Adaptations often receive backlash from fans of literary works but on the whole Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein appears to be well received by the general public. The movie has received 85% on Rotten Tomatoes, 4/4 by Roger Ebert, and 7.6/10 on IMDB, demonstrating a positive reception by the majority of viewers and critics. Much of this is likely due to the visuality and respectful adaptation to the 1818 novel by Mary Shelley in combination with the 1931 film. The use of realistic movie techniques instead of CGI, rich palettes and details in the sets, decor, and costumes makes this gothic fantasy come to life. Many of the sets were built on site or in miniature and the costumes were breathtaking, inspired by science such as the blood cells in Elizabeth’s dress and Gothic fashion. The boat was built on a gimbal, the torches used real fire, and the shots were cinematic and wide, similar to Lawrence of Arabia’s far away shots showcasing the landscape and then moving into a close up creating movement, depth, and dynamic imagery.
While I was watching the film I couldn’t help but view the movie through critical eyes, both as I conduct independent research on the 1818 novel Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, but also as influenced by our course. The book predates the Victorian era, coming out in Georgian times with the 1831 version coming out 6 years before the start of the Victorian era. However, when interviewed by Harper’s Bazaar, Costume designer Kate Hawley kept mentioning the Victorian era. He stated, “When I think of Victorian, it’s very hard not to think of Oliver Twist or Little Dorrit. But this is Frankenstein. It has that Germanic kind of backdrop.” While it is a minor detail, I found this a bit irksome, I would hope that consideration for the film’s creation would have acknowledged the novel’s time period more accurately.
Guillermo del Toro claims the 1818 version is “his bible,” and he was largely influenced by it and the 1931 film, which I have not seen. That being said, as an undergraduate who chose their senior independent study project to be singularly focused on the novel, I have some big feelings about the film. When I started watching the film I had a visceral reaction as so much was out of order, out of touch with the characters I read and loved, and just seemed so over the top. I still don’t agree with a lot of choices del Toro made, especially with Victor, but by the end of the film I did enjoy it. The visual choices were very hard to ignore and it is a very beautiful film, despite the gore.
Del Toro wanted to make the 1818 novel his own, “to sing it back in a different key with a different emotion.” His choice in colors in the introduction is obvious, the blue, white, and grey emblematic of isolation of the arctic convey the isolation and despair of the captain Walton and his men, Victor, and the creature. Cinematographer Dan Laustsen calls the coloring of the film an “amber-and-steel-blue” palette. Amber reflects a similar color to sun and candle light and steel blue the sky in addition to the cold of ice. This fastisiousness to the truth of reality really helped to sell the visual impression that this fantasy world was real. Introducing Victor and the creature in the cold blue of the arctic is also emblematic of the coldness Victor has towards his creature and the isolation of the creature’s birth. The warmth of Captain Walton’s cabin fire is also an allegorical reference to the hearthspace allowing the kind of vulnerability shown in the characters in the end.
Del Toro’s choice to introduce the creature in darkness to men huddled around torches illustrates the way in which individuals and society behave towards the creature while simultaneously illustrating their fear of his otherness. His introductory cry in the darkness could be interpreted as a roar of pain, injustice, despair, at his existence, one of loss of his prey, or the fear the creature imparts upon others. By the end of the film the story has evolved to show the creature as a victim of his arrogant “father’s” ambitions. The film truly shines in its portrayal of the creature in its third act with the redemption arc and nod to the 1931 film’s bride of Frankenstein.
The women’s costumes match and foreshadow the blood and gore of Victor’s macabre research. His mother appears in a splendid red gown with a red veil that flows in the wind many feet above her while she waits for Victor’s father to return. The flowing veil may represent her soon to be departure from life and matches the inlay of her coffin. She leaves a red handprint on Victor’s white costume and he then wears red gloves and has red bed sheets as an adult. The spinal accents of the creature’s coat matches the spinal details of Elizabeth’s dress. And Elizabeth’s bridal gown becomes red as she dies exposing a ribcage bodice. These details create a common theme throughout the film tying the story and characters together in a morbid web.
Overall the visuality of the film is cohesive, creates strong emotions in the audience and takes viewers on a journey of spectacle in a fictional world. The colors, themes, and details create both shocking gore and beauty in the way they are presented. While the film may not hold true to the 1818 novel, it keeps the essence of the creature’s vulnerability and victimhood. It is a story of redemption, hope and healing, and love.
