idea how to remedy his error, as opposed to someone cruel and callous.

In summary, "Frankenstein" bears only a passing semblance to Shelly's remarkable work. This is a decent film, of that there can be no doubt but it needs to viewed in isolation from the novel. The underlying message is something of a departure. Certainly its not as sophisticated, in terms of the relationship it establishes between Frankenstein and his creation. Nonethesless, worth a look.

"Frankenstein" is a departure from Mary Shelly's epic work. The novel is, at its core, a cautionary tale, of man's scientific hubris, defying both God and nature.

This is, in most respects a more than decent film. Acting is, for the most part outstanding, as are the creature effects but what can be honestly said, is this film bears only the remotest resemblance, to Shelly's work.

The film establishes a dysfunctional father son relationship, mirroring Victor Frankenstein's own failed relationship, with his father, in his callous and at times, cruel, treatment of his surrogate son, the creature, he conjures into existence.

Is that a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. As an ardent Shelly fan, I was actually in the process of re-reading Frankenstein, when this was released. For me, it felt a little lacking.

The relationship between the creature and Frankenstein, felt markedly less complex. The creature in the book, is a tragic, ultimately sympathetic figure but also capable of considerable guile and cruelty. These aspects of its personality, are laregly absent, in this tale. Victor Frankenstein is, for his part, is more someone who has showen an horrific error in judgement and has no idea how to remedy his error, as opposed to someone cruel and callous.

In summary, "Frankenstein" bears only a passing semblance to Shelly's remarkable work. This is a decent film, of that there can be no doubt but it needs to viewed in isolation from the novel. The underlying message is something of a departure. Certainly its not as sophisticated, in terms of the relationship it establishes between Frankenstein and his creation. Nonethesless, worth a look.

"Frankenstein" is a departure from Mary Shelly's epic work. The novel is, at its core, a cautionary tale, of man's scientific hubris, defying both God and nature.

This is, in most respects a more than decent film. Acting is, for the most part outstanding, as are the creature effects but what can be honestly said, is this film bears only the remotest resemblance, to Shelly's work.

The film establishes a dysfunctional father son relationship, mirroring Victor Frankenstein's own failed relationship, with his father, in his callous and at times, cruel, treatment of his surrogate son, the creature, he conjurs into existence.

Is that a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. As an ardent Shelly fan, I was actually in the process of re-reading Frankenstein, when this was released. For me, it felt a little lacking.

The relationship between the creature and Frankenstein, felt markedly less complex. The creature in the book, is a tragic, ultimately sympathetic figure but also capable of considerable guile and cruelty. These aspects of its personality, are laregly absent, in this tale. Victor Frankenstein is, for his part, is more someone who has showen an horrific error in judgement and has no idea how to remedy his error, as opposed to someone cruel and callous.

In summary, "Frankenstein" bears only a passing semblance to Shelly's remarkable work. This is a decent film, of that there can be no doubt but it needs to viewed in isolation from the novel. The underlying message is something of a departure. Certainly its not as sophisticated, in terms of the relationship it establishes between Frankenstein and his creation. Nonethesless, worth a look.

"Frankenstein" is a departure from Mary Shelly's epic work. The novel is, at its core, a cautionary tale, of man's scientific hubris, defying both God and nature.

This is, in most respects a more than decent film. Acting is, for the most part outstanding, as are the creature effects but what can be honestly said, is this film bears only the remotest resemblance, to Shelly's work.

The film establishes a dysfunctional father son relationship, mirroring Victor Frankenstein's own failed relationship, with his father, in his callous and at times, cruel, treatment of his surrogate son, the creature, he conjurs into existence.

Is that a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. As an ardent Shelly fan, I was actually in the process of re-reading Frankenstein, when this was released. For me, it felt a little lacking.

The relationship between the creature and Frankenstein, felt markedly less complex. The creature in the book, is a tragic, ultimately sympathetic figure but also capable of considerable guile and cruelty. These aspects of its personality, are laregly absent, in this tale. Victor Frankenstein is, for his part, is more someone who has showen an horrific error in judgement and has no idea how to remedy his error, as opposed to someone cruel and callous.

