So, Guillermo del Toro's long-awaited adaptation of Frankenstein finally dropped on Netflix last year, and honestly? I walked away from my screen feeling a bit... empty. It's 2026 now, and looking back, this movie perfectly encapsulates the current Hollywood remake culture—all style, not enough soul. Sure, it broke some records for del Toro on Rotten Tomatoes, but man, did I ever crave more substance from this thing.
It feels like this film might just be the start of del Toro's own "Tim Burton era," you know? Diving deep into a Gothic niche that seems tailor-made for him. And let's be real, making Frankenstein was his lifelong dream. But watching it, I couldn't shake the feeling that this was just him scratching a creative itch rather than delivering a truly groundbreaking vision. It's like he checked a box on his bucket list, but forgot to pour his whole heart into it.
An Emotionally Sterile Translation
The biggest letdown for me? This adaptation is emotionally sterile. It's like a super literal, scene-by-scene transliteration of the book, which completely robs the story of its raw, poetic power. Shelley's novel hits you in the gut with its themes of creation, abandonment, and monstrosity. This movie? It just... tells you the point. Through dialogue! 😩 It spells everything out, leaving no room for nuance or that chilling sting that makes the original so timeless. We all know the plot: Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac), haunted by his mother's death, pieces together a Creature (Jacob Elordi) from corpses, gets freaked out by his own creation, and kicks off a decades-long feud. The movie follows this faithfully, but at a glacial 149-minute pace that had me checking the time.
Changes That Don't Really Change Anything
Netflix's version does tweak the book, as all adaptations do. They add some new characters and cut others. But here's the kicker: none of these changes actually matter. They don't deepen the themes or offer a fresh perspective. If you've read the novel, you might just find yourself bored, waiting for the next gorgeous frame instead of being engaged by the story. Speaking of which, let's talk about the cast.
A Stellar Cast on Autopilot?
On paper, the casting is fantastic:
-
Oscar Isaac as Victor: He's intense, he's brooding... but it feels like we've seen this performance before.
-
Jacob Elordi as the Creature: Okay, I'll give credit where it's due. This might be Elordi's career-best performance. He brings a raw, physical vulnerability to the role that's genuinely compelling.
-
Mia Goth as the love interest: A horror queen like Goth in a del Toro film? Perfect match! ...Except her character is painfully underwritten. She's there for a significant chunk of the runtime but doesn't get to do anything interesting. It's such a waste!
And replacing the originally rumored Andrew Garfield with Elordi? That reeks of the studio playing it safe. A younger, trending star over a more established one. Classic Hollywood move.
Del Toro's Signature Style... But Is That Enough?
The announcement of this movie had everyone hyped. A Gothic horror that sympathizes with the monster? That's DEL TORO'S WHOLE BRAND! After masterpieces like Pan's Labyrinth and The Shape of Water, reassessing monstrosity is his playground. So why does Frankenstein feel like a greatest-hits reel of his visual tricks without a beating heart?
It's a carnival ride of his familiar idiosyncrasies—whimsical yet grotesque creature design, haunting color palettes, atmospheric sets. But these elements don't embellish the source material; they just dress it up. Compare it to Robert Eggers' Nosferatu from last year. That film took a massive creative risk by focusing on a different aspect of the original. Frankenstein? It plays it painfully safe.
The Oscars Bait & Box Office Reality
Let's talk awards. As of 2026, it's clear this film was engineered for Oscar recognition in technical categories. Just look at this predicted haul:
| Category | Likelihood of Nomination |
|---|---|
| Production Design | 🔒 LOCK |
| Costume Design | 🔒 LOCK |
| Makeup & Hairstyling | 🔒 LOCK |
| Visual Effects | 🔒 LOCK |
| Cinematography | 🔒 LOCK |
It's beautiful to look at, no doubt. But its box office success and critical praise (it's already a hit with critics) reflect a sad truth about our current film landscape. We've been trained to see big-budget, visually stunning remakes as "significant creative expressions," even when they add nothing new to the conversation. Do we really need another crash course on Mary Shelley's themes? The novel has been analyzed to death!
The Final Verdict: A Beautiful Shell
In the end, Guillermo del Toro's Frankenstein feels like watching a Wikipedia plot summary brought to life with intoxicatingly gorgeous frames. The color palette is stunning, the sets are immersive, but it's all a beautiful facade hiding a hollow core. It's the perfect example of 2025's trend: the biggest winners were remakes and IP movies.
It's an easy recommendation if you're a fan of del Toro's aesthetic or Jacob Elordi's acting chops. But if you're looking for the emotional depth, the tragic poetry, or the daring reinterpretation that this story deserves and that del Toro is capable of, you'll leave wanting. It's a competent, visually enthralling, but ultimately disappointing exercise that explains why studios keep funding safe remakes over risky original projects. They get rewarded for it, both at the box office and during awards season. And that, my friends, is the real monster we should be worried about. 🧟♂️
Leave a Comment
Comments