On November 7th, 2025, eager fans of classic literature had bated breaths when Guillermo del Toro’s adaptation of Frankenstein (2025) was released. Based on Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel titled “Frankenstein”, Guillermo del Toro’s lifelong affinity for monsters and melancholic outsiders made him the perfect person to direct the film. As someone who has not read “Frankenstein” (1818), I found the movie to be incredibly touching. From the casting, direction and cinematography, this Netflix film was surprisingly great, but lacked some risk taking in regards to the cinematography.
Casting director Robin D. Cook had assembled a trio that breathed life to Shelley’s characters. Oscar Isaac’s Victor Frankenstein did a fantastic job at portraying the not-so-slow descent into madness while depicting the ingenuity of a scientist. Jacob Elordi’s Creature portrayal, however, was the star of the show. Towering yet fragile, innocent yet fearful, Elordi delivered a performance that was phenomenal. I would imagine that it’s quite difficult to depict a grotesque, but childlike being, and he did it exceptionally well. The scene where the Creature and the blind man, portrayed by David Bradley, became friends made me cry immediately. Mia Goth’s dual role as Elizabeth Harlander and Victor’s mother, Claire, was an impressive feat to tackle. Goth’s ability to demonstrate intelligence and tenderness with Elizabeth was remarkable.
Dan Lausten, del Toro’s cinematographer for the film, had neutral tones with striking hues of red and blue in some pivotal shots. Natural light filtered through the windows, which illuminated the sculptures in the Frankenstein’s estate, Victor hunched over his workbench, the Creature silhouetted against a sky full of lightning. Yet the cinematography, while accomplished, was not what I expected it to be. Lausten’s compositions are immaculate but safe, most likely due to the overall decisions made by Netflix. The lighting is amazing, but never transformative. The computer-generated dark angel that frequented Victor’s dreams could have been executed differently. As it stands, the visuals are decent, nothing more, nothing less.
Del Toro’s high regard for Shelley’s novel is what’s missing from the entertainment industry. His preferences towards the oddity was demonstrated throughout the film. His direction relied on theatrics with sweeping crane shots, a curated score and monologues that had a presence of its own. Individual shots are depicted like oil paintings, blending the real with fiction. The labor of del Toro is evident. Production design did its best by making the scenes feel like it was from the 19th century, which I admire.
Del Toro’s Frankenstein (2025) is an essential viewing for admirers of Gothic romance and lovers of literature. It does not redefine myth, but rather reimagines it with craft, compassion and a Creature who will tug on your heart strings.