When Remaking a Movie is Worth It: The Beauty of Guillermo Del Toro’s “Frankenstein”

Simply calling Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein” a remake of previous Frankenstein movies doesn’t do it justice.

There are over 60 feature films, as well as countless short films and TV series, that retell or reimagine Mary Shelley’s novel, “Frankenstein,” in some way, shape, or form. This classic story has become a staple in horror, sci-fi, and fantasy genres.

Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein” is an epic, genre-bending film with striking visuals, complex characters, and themes of humanity, consciousness, power dynamics, and God.

**Spoilers Ahead!**

The film has a non-linear plot, beginning with the creature (Jacob Elordi) hunting Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac), and revealing both Victor and the creature’s origins through flashbacks. It follows a two-act structure, the first act titled “Victor’s Story” and the second act titled “The Creature’s Story.”

The first act delves into Victor’s troubled childhood and how the loss of his mother motivates him to find a way to reverse death. Initially, his intentions are pure, but after successfully reanimating the creature, he enjoys the power he holds and treats him inhumanely.

Victor’s story emphasizes how power corrupts and the dangers of attempting to play God.

The second act of the film focuses on the creature learning about humans, discovering his own identity, and struggling with being an outcast in society. The creature escapes Frankenstein and hides out in a hovel on a family’s farm.

He hides there for months, watching their interactions. While the family is away, he reveals himself to the nearly blind grandfather, who teaches him to read and treats him kindly.

To put it briefly, Del Toro’s “Frankenstein” is not a direct adaptation of Shelley’s novel.

However, his portrayal of the creature is true to the original text. In the book, he’s an intelligent being who learns to speak, read, and write, as well as form relationships and show empathy.

Many Frankenstein adaptations lean further into the horror aspect, but del Toro prioritizes deepening the characters and the themes present in Shelley’s novel.

Isaac and Elordi both delivered phenomenal performances and fit into their roles perfectly. Mia Goth, Christopher Waltz, and Felix Kammerer were perfectly cast in their supporting roles.

This film was visually gorgeous, blending the beautiful and the macabre through its sets, costumes, and cinematography. The Gothic horror architecture was blended with sci-fi and fantasy elements.

My only criticism is that the shooting style heavily relies on wide-angle shots, which I think fit better in high fantasy films such as “Wicked” and “The Lord of the Rings,” rather than horror films.

While Frankenstein has fantasy elements, I wish Dan Laustsen, the cinematographer had leaned further into the dark Gothic horror aesthetic and included more close-up shots.

The costumes, designed by Kate Hawley, and makeup were reminiscent of human anatomy. The scars on the creatures look like the lines of the muscular system in an anatomical diagram.

The lacing down the back of Elizabeth’s corsets resembled a spinal cord. The sleeves of her wedding gown were made from ribbon wrapped around her arms, similar to the bandages around the creature’s arms.

Del Toro was the perfect director to reimagine “Frankenstein.”

He put his own spin on the classic story while staying true to the original themes. His passion for the film is evident on the screen. Del Toro’s “Frankenstein” is proof that some remakes are worth making and watching.

Watch “Frankenstein” in select theaters until its official Netflix release on Nov. 7th.