My thought on GDT’s Frankenstein as an autistic with a hyperfixation on the original novel!
I couldn’t figure out why I didn’t love Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein movie after hyping it up so much. I adore the original Mary Shelley novel (and have the tattoo to prove it) and the movie was extremely accurate to the source material, so why didn’t I like it? Everyone else, even fellow fans of the book, but for me it just fell flat in some areas. To make my jumbled thoughts more comprehensive, I’ve compiled what I liked and what I didn’t like, and how it affected the tone of the movie compared to the book.
Elizabeth’s character finally had depth. Mia Goth did a fantastic job portraying her! She wasn’t just a one dimensional character meant to provide Victor comfort, she was an equal. A true intellectual who could match his energy and challenge him. It was refreshing to see her treated as more than a symbol or prize.
Victor’s ego was portrayed really well. I wasn’t crazy about changing William’s age or making Elizabeth his wife, I DID likes that Victor still had that weird sense od ownership over Elizabeth without being promised to him. I also enjoyed how he was involved in the scientific community and strived to show off his work, rather than keeping it secret like in the novel. It captures his entitlement and obsession perfectly.
The Creature was absolutely phenomenal. Jacob Elordi nailed it. His appearance, movements, and mannerisms were straight out of Shelley’s pages. I loved watching him learn from nature by seeing both beauty and cruelty, and his reflections on good and evil through the wolves and the hunters was such a strong touch. I loved seeing the contrast of his kindness toward the old man and his family and his anger towards Victor and the ship’s crew
Victor spending time with the Creature added emotional weight. In the book, Victor runs away and burns down the lab immediately after bringing his Creature to life. In the movie, he attempts to teach him first using cruel methods, then burns the lab down after viewing him as a failure. That time together made the eventual betrayal that much more painful.
The idea of the Creature’s immortality was fascinating! Giving him the ability to heal from anything gave his isolation a whole new layer. Being unable to die, he’s not just unwanted by humanity, but by God and whatever comes next. It made his longing for a different life hit even harder, and fit well with the movies’s existential tone.
The Elizabeth-as-the-Bride concept was interesting (in theory). I didn’t like the romantic execution, but I liked the idea behind it: that she represents both love and loss. The creature stealing Victor’s love rather than killing her adds another layer to his revenge and longing.
It lost the emotional contrast. Part of what makes the book so powerful is the shift from warmth to obsession. Victor starts out with a loving family, a caring best friend, and a strong connection to nature. This warmth stands in stark contrast to how Victor treats the creature, reenforcing the theme of “nature vs nurture” and how obsession can corrupt compassion. The movie completely skips that contrast by beginning with a dark tone: making Victor a loner with an abusive father. There’s nowhere for Victor’s downfall to go emotionally.
It removed William’s significance. Making William an adult rather than a child weakened one of the story’s most powerful parallels. The Creature, newly created, is like a child, full of innocence, wonder, and potential. When Victor abandons him, he robs him of that innocence. In killing young William in the novel, the Creature symbolically returns the favor by severing Victor’s own tie to innocence. It also highlights Victor’s blatant hypocrisy in caring for his brother but not his creation when they are essentially the same. Changing William’s age dulls the emotional impact.
It blurred the moral mirror between Victor and the Creature. Shelley made them reflections of each other, and in the film they were not. The film removes all instances of the Creature’s violence and direct acts of vengeance. It instead has Victor himself kills fhe majority of the people close to him. While this emphasizes Victor’s moral decay and obsession, it diminishes the Creature’s rightful anger and the mirrored journeys of creator and creation. The story becomes about Victor’s madness instead of two beings spiraling in different ways.
The romance subplot didn’t work. The Elizabeth-Creature romance felt like an unnecessary attempt to modernize the story with a more “human” emotion, but it undercut the horror and philosophy that make “Frankenstein” so haunting. I understand that their bond was meant to contrast love and hate, shown when the Creature learned his first new word under her care, but that theme was already handled beautifully in the blind man’s cabin. The book’s tragedy isn’t about literal romance. It’s about love twisted into obsession and loss.
It told instead of haunting. The novel lingers in your head with Victor’s guilt, the Creature’s loneliness, and the question of what makes someone human. The movie focused more on visuals and emotional moments than the quiet, existential dread that defines the story. It told the tale, but didn’t capture the soul.
gummygunk
dailybridgerton
vaporwave
titsay
annaxmalina
kaledo-art
stormborns
