Frankenstein (2025) Review: A How To on Making a Monster

We have all heard the story of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein; man thinks he is God and creates a crime against nature that ultimately ruins his life, resulting in the death of all he loves and eventually himself. Honestly, what else has to be said about this story?

Well, in the year of our lord 2025, a new Frankenstein adaptation has come out and I watched it so you don’t have to. Let’s talk about it. 

Now to understand the vision, we must first understand the visionary. Oscar-winning director of Pan’s Labyrinth, Pacific Rim, and Hellboy, Guillermo del Toro knows how to make a monster, whether it be metaphorical or literal. 

Del Toro almost specializes in monster movies and almost every time those monsters are a metaphor for human corruption, notable mentions being the pale man from Pan’s Labrynith or the kaiju from the Anteverse in Pacific Rim.

So it’s safe to say, when handed one of the most complex metaphors about the fine line between human and monster, del Toro was going to make the absolute most of it.

Jacob Elordi’s performance as the infamous Frankenstein Monster was an Oscar worthy performance (and I am not saying there aren’t several).

The vulnerability and anger that Elordi portrayed was something that I personally, have never seen from him in any of his other performances, like 2023’s Saltburn or HBO’s Euphoria.

He really makes you feel sympathy for this creature that has been betrayed by the man who was supposed to care for him and scorned by a world that he just cannot understand.

Another performance that needs recognition is Mia Goth’s portrayal of Elizabeth Lavenza, the woman Victor Frankenstein is in love with both in the novel and movie.

Though a more minor role, Goth’s witty dialogue and snappy banter with Victor made her not only one of my favorite characters, but a character with actual influence on her role in the story, unlike her book counterpart.

Though a movie can have the most amazing actors that means nothing, if the visuals aren’t amazing to match. 

This movie was, objectively, GORGEOUS. The movie mixes the dark romantic styles present in the book with an almost magical steampunk aesthetic to create a visually interesting setting.

Now I might be biased, but one of the highlights of this movie was the costumes. The costumes matched the grandeur of the rest of the epic perfectly and I was not disappointed. It reminded me personally of the 1992 Bram Stoker’s Dracula with all the grand ballgowns and vibrant colors.

With all of that said, no movie is perfect, and there are some points that I could definitely see some people not liking. If you were looking for a faithful adaptation, this is definitely not the movie for you. 

Though it didn’t bother me that much and actually fixed some of the problems I had with the novel, die hard Shelley fans would find the changes slightly unnecessary.

Another pain point for the movie is its length. Now for someone who used to watch all the Lord of the Rings religiously, this did not feel very long, but I can see how the 2 hour and 36 minute run time could be a pain to sit through, even if you enjoyed the movie.

Overall, I quite liked this movie, from both a theatrical and technical standpoint. Though not the most accurate adaptation, it was probably the most enjoyable one I’ve seen.

Frankenstein lives on: Both literary classic, pop culture icon

In 1816, a group of some of the most influential writers in Europe had a competition to see who could write the best horror story.  Two years later, Mary Shelley, one of the contestants, published a book that changed the trajectory of the entire horror genre and introduced one of the most recognizable monsters in modern pop culture. 

Shelley’s Frankenstein follows the title character, Victor Frankenstein, as he tells the story of his ambition  to bridge the gap between mortals and the divine by trying to create life. He ultimately succeeds and brings to life what he describes as a monster, abandoning it, and running away. His greatest achievement becomes his greatest downfall, as he slowly loses everything and everyone he loves.

Perhaps the reason that Frankenstein was so groundbreaking at the time was because of the experiments on moving human body parts with electricity performed by Giovanni Aldini. In 1803, he famously demonstrated on the body of a recently executed man that applying electricity to the face could cause the jaw to quiver and the eye to open.

Every year, English teachers Mary Fuchs and Jim Cowman teach Frankenstein to their freshmen classes. Cowman said, “I enjoy reading the novel. Secondly, I like to expose students to something new and challenging.” 

However, there are some challenges to teaching Frankenstein perhaps because modern language has developed and changed over the years. 

“Some challenges include getting students to engage with the novel and take their time when reading. Some students are used to just looking at words and thinking they’ve processed all of the information,” Cowman explained.  “With a text like Frankenstein, they need to focus and think about what they are reading and what it means.”

Freshman Ava Corbin agreed, saying, “It’s a good introduction to Gothic literature and adjusting to the older English really gets your brain going.”

The novel is a classic due to its timeless themes concerning the dangers of knowledge and the power of mankind.  Freshman Nyla Sheets agreed the story of Frankenstein is still relevant in today’s world.

Sheets said the novel is “…very interesting, and I think it has a lot to say about the creation of life. I think that her depiction of Victor’s fear of his creation is kind of supposed to be a metaphor for the horror that childbirth can be. Since her mother died from complications from Shelley’s birth and she had lost a child of her own, I think she understood how scary the prospect of creating a life or having a child is.”

Sheets also commented on the undertones of the book.  “Mary Shelley came from progressive family and interacted with some of the brightest thinkers of her time, but she wrote with sort of anti-feminist sentiments. Her female characters are shallow and only serve the over, much more developed male characters.” 

The story of Frankenstein is one that has been told many times, and the focus of the story shifted when the novel was adapted for film. Oftentimes  freshmen reading the book for the first time agree that they expected the book to be more about the creation than Victor Frankenstein himself. 

Freshman Emily Freeman stated that she thought “…it was going to be much more about the creation itself than the scientist.” Milo Predragovich agreed, saying, “I found that it is a lot different because I thought it was just about the creature, not about how Victor was treated.”

Check out the photojournalism piece on costumes in Westerville South that The Scribe released as well!