Romero, A. (2025) Guillermo del Toro Frankenstein: Director Explains Adaptation for Mary Shelley Day, Netflix Tudum. Available at: https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/frankenstein-book-adaptation-guillermo-del-toro. Accessed 16 Nov. 2025
“Frankenstein (2025).” Rotten Tomatoes, 17 Oct. 2025, www.rottentomatoes.com/m/frankenstein_2025. Accessed 16 Nov. 2025
Webster, Stephanie. “Mary Shelley | How Old Was Mary Shelley When She Wrote Frankenstein?” History Associates Incorporated, 30 Aug. 2023, www.historyassociates.com/the-last-woman-standing-mary-shelley-and-the-enduring-power-of-frankenstein/. Accessed 16 Nov. 2025
Roxborough, Scott. “Cinematographer Dan Laustsen on Guillermo Del Toro’s ‘Frankenstein.’” The Hollywood Reporter, 17 Nov. 2025, www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/cinematographer-dan-laustsen-frankenstein-del-toro-elordi-1236428714/. Accessed 18 Nov. 2025
Sanchez, Chelsey. “Inside the Making of Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein Costumes.” Harper’s BAZAAR, 29 Oct. 2025, http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a69180730/frankenstein-kate-hawley-costume-designer-interview-2025/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2025.
Victorian Visual Culture 
*After I did a little more digging, the costumes were inspired by Victorian fashion not Gothic.
By: Angel Crow on November 23, 2025
at 7:13 pm
Very interesting analysis! I have a lot of thoughts about this adaptation, and I find it very interesting to analyze within the context of Hollywood production systems and film discourse. Given your research into the novel, I’m curious what you think of GDT’s choices with Elizabeth’s character. I have heard people say the changes resulted in a more well-rounded, nuanced, and feminist version of the character, but I’m not sure I agree with that. She certainly has more agency, but looking at the film in isolation, without the context of the book, I did not find her to be a feminist character, and I thought the film reduced and simplified many of the book’s politics to focus on the relationship between Victor and the Creature. Really enjoyed your take on the visuality of the film, wondering what you think about some of the political and character questions.
By: Sophie Frank on November 24, 2025
at 3:52 pm
Thank you! I tried to focus more on the visuality of the film for our class but I am not entirely sure how I feel about Elizabeth’s character yet. I understand that this film is an adaptation of both the 1931 film and the book and that means the bride of Frankenstein needs to have a place in the del Toro version. Her wedding gown’s arms are meant to look like the 1931 film’s gown. I spoke with Professor Young who has written a book on Frankenstein and she said that films owe no allegiance to the original works which I tend to agree with. Elizabeth is not a huge presence in the novel and appears only as a placeholder for Victor’s potential match and a childhood friend. She also presents an opportunity to show the creature’s rage towards Victor refusing to create him a partner by killing her. The argument that her portrayal in the del Toro film being more feminist than the 1931 film and 1818 movel does make sense as she has more freedoms than those portrayals, but they have little presence besides being extensions of men. The fact that she expresses her opinions in the del Toro film does flesh out her character a bit more to show her having more depth, agency of choice, and humanity. In that way I’d agree with the argument. However, overall her agency is still dependent on her need to marry to survive which is not very independent.
By: Angel Crow on November 24, 2025
at 4:38 pm
*also sorry for the typos, I tend to type too fast lol
By: Angel Crow on November 24, 2025
at 4:39 pm
Over break, I had the opportunity to watch del Toro’s adaptation of Frankenstein, and I was likewise struck by the film’s rich visual elements. Despite some inconsistencies in comparison with the film and Shelley’s novel, I thought the adaptation effectively portrayed the humility of the “monster” alongside the monstrosity of Victor. One visual choice that particularly stood out was the director’s decision to cast the same actress as both Elizabeth and Victor’s mother. In an interview I saw, actress Mia Goth reveals that prosthetics were used to subtly differentiate the mother’s appearance. Goth’s dual casting is especially revealing, as it underscores the deeply emotional (almost Freudian) undertones of Victor’s attachment, particularly in light of his father’s emotional absence. It was therefore unsurprising when Elizabeth was revealed to resemble Victor’s mother so closely, reinforcing the implication of his attraction to her.
By: Maire K on December 3, 2025
at 6:31 pm
I adore your analysis here. I also am in the process of formulating a blog post about Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein and thought I should check and see if anyone in the class had a similar idea, great minds!
I love how you focused here on the fashion and costume design because for the the meticulous manner in which the costumes were put together somewhat mirrors the precise manner which women were allowed to be perceived in victorian visuality and culture. Women in photographs and portraiture were posed in particular manners, functioning almost as props for the painter or photographer to get their message across. Women’s dress in these visual representations was one in the same, a visual yet symbolic representation of the women’s status, position and context. Almost as if the Victorian women as depicted in visual culture was apart of the background/landscape of the image, a visual with immense symbolism behind its existence.
I think your post did a wonderful job capturing that essence.
By: always377e5fdbce on December 7, 2025
at 11:35 am