Frankenstein (2025) - Movie Review

What if I told you that Guillermo Del Toro only makes two types of movies?

No, not horror and science fiction.

Guillermo Del Toro is very similar to Joaquin Phoenix’s character in 2002’s Signs in that he either hits a home run or strikes out.

He is one of the best filmmakers and concept designers in the history of cinema, but his filmography is a coin flip. One side is a masterpiece, and the other is absolutely unbearable.

For every Shape of Water, there’s a Crimson Peak.

For every Devil’s Backbone, there’s a Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark.

There is nothing in between.

So, does Del Toro’s Frankenstein reach the heights of Pan’s Labyrinth, or does it dive to the level of The Witches?

Let’s discuss.

Frankenstein is a 2025 science fiction/horror/period drama brought to us by writer/director Guillermo Del Toro, based on the 1818 novel of the same name by Mary Shelley. Del Toro needs no introduction. The man is an iconic director, concept designer, and possibly the nicest man to ever work in Hollywood.

The film focuses on the story of the seminal 1818 novel by Mary Shelley. Shelley’s novel was groundbreaking for many reasons and has been adapted countless times to varying quality. This is an attempt at a classical retelling of the story set in the traditional setting of Victorian times. If you aren’t familiar with the basic story of Frankenstein. It’s essentially about a man whose arrogance drives him to break the laws of nature and, in so doing, causes the loss of everything he loves.

I know I’m going to get a ton of hate for this review, but remember—my opinion means about as much as I get paid running this website: $0.00.

I love Guillermo Del Toro as a person and as a Director. However, his filmography isn’t the flawless record many younger fans seem to think it is. He has had as many bad films as good (in my opinion). He has one major weakness in his arsenal: his screenwriting.

I know, I know, he wrote Pan’s Labyrinth, The Devil’s Backbone, and The Shape of Water.

Did you know he also wrote the screenplays for 2020’s The Witches, 2015’s Crimson Peak, 2013’s Pacific Rim, and the three horrendous Hobbit LOTR prequel films? These films all have the same problem as Del Toro’s recent release.

The characters lack depth, lack any growth over the runtime, and in most cases, do things that make no logical sense in the world the film takes place within.

The film opens with Victor as a young boy, having been adopted by his wicked stepfather. A man so wicked, he not only allows Victor all the privileges of high society, but he also trains young Victor to be a medical doctor. His discipline is old-fashioned, painful, but I’ve honestly had worse in my educational career. This childhood portion goes on for what feels like an hour of the runtime and does little to make the viewer feel empathetic. This segment of the film is such a slog that it makes 10 minutes of runtime feel like thirty. But that’s not the biggest offense of this section. The actor playing Victor looks nothing like Oscar Isaac and has an extremely thick French accent. Oscar Isaac has a rich, olive complexion and an accent that fades in and out, but is never truly pronounced.

Oscar Isaac compared to Christian Convery

The acting overall suffers due to the pacing and the flat dialogue.

Poor Mia Goth gives the best performance and even changed her body for the role. Everyone is posting memes about her eyebrows, but I was amazed that she put on weight for the role, and is the only person who looks like they belong in this world. Her frame is voluptuous, and she almost looks like a Renaissance model with the care and incredible angles Del Toro lovingly shot her at. It’s just a shame that she’s barely in the film.

So much time is spent on long shots of scenery and on scenes that have absolutely no bearing on the narrative that I was mystified that the last third of the movie is a rushed, exposition dump lacking heart or any real stakes.

I’m not saying this is a dumpster fire. Far from it. This film is gorgeously executed for the most part. Special kudos to the lighting department, because they absolutely were the star of the film.

Few films have lighting as breathtaking as this.

The costuming department was also working overtime. This film is second only to 2024’s Nosferatu in the quality of the costuming and authenticity to the period portrayed. The sets and location shooting were breathtaking as well, but that leads to another problem I had with the film.

So many gorgeous, vivid scenes are ruined by the use of AI. I know NETFLIX put out an entire documentary about how the film was entirely practical with a little CGI. Del Toro has been adamant that he’ll never use AI. I want to believe him, but it’s undeniable how bad the SFX looked. I watched the film on a 4k OLED, and it was jarring how uncanny the effects were. As someone who has been trained in programming AI and has stress-tested AI engines for companies as a side hustle, I have a hard time ignoring the fact that some scenes definitely look AI-assisted if not fully AI.

One scene uses a digital effect to simulate hand held shots, but it nearly made two of us throw up from the ocean like movement.

The scenes with the Angel of Destruction in particular looked terrible.

If they didn’t use AI, the CGI is absolutely abysmal. Some scenes looked straight out of the SYFY channel due to the CGI background filler. And be honest, Netflix will cut any production corners it can to make a profit before this streaming bubble completely bursts.

A lot of memes joked about the monster’s effects, but I would say the monster design and execution were brilliant.

Jacob Elordi does what he can with his limited scenes. He is a fantastic physical actor, and he really portrayed the monster in the spirit Shelley intended. It’s just a shame his performance was wasted on this film.

I’m seeing people hail this film as a masterpiece, but I would dare to say it’s one of the worst adaptations of Shelley’s work.

Having been a child who was abused at school by both teachers and other students, and whose father was a horrible drunk. This book was a literal lifesaver. I have read the novel at least a dozen times, and this film misses the mark on almost every important point. Frankenstein is about a man whose ambition outweighs morality, desperately trying to prove his intelligence by any means necessary. In so doing, he sacrifices his family, his love, and his very soul.

Guillermo Del Toro’s vision of the story is filled with lush visuals and a gorgeous funeral parlor color palette with flares of his signature crimson for meaning, but it’s a hollow representation of a book that defined an entire genre.

The film would have been much better if it had cut out all the subplots and unnecessarily drawn-out exposition dumps. On second viewing, I found almost 45 minutes of the film that are just lingering landscape shots, conversations that do nothing for the characters or the narrative.

I am beyond confused by how one adapts a 272-page book (much of which is descriptions) into a 2 and 1/2 hour movie. This is a simple, hard-hitting tale that was ruined by a writer/director who obviously loves the material but loves cinematic self-flagellation more.

It’s not the worst thing Netflix has produced. Rebel Moon still holds that crown.

I just won’t ever watch it again.

Definitely check it out and make your own conclusions.

It’s streaming exclusively on Netflix.