In summary, "Frankenstein" bears only a passing semblance to Shelly's remarkable work. This is a decent film, of that there can be no doubt but it needs to viewed in isolation from the novel. The underlying message is something of a departure. Certainly its not as sophisticated, in terms of the relationship it establishes between Frankenstein and his creation. Nonethesless, worth a look.

"Frankenstein" is a departure from Mary Shelly's epic work. The novel is, at its core, a cautionary tale, of man's scientific hubris, defying both God and nature.

This is, in most respects a more than decent film. Acting is, for the most part outstanding, as are the creature effects but what can be honestly said, is this film bears only the remotest resemblance, to Shelly's work.

The film establishes a dysfunctional father son relationship, mirroring Victor Frankenstein's own failed relationship, with his father, in his callous and at times, cruel, treatment of his surrogate son, the creature, he conjurs into existence.

Is that a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. As an ardent Shelly fan, I was actually in the process of re-reading Frankenstein, when this was released. For me, it felt a little lacking.

The relationship between the creature and Frankenstein, felt markedly less complex. The creature in the book, is a tragic, ultimately sympathetic figure but also capable of considerable guile and cruelty. These aspects of its personality, are laregly absent, in this tale. Victor Frankenstein is, for his part, is more someone who has showen an horrific error in judgement and has no idea how to remedy his error, as opposed to someone cruel and callous.

In summary, "Frankenstein" bears only a passing semblance to Shelly's remarkable work. This is a decent film, of that there can be no doubt but it needs to viewed in isolation from the novel. The underlying message is something of a departure. Certainly its not as sophisticated, in terms of the relationship it establishes between Frankenstein and his creation. Nonethesless, worth a look.

> "Frankenstein" is a departure from Mary Shelly's epic work. The novel is, at its core, a cautionary tale, of man's scientific hubris, defying both God and nature.

This is, in most respects a more than decent film. Acting is, for the most part outstanding, as are the creature effects but what can be honestly said, is this film bears only the remotest resemblance, to Shelly's work.

The film establishes a dysfunctional father son relationship, mirroring Victor Frankenstein's own failed relationship, with his father, in his callous and at times, cruel, treatment of his surrogate son, the creature, he conjurs into existence.

Is that a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. As an ardent Shelly fan, I was actually in the process of re-reading Frankenstein, when this was released. For me, it felt a little lacking.

The relationship between the creature and Frankenstein, felt markedly less complex. The creature in the book, is a tragic, ultimately sympathetic figure but also capable of considerable guile and cruelty. These aspects of its personality, are laregly absent, in this tale. Victor Frankenstein is, for his part, is more someone who has showen an horrific error in judgement and has no idea how to remedy his error, as opposed to someone cruel and callous.

In summary, "Frankenstein" bears only a passing semblance to Shelly's remarkable work. This is a decent film, of that there can be no doubt but it needs to viewed in isolation from the novel. The underlying message is something of a departure. Certainly its not as sophisticated, in terms of the relationship it establishes between Frankenstein and his creation. Nonethesless, worth a look.

> "Frankenstein" is a departure from Mary Shelly's epic work. The novel is, at its core, a cautionary tale, of man's scientific hubris, defying both God and nature.

This is, in most respects a more than decent film. Acting is, for the most part outstanding, as are the creature effects but what can be honestly said, is this film bears only the remotest resemblance, to Shelly's work.

The film establishes a dysfunctional father son relationship, mirroring Victor Frankenstein's own failed relationship, with his father, in his callous and at times, cruel, treatment of his surrogate son, the creature, he conjures into existence.

Is that a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. As an ardent Shelly fan, I was actually in the process of re-reading Frankenstein, when this was released. For me, it felt a little lacking.

The relationship between the creature and Frankenstein, felt markedly less complex. The creature in the book, is a tragic, ultimately sympathetic figure but also capable of considerable guile and cruelty. These aspects of its personality, are laregly absent, in this tale. Victor Frankenstein is, for his part, is more someone who has showen an horrific error in judgement and has no idea how to remedy his error, as opposed to someone cruel and callous.

In summary, "Frankenstein" bears only a passing semblance to Shelly's remarkable work. This is a decent film, of that there can be no doubt but it needs to viewed in isolation from the novel. The underlying message is something of a departure. Certainly its not as sophisticated, in terms of the relationship it establishes between Frankenstein and his creation. Nonethesless, worth a look.

