When you picture Frankenstein’s Monster, what comes to mind? Chances are, you’ll think of him as a big, lumbering creature who growls, stomps around, and usually is at the bidding of some other smarter, more eloquent force. Whether it’s in the classic Universal monster movies, parodies like Young Frankenstein (1974), action shows like Creature Commandos (2024), or even romances like in Lisa Frankenstein (2024), there’s a general preconceived notion of what the Monster is supposed to look like and how he’s supposed to behave.
Unfortunately, that popular consensus of Frankenstein’s Monster isn’t exactly… accurate. The original Mary Shelley novel offers a vastly different interpretation of the creature that hasn’t been properly represented for years, if not decades. Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein (2025) claims to be a more faithful adaptation of the novel, but is that true, or is it just going to rehash many of the same tropes that have been trotted out for nearly a century?
‘Frankenstein’ Adaptations Popularized Elements Not In The Book
Thanks to numerous Hollywood productions, many of the elements surrounding the Monster don’t quite match the original novel. Case in point, his lack of intelligence. In film, the Monster almost always possesses very little, if any, intelligence, and often comes across as simple-minded. That is most certainly not the case in the original novel, which depicts him as verbose and capable of contemplating heavy themes like his own mortality, his loneliness, and his desire to be acknowledged by his father, Victor Frankenstein.
Victor often vehemently denies that the Monster is his own son, which, in turn, led to confusion surrounding his name. The Monster believes that he is a member of the Frankenstein family, but Shelley never directly calls him Frankenstein in the text. She, instead, referred to him by dehumanizing terms while drawing the focus to the Monster’s desire to be seen as a human being. So calling the creature “Frankenstein” does make sense in some regard. However, it also completely undercuts and grossly oversimplifies one of the main themes of the book.
But nothing is quite as incorrect as the Monster’s presentation. His stiff and slow walk was an invention by Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (1943), but it was so poorly executed that audiences mocked it. In other words, the only reason Frankenstein walks as rigidly as he does is because people were making fun of it so much that it supplanted actor Boris Karloff’s rendition of the character. Not only that, but Karloff's Monster had distinctly green skin with bolts in his neck, which, shockingly, isn't accurate. In reality, the Monster is a surprisingly agile superhuman being capable of great feats of strength and endurance with skin that's more yellowish than green. He’s anything but a slow-moving dullard. He’s a weapon of mass destruction.
Is Guillermo del Toro’s ‘Frankenstein’ A Faithful Adaptation?
Given how the original novel is well over 200 years old and how often Frankenstein, or Frankenstein-like characters, pop up in fiction, it’s no surprise that the Monster has morphed from being a sympathetic and tragic figure into a cartoonish oaf. However, Guillermo del Toro’s adaptation seeks to change that.
Going into the production of the movie, del Toro was adamant that the film would be a tonally faithful adaptation of the original story. Given the film’s two and a half hour runtime and the novel’s 280-ish page count, making Frankenstein a one-to-one retelling of the novel was going to be virtually impossible. However, del Toro tried to make the film as true to its Gothic roots as possible, with numerous grand and sweeping practical sets dripping with unease and stark shadows. It also directly follows the plot of the book, including beginning the story in media res at the North Pole.
Most importantly, the Monster is intelligent! He’s not just a mindless brute causing chaos wherever he goes, though the trailer does hint that Jacob Elordi’s interpretation of the Monster may be more prone to violence than Mary Shelley’s original vision. A part of this is because while del Toro wanted to be as faithful to the original story, he also wanted to honor past movies featuring the Monster, such as the original Frankenstein (1931) and Kenneth Branagh’s stab at the story, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994). He also stated that he didn’t want to fall into a lot of the same traps that previous Frankenstein movies did, like making Victor into a cackling mad scientist or the mere presence of Igor, who was never even in the original novel. Thankfully, del Toro has confirmed that not only will Victor be depicted as a nuanced and emotionally conflicted man, but there's no sight of Igor in the film.
Should You Watch Guillermo del Toro’s ‘Frankenstein’?
Del Toro is a master of modern Gothic cinema, as anyone who has seen Crimson Peak (2015) can attest to. There’s a passion in every film he works on, and Frankenstein is no different. There’s such care and attention to detail in each shot that you’ll feel utterly immersed in the darkness of Victor’s creation. Everything feels tactile in Frankenstein, helping make the world feel truly lived in and alive. There’s also just an overwhelming sense of dread and tension, as we, along with Victor, are wondering not if, but when the Monster will appear. It’s not unlike how, in Robert Eggers’ Nosferatu (2024), you could feel Count Orlok’s presence, even when he isn’t there.
The shadow cast by Elordi’s antihero is palpable, and if you love monster movies or deeply human tragedies, then you owe it to yourself to see Frankenstein on Netflix. And don’t be surprised when, come awards season, this film rakes in nominations for production design and adapted screenplay. It is, after all, the best and most faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley’s novel in some time.
