2025 has yet to end and we already have updated Dracula, Wolfman, and Frankenstein movies under the belt. Yes, a banner year for our old school Universal Pictures movie monsters. There is certainly a pattern at work here where we see new iterations of these guys in different but predictable spans of time. Frankenstein was last done in 1994, Dracula in 1992, The Wolfman in 2010. Side Note: Wolfie is a bit of an outlier since before these other two movies, he last appeared in 1941 but we have also had kissing cousins Teen Wolf (1985) and Wolf (1994). Since both Invisible Man (2020), King Kong (Technically King Kong: Skull Island, 2017) and The Mummy (2017) have appeared recently, I think the only dude they have left to portray in the modern era is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde which was teased at the end of the latest Mummy with Russel Crowe in the lead but never came to fruition. My point is, these guys are here to stay and every decade or two or three we will get to see the next version whether we like it or not.

The big difference between the classic Universal monsters and the newest era of movie monsters, the low budget slashers who have faded out as of late, is their ability to be sympathetic. The big four–Jason, Freddy, Leatherface, and Michael–born in the 80s, and developed further into the 90s, and early 2000s, were the new hotness line up of what we would now deem modern classic. These were all non eloquent visions of horror (Freddy aside) that attempted to one up the other. A bunch of tropes here that became cliche. Unkillable guys with first names (Leatherface aside). Lots of gore in the form of teen death to replace story. Jump scares and spooky piano playing. There were unique origins, sure, but the writing behind these guys was flabby and the whole point of these sorts of movies was to showcase newfound practical effect makeup inventiveness in the form of imaginative and gruesome murders. Also to create a new kind of scare in the form of gore and to see how far they could go to gross everyone out.

Now it seems we are being re-reintroduced to the old guard from the inception of horror in the early films of the Twentieth Century. These were better times because the stories and acting came first, the other stuff second. Of course, the technology and make up was all pretty bad but the monsters themselves were more well rounded because we saw a good amount of the movie from their end, especially the Lon Chaney Jr. version of the Wolfman. This almost never happens in any modern day slasher flick because there is no real reason for the killings they perform, all that matters is a body count and a distinctive homicide. Even when there is a trace of backstory such as that in the Friday the 13th franchise, it still doesn’t make the murders make sense.

For instance, Freddy Krueger vows revenge on the children of the parents who burned him alive but the guy was a child murderer in the first place. Zero sympathy, sorry Fred.

Nowadays we really get it all. Great practical effects mixed with CGI. This should make these movies fantastic, right? Not so fast. Although the movies look better, they still drop the ball at the one yard line like their forefathers did.

Director Guillermo del Toro is a master of the sympathetic monsters archetype and has made a name for himself by putting said monsters on the screen and allowing us to see their side of the story. It started with Hellboy and won him an Oscar with The Shape of Water. Now, with Frankenstein, we see a blending of the two. I mean, he used many elements from Frankenstein already with The Shape of Water. A kind, eloquent person trapped inside the body of a monster who is shunned by the norms of society.

I will mention the novel in brief because the original Frankenstein (1931) movie used the basic premise but dropped the ball on the eloquence portion. This caused most of us, even to this day, to think of Frankenstein as the mindless, grunting creation, not the man who created. To date, there has still not been an adequate portrayal that also adheres to the novel. It’s like my once professor, Richard Howard, said, ‘A translation is like a mistress. If it is beautiful it will not be faithful.’ And so on and so forth. In terms of Del Toro’s adaption, I would say he follows the general idea of the book but still veers a wild amount during very important parts where he changes certain details when he should not. This drove me insane while I watched the movie.

Spoiler Alert Ahead:

There is a major song and dance in the Del Toro version where the creation spends time shackled in the sewers of a tower and meets the bride of Victor Frankenstein’s brother, Elizabeth, who is kind to him. This harkens straight back, once again, to King Kong and The Shape of Water but also the Alan Moore stint on Swamp Thing and many more I am sure. At any rate, all of this does not occur in the novel where, as soon as it is given life, the creature flees. The whole reason Adam (the name the creature gives himself) goes on a berserk rampage in the novel in the first place is because of his anger toward humanity during the cabin in the woods scene where although he is good to the people living there, they find him abhorrent due to his appearance. He then kills Frankenstein’s brother, William, and asks for a female version of himself to be created. Victor agrees but destroys her before giving her any life thus creating another vengeful act for the monster to perform–killing Victor’s fiancee. I will be with you on your wedding night, yada, yada…The monster follows through with his pact, Victor’s father dies of grief, Victor exhausts himself chasing the creature to the North Pole where he dies and later the monster shows up aboard the ship to lament the death of his pseudo father.

Listen, I enjoyed the movie and am not one to harp on the director’s choices. I realize novels and screenplays are two different forms of writing but I have a hard time understanding when the director changes details just for the sake of some creative control instead of keeping the important parts of the story intact. I realize the movie is Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein and not Mary Shelley’s but again, why change certain elements of the movie that are set in stone? The killing of Victor Frankensteins fiancee is a pivotal moment and creates a switcheroo where the monster becomes the one chased. Del Toro flubs this badly in the 2025 adaptation. The monster offhandedly mentions creation of a bride for himself and Victor himself accidentally kills his brothers fiancee, then chases the monster but then the monster chases him? Ugh. Clunky. Although the production design is gorgeous and the acting is well done, the actual premise of the original theme is lost. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein has a second title, The Modern Prometheus. With all due respect, I think we forgot the face of our father here, Mr. Del Toro. Prometheus stole fire from the gods and was punished by spending eternity chained to a rock while a vulture ripped his liver out. The Del Toro version of Dr. Frankenstein is tortured but does not have to see the people he loves pay for his sins. No, the latest Frankenstein movie, although named after the doctor, is more about the monster himself played smashingly by Jacob Elordi. This is The Shape of Water part deux albeit with different elements, something, it seems, Mr. Del Toro has been dwelling on and which even Mary Shelley herself did not focus on in such a manner. The only other example I can think of would be the Cronenburg version of The Fly but this is a self created monster who screws up and becomes a victim of his own ambition. No, the creation of Victor Frankenstein is the penultimate sympathetic monster in all of literature. He cannot help his own existence and he is shunned despite his kindness and so why not become the monster they all think he is? The real monster is Doctor Frankenstein himself who defies the gods and sees every member of his family die early because of his ego. This is where the movie missed the mark by a mile.

Frankenstein 2025: 3 out of 5 stars.

Your AI generated image for this post, #436, 11/3/25