by Luca DeLucia ’28 on November 13, 2025
A&E - Film & TV
Very few directors these days are known for their artistic style or consistency in themes across works. “The mark of the auteur,” as your film minor friend might say to you, has been lost on the modern-day director, as more and more of them feel the need to put their financial success over their creative endeavors (for better or for worse). However, there are still a few that survive. Wes Anderson is the first that comes to mind, along with Christopher Nolan, but Guillermo del Toro is one that I’ve always felt stands above many of them, distinct by how much love he puts into each of his movies. Del Toro’s works are very consistent: he is enthralled with monsters, gothic horror, and life and death, and parallels these themes with what it means to be human. More importantly, del Toro has shown that auteurs can still find success in the world of modern cinema.
His 2017 film The Shape of Water, about a woman falling in love with an amphibious man, was the Academy Award’s Best Picture winner of 2018, and del Toro’s first Netflix-affiliated movie, Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio (2022), won Best Animated Feature in 2023. In his next venture into adaptation, and his second Netflix-affiliated film, del Toro has decided to adapt Mary Shelley’s classic Frankenstein. Luckily, as many fellow readers have probably read for their own Development of Western Civilization 201 course, I read the original text earlier this semester, so I have been anticipating how this movie would hold up to the book. I hold the firm belief that movie adaptations of books are allowed to venture off in their own way, as long as the director keeps the thematic drive of the original intact. For this reason, I don’t normally care about faithfulness to original texts, but since the book is still fresh in my mind, it won’t hurt to compare and contrast both works.
Through this lens of adaptation, del Toro does a good job replicating the original book —almost too good. Del Toro attempts to keep a similar narrative structure to the book by splitting the movie into three parts. Firstly, there is Victor Frankenstein’s backstory, followed by The Creature’s backstory, and placed in between these backstories is the present day of the story, where Frankenstein hides from The Creature on a ship stuck in ice as the crew tries to keep The Creature off the boat. This is just about the same way the book tells its story, having moments where Frankenstein talks to the reader and moments where The Creature talks to Frankenstein. In the book, this structure works, but the one-to-one sense of the narrative del Toro constructs creates an underwhelming viewing experience in many moments. There is heavy use of voice-overs during these backstory moments, and it truly takes away from the visuals. Rather than having most things be told by visual storytelling, the true art of film, most things are told to the audience via literal storytelling. There is nothing wrong with using voice-overs, except when they are used as often as they are here. This is also not to say that, visually, the movie is not beautiful, because it is. The practical effects, the scenery, the costumes, and del Toro’s camera work combine to create very gorgeous visual moments, but these visuals are lost on audiences when they’re too busy trying to listen (or, if you have subtitles on, trying to read) what these characters want you to think.
In adapting the characters, the performances from the two leads were nothing short of beautiful. Oscar Isaac does a fantastic job in portraying Frankenstein’s ambition and intelligence, but also his cruelty and his ego. Jacob Elordi as The Creature was also a perfect cast. He does an excellent job portraying The Creature’s naivety and resilience, and when he needs to, he’s also terrifying and brutal. Other notable roles also featured good performances—Mia Goth as Elizabeth, Felix Kammerer as William, and Christopher Waltz as a wholly new character of Harlander—but I found myself not particularly caring about their characters as much as I did Frankenstein and The Creature. I think this once again has to do with the parts in which these characters are the most prevalent: during Frankenstein’s backstory, where there is the most amount of voiceover. I ended up finding their characters underdeveloped because I was mostly told what I was meant to think about them, rather than being visually shown this information. I did love David Bradley as the old man who cares for The Creature. That was one of my favorite parts of the book, and the movie captured their relationship perfectly. They truly had a bond that developed simply by the quality of their hearts—and it was done with no voiceover!
Where del Toro’s Frankenstein outshines the book is in its climax. When Elizabeth passes away alongside William, both Frankenstein and The Creature become engrossed in their rage for each other. Their hatred turns into pure brutality as Frankenstein tries everything in his power to kill his monster while the audience watches with bated breath to see how far The Creature will go to torment his creator. Both characters struggle with their humanity: Frankenstein sees The Creature as a mistake he needs to fix before he can keep living, and The Creature sees Frankenstein as a monster that he needs to rid this world of for creating him. The Creature gives his unwanted life a newfound purpose: to make Frankenstein’s life as miserable as possible. Suddenly, the hatred fades. The Creature finds Frankenstein dying on the boat and looks at him with sympathy. Frankenstein, for the first time, apologizes, calls The Creature his son, and gives him some final words of advice: if you cannot die, then live, just for the sake of living. Where Shelley gives the monster some humanity in his final moments of the novella through his grief for his creator, del Toro adds so much more by having him live. The Creature’s life is not determined by his origin, his creator, or his past—it is determined by what he chooses to do with the life he was given. It is in these moments where the mark of del Toro’s brilliance truly shines.
Of the three del Toro movies I’ve watched (this one and the other two aforementioned), I prefer Pinocchio over Frankenstein, but I found Frankenstein to be a more enjoyable ride than The Shape of Water. Del Toro’s works are nothing short of original, whimsical yet horrifying, and no matter what, an enthralling story that I always love to watch unfold. Seeing his success critically and commercially gives me hope that this industry can still celebrate those who wish to share such creative visions with general audiences. I have little doubt that Frankenstein will have more than a few Oscar nominations, fighting alongside Ryan Coogler’s Sinners (2025) and Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another (2025), but I still see Frankenstein coming out with a win or two. Right now, del Toro is three for three, and I can’t wait to see what he makes next.