Frankenstein Review: Del Toro’s Ambitious Vision Falls Short Despite Oscar Isaac’s Commanding Performance

After decades of development and anticipation, Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein” has finally emerged from the laboratory, bringing with it both the brilliance and burden of a project that has been gestating for nearly two decades. This Netflix adaptation, starring Oscar Isaac as the tormented Victor Frankenstein and Jacob Elordi as his tragic creation, represents the Mexican master’s most ambitious undertaking yet—a two-and-a-half-hour magnum opus that cost more than “Titanic” but struggles under the weight of its own lofty aspirations.

The film marks del Toro’s most faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley’s original novel, eschewing the countless Hollywood interpretations that came before in favor of a more literary approach. Yet this reverence for the source material, while admirable, becomes both the film’s greatest strength and its most significant weakness.

Oscar Isaac’s Artistic Interpretation

Oscar Isaac delivers a compelling performance as Victor Frankenstein, though del Toro’s vision presents him less as a traditional mad scientist and more as a tortured artist grappling with the consequences of his divine ambitions. Isaac, sporting long hair and an introspective demeanor, embodies the character’s internal struggle with remarkable depth, channeling the existential weight of playing God through his nuanced portrayal.

The actor’s interpretation aligns perfectly with del Toro’s thematic vision, where Frankenstein becomes less a cautionary tale about scientific hubris and more an exploration of paternal responsibility and the wounds fathers inflict upon their children. Isaac’s Victor is haunted not just by his creation, but by the domineering presence of his father Leopold, played with aristocratic menace by Charles Dance.

Visual Grandeur Meets Technical Limitations

Del Toro’s reputation as a visual master remains intact, with every costume, set piece, and prop crafted with his characteristic attention to detail and formidable imagination. The production design creates a gothic wonderland that feels both authentic to Shelley’s period and uniquely del Toro in its baroque sensibilities. Alexandre Desplat’s orchestral score adds layers of grandeur that elevate the material beyond its technical constraints.

However, the film’s visual presentation suffers from what appears to be a compromise between theatrical and streaming formats. Despite its massive budget, “Frankenstein” often feels like it was made for television rather than the big screen. Cinematographer Dan Laustsen’s wide-angle lenses, while attempting to capture more imagery in each frame, paradoxically make the film feel smaller and more claustrophobic than intended.

The digital effects, particularly in exterior shots and creature sequences, lack the polish expected from such an expensive production. Scenes featuring CGI wolves and outdoor environments feel unconvincing, undermining the immersive gothic atmosphere that del Toro works so hard to establish in the practical sets.

Jacob Elordi’s Breakthrough Monster Performance

Where the film truly succeeds is in Jacob Elordi’s portrayal of the creature. Moving far beyond Boris Karloff’s grunting monster or even more recent interpretations, Elordi brings an eloquent, deeply emotional performance that serves as the film’s emotional core. His creature is not just physically imposing—resembling “an emo jock or wounded soldier”—but intellectually sophisticated and profoundly lonely.

The film’s structure, which del Toro originally conceived as two separate movies from different perspectives, allows Elordi to assume narrative control midway through. This handoff proves to be one of the film’s most effective storytelling decisions, as the creature recounts his experiences with poetic anguish and philosophical depth.

Narrative Structure and Pacing Issues

Del Toro’s decision to remain faithful to Shelley’s epistolary novel structure creates both opportunities and obstacles. The film opens in the Arctic, with a ship trapped in ice, following the creature’s pursuit of his creator. This framing device, while true to the source, adds unnecessary narrative complexity to an already lengthy runtime.

The two-and-a-half-hour duration becomes the film’s most significant hindrance. Where the 1931 Universal classic ran a tight 71 minutes, del Toro takes more than twice that time to explore themes that, while deeper, don’t necessarily justify the extended runtime. Unlike his animated “Pinocchio,” which dealt with similar themes of artificial creation more efficiently, “Frankenstein” suffers from the misconception that longer automatically means more profound.

Thematic Depth vs. Execution

Del Toro’s exploration of familiar themes—the relationship between creator and creation, the nature of monstrosity, and the cyclical nature of trauma—feels both ambitious and somewhat predictable. The film’s most compelling villain isn’t Frankenstein or his creature, but Victor’s father Leopold, whose emotional abuse creates the psychological foundation for his son’s later transgressions.

The filmmaker’s treatment of sexuality proves particularly puzzling. In a story inherently concerned with creation and the absence of feminine involvement in the process, del Toro remains strangely coy about physical intimacy. Scenes involving nudity are blocked with almost comedic precision, using random objects to obscure anatomy while simultaneously presenting graphic violence in unflinching detail.

This contradiction undermines some of the film’s deeper explorations of desire and creation. When Elizabeth (Mia Goth) feels drawn to the creature, the absence of sexual tension reduces what could be a complex psychological dynamic to mere academic curiosity.

Technical Craftsmanship and Artistic Vision

Despite its flaws, “Frankenstein” showcases del Toro’s continued mastery of practical effects and production design. The abandoned water tower serving as Frankenstein’s laboratory, modeled after Victorian structures in New Romney, Kent, becomes a character in itself—though perhaps too elaborate for its own good. The interiors are so impressively detailed they risk distracting from the human drama unfolding within them.

Del Toro’s approach to violence remains characteristically unflinching, thrusting audiences into the visceral reality of anatomical experimentation with bone saws and scalpels. The sound design in these sequences proves particularly effective, creating a sensory experience that emphasizes the physical reality of Victor’s experiments.

Performance Dynamics and Character Development

The film benefits from strong supporting performances, particularly from David Bradley as the blind old man who encourages the creature’s intellectual development through literature. His scenes with Elordi provide some of the film’s most touching moments, exploring themes of isolation and the search for meaning that resonate throughout Shelley’s original work.

Christoph Waltz appears as Harlander, a character who exits precisely when his presence might have added complexity to the narrative. His underutilization represents one of several missed opportunities in a cast filled with talented actors who deserve more substantial material.

Venice Film Festival Reception

The film’s premiere at the Venice Film Festival generated significant buzz, earning a 13-minute standing ovation that moved both Oscar Isaac and Jacob Elordi to tears. This reception suggests that despite its structural issues, the film succeeds in creating an emotional connection with audiences willing to invest in its extended runtime and philosophical ambitions.

Critics have been divided, with some praising Elordi’s performance and del Toro’s visual artistry while others criticize the pacing and narrative choices. The film currently holds a 7.2 rating on IMDb, indicating generally positive audience reception despite mixed professional reviews.

Final Assessment

“Frankenstein” stands as both a testament to del Toro’s artistic vision and a cautionary tale about the dangers of over-development. The film contains moments of genuine brilliance—Elordi’s creature, Isaac’s tortured scientist, and del Toro’s unparalleled visual imagination—but these elements struggle to coalesce into a satisfying whole.

While the film may not represent del Toro at his most focused or effective, it remains a fascinating exploration of themes that have obsessed the director throughout his career. For fans willing to embrace its flaws alongside its considerable strengths, “Frankenstein” offers a unique interpretation of Shelley’s timeless tale, even if it doesn’t quite achieve the transcendent heights its lengthy gestation period promised.

Read More: HBO’s Harry Potter Series: Cast, Release Date & Everything We Know

FAQs