"Frankenstein" is a departure from Mary Shelly's epic work. The novel is, at its core, a cautionary tale, of man's scientific hubris, defying both God and nature.

This is, in most respects a more than decent film. Acting is, for the most part outstanding, as are the creature effects but what can be honestly said, is this film bears only the remotest resemblance, to Shelly's work.

The film establishes a dysfunctional father son relationship, mirroring Victor Frankenstein's own failed relationship, with his father, in his callous and at times, cruel, treatment of his surrogate son, the creature, he conjurs into existence.

Is that a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. As an ardent Shelly fan, (I was actually in the process of re-reading Frankenstein, when this was released) it felt a little lacking.

The relationship between the creature and Frankenstein, felt markedly less complex. The creature in the book, is a tragic, ultimately sympathetic figure but also capable of considerable guile and cruelty. These aspects of its personality, are laregly absent, in this tale. Victor Frankenstein is, for his part, more someone who has showen an horrific error in judgement and has no idea how to remedy his error, as opposed to being cruel and callous.

In summary, "Frankenstein" bears only a passing semblance to Shelly's remarkable work. This is a decent film, of that there can be no doubt but it needs to viewed in isolation from the novel. The underlying message is something of a departure. Certainly its not as sophisticated, in terms of the relationship it establishes between Frankenstein and his creation. Nonethesless, worth a look.

"Frankenstein" is a departure from Mary Shelly's epic work. The novel is, at its core, a cautionary tale, of man's scientific hubris, defying both God and nature.

This is, in most respects a more than decent film. Acting is, for the most part outstanding, as are the creature effects but what can be honestly said, is this film bears only the remotest resemblance, to Shelly's work.

The film establishes a dysfunctional father son relationship, mirroring Victor Frankenstein's own failed relationship, with his father, in his callous and at times, cruel, treatment of his surrogate son, the creature, he conjurs into existence.

Is that a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. As an ardent Shelly fan, I was actually in the process of re-reading Frankenstein, when this was released. For me, it felt a little lacking.

The relationship between the creature and Frankenstein, felt markedly less complex. The creature in the book, is a tragic, ultimately sympathetic figure but also capable of considerable guile and cruelty. These aspects of its personality, are laregly absent, in this tale. Victor Frankenstein is, for his part, more someone who has showen an horrific error in judgement and has no idea how to remedy his error, as opposed to someone cruel and callous.

In summary, "Frankenstein" bears only a passing semblance to Shelly's remarkable work. This is a decent film, of that there can be no doubt but it needs to viewed in isolation from the novel. The underlying message is something of a departure. Certainly its not as sophisticated, in terms of the relationship it establishes between Frankenstein and his creation. Nonethesless, worth a look.

"Frankenstein" is a departure from Mary Shelly's epic work. The novel is, at its core, a cautionary tale, of man's scientific hubris, defying both God and nature.

This is, in most respects a more than decent film. Acting is, for the most part outstanding, as are the creature effects but what can be honestly said, is this film bears only the remotest resemblance, to Shelly's work.

The film establishes a dysfunctional father son relationship, mirroring Victor Frankenstein's own failed relationship, with his father, in his callous and at times, cruel, treatment of his surrogate son, the creature, he conjurs into existence.

Is that a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. As an ardent Shelly fan, I was actually in the process of re-reading Frankenstein, when this was released. For me, it felt a little lacking.

The relationship between the creature and Frankenstein, felt markedly less complex. The creature in the book, is a tragic, ultimately sympathetic figure but also capable of considerable guile and cruelty. These aspects of its personality, are laregly absent, in this tale. Victor Frankenstein is, for his part, is more someone who has showen an horrific error in judgement and has no idea how to remedy his error, as opposed to someone cruel and callous.

In summary, "Frankenstein" bears only a passing semblance to Shelly's remarkable work. This is a decent film, of that there can be no doubt but it needs to viewed in isolation from the novel. The underlying message is something of a departure. Certainly its not as sophisticated, in terms of the relationship it establishes between Frankenstein and his creation. Nonethesless, worth a look.