Frankenstein (2025) — A Review

27th November, 2025: Frankenstein.

The Introduction.

I need several things.

Money?

Dinner … ?

An occasional film?

There’s several things I could do with.

And yes: one of them is dinner.

I’ve got a burger cooking as we speak.

Yes: money’s handy.

Payday’s tomorrow, which is nice: but feel free to put something in my tip jar!

That’ll clean up the last of the Christmas, and birthday, presents.

Once dinner’s eaten, though … ?

I’m going to have a change in direction: and watch a movie.

And, yes: you’ve possibly guessed — from the poster — that the film I’ll be watching is very different to the last one I caught.

Given a well done burger, and time?

I’ll have this review done by 1st December. 

~≈🧟‍♂️≈~

28th November, 2025.

Part One.

The Summary.

Frankenstein opens in the Arctic, showing us the Horisont: a Danish ship trapped in the Arctic ice, and whose crew really want to head home.

Only to face the stubborn refusal of Captain Anderson (Lars Mikkelson): a man who is convinced the ship’s mission takes precedence over his crew’s safety.

The icy northern wastes are no barrier to men of science.

Nor is an unhappy crew.

It’s only then both Captain and crew hear screaming coming from nearby: and his crew find a man rapidly dying in the ice, and hear something coming to get him.

Back on the Horisont, Captain Anderson puts the stranger into his own cabin: so that the ship’s doctor can treat the man’s injuries, and so that he (Anderson) can find why an obviously educated person is slowly dying of hypothermia and blood loss, so far from home.

And why something is attacking the ship, and demanding the injured stranger be handed over.

The stranger’s is Baron Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac), he’s guilt ridden about something … and he wants to tell the story of his life.

Of his childhood with an abusive father, and a mother who dies giving birth to his brother: and how he became obsessed with giving life to the dead, as a result.

The scene shifts at the end of Victor’s story: to reveal the Creature that he created (Jacob Elordi) is now on the Horisont, and is standing in the doorway of Captain Anderson’s cabin.

The Creature is angry, vengeful … and wants to tell its side of the story: of how it escaped the lab that Frankenstein had it trapped in, how it had spent time with a kindly, blind peasant (David Bradley) … 

And how, after too much mistreatment from humanity, it decided to seek its creator and have a very long talk … about Victor’s abuse of it.

~≈🧟‍♂️≈~

28th November, 2025.

Part Two.

Thoughts.

Now … what did I make of this year’s version of Frankenstein?

Of a film that — like the many Frankenstein movies, before it — tries to tell us the movie version of a written story first put to page in the 18th Century?

What on Earth did I make of the performances?

The look of the thing?

The actors?

Did — I hear you ask — the plot of the movie match what’s on the pages of Mary Shelley’s original novel?

Let’s start with the plot, shall we?

And tell you that, yes: I have read Shelley’s written version of Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus.

A long time ago!

So … ?

My memories of the story are vague enough to need help from the book’s Wikipedia entry: but good enough — I feel — to go in cold, without consulting the book, or the associated article.

What I saw on screen was something I felt compared favourably with Shelley’s original novel: and is certainly closer than Universal’s iconic 1931 version.

I grant you, there’s differences.

This film version of Victor Frankenstein is an obsessed scientist: rather than the book’s aspiring alchemist.

His father, Leopold?   An abusive, but revered surgeon: rather than the gentle Alphonse of the novel.

The film rolls Victor’s two brothers into one: and uses the name William for the combined figure.

Elizabeth — William’s fiancée — is Victor’s bride-to-be in the book.

But the broad strokes, and plot points, are there: Victor’s search for body parts, bringing the thing to life in a storm, the Creature first appearing at the foot of Victor’s bed, and its hiding in the outhouse of an isolated rural family.

That and the Creature’s demand for a bride?

And finding out its origin?

Finding that — as it, itself says — it’s the child of a charnel house, made from the discarded dead.

Is all lifted from the book.

This film version also adds depth to the story.

Victor’s childhood is explored more in this film: and shows how Victor’s father, Leopold (Charles Dance) was physically abusive, and felt free to use a cane when he felt his son had done wrong.

Abuse that, as many mental health workers warn us, is something we see Victor himself inflict on the Creature.

Yes: that’s not something I recall from the novel.

But … ?

Frankenstein so often asks us a question, one asked by Captain Anderson when he says of the Creature, “What manner of devil made him?”

And shows us Victor, in a moment of self-realisation, replying with two words.

“I did.”

~≈🧟‍♂️≈~

29th November, 2025.

Part Three.

About the Cast.

There’s possibly more I could tell you, here.

Something I should focus on?

Is the cast.

Mia Goth does a competent job: both as Elizabeth, the film’s love interest: and as Victor and William’s mother, Claire.

Which I didn’t realise until I saw the credits.

In my defence, this is the first film I can remember seeing her in: I know she’s well spoken of, but this is the first work of hers, I’ve seen.

So … ?

I didn’t recognise her, when I saw her!

Moving on?

Equally competent was Felix Kammerer as William, and Charles Dance as Victor’s intimidating father,  Leopold, and Christolph Waltz, as Elizabeth’s syphilitic, arms dealing, father.

Former First Doctor, David Bradley, as the blind peasant that provides much needed support to the Creature?

Was brilliant!

The real stars of the film … ?

Are our two central characters: Victor Frankenstein and the Creature, played, respectively, by Oscar Isaac and Jacob Elordi.

~≈🧟‍♂️≈~

30th November, 2025.

Part Four.

The Stars.

I have to confess: I only know Oscar Isaac through his appearances in the Star Wars franchise, and as Leto Atreides in Dune Pt 1.

So I know him from — and am impressed by — his works as heroic characters.

He’s good looking — which helps in that kind of role — and knows his job, very well.

My point?

Is that Isaac is a good choice for the role of Victor Frankenstein.

Even though, between del Toro’s writing and directing, and Isaac’s performance, we’re given not a hero … but a villain.

Isaac plays the character as a sympathetic figure: one whose deeply damaged by his upbringing.

But he’s also disturbingly unlikeable: and distinctly unwell looking.

Yes, we feel sympathy for Victor the child and young adult, we see the treatment he gets from his father, and the scepticism he gets from the University … 

But we also see the treatment Victor himself deals out to his creation: and the long term effects it has.

The Creature, played by Jacob Elordi?

The Creature is left with the physical scars from its birth … and the mental scars left by the abuse, it, too, has suffered.

Both from an unsympathetic humanity, and from a man, Victor, who should have treated his creation as a child that needed care.

Not as a monster.

Yes: Oscar Isaac is fantastic as Victor Frankenstein.

But Jacob Elordi, as the rage-stricken victim of abuse that the Creature?

Is more than a match for his creator.

~≈🧟‍♂️≈~

Part Five.

What Else?

There’s probably other things I could tell you about.

How former Torchwood star, Burn Gorman, drops up as a shady executioner.

Of how the sets would grab the attention of the most avid steam punk fans.

Of how the score is suitably dramatic.

But I should highlight a few last points.

For one thing … ?

There’s the scene where the creature is brought to life, the scene that sees the death of Christoph Waltz, and the damage done to the oh-so-important kit.

While it’s not necessarily made much of in the film, we can ask all sorts of things.

Including this.

Did Victor’s process go wrong, because of the damage to the lightening rods, the lightning rods that bring the Creature to life?

We don’t know: it’s not made clear.

One thing we do see, is the shape of the table the creature is strapped to, in that scene.

The shape of that table reminded me of a cross: although we could argue it’s shaped more like a very specific rune, an Algiz rune.

But, as I’d been a church goer, as a child?

I thought more of a crucifix: more of something that’s a symbol of death … and of someone being killed and brought back to life.

The fact the Algiz rune is scene as a symbol of life is possibly co-incidental …  but possibly also full of meaning.

Either can be seen as symbols of the deaths and ressurection the Creature goes through.

~≈🧟‍♂️≈~

Part Six.

There’s More?

There’s more: although these are possibly not major things.

More a “Did you see that?” moment.

At about the 1:24:21 mark, Victor is waving farewell to William and Elizabeth … which is where I spotted what I thought was a wedding ring.

An unjustified wedding ring: as the film never mentions Victor’s wife!

A little light digging told me, “No: it’s not!”

It’s the character’s baronial signet ring: the sort of thing a nobleman would wear to authenticate documents, and seal letters.

Thanks heaven’s I found that out: missing that would’ve been embarrassing.

The other thing … ?

It turn’s out Mia Goth’s left handed!

Yes: I know that’s a minor point.

But as a southpaw, myself … ?

I do tend to notice these things.

~≈🧟‍♂️≈~

Part Seven.

What DID I think?

So … ?

What did I think … ?

Of an utterly gorgeous film, that’s some two and a half hours long … ?

Usually, I tend to be picky about my movies: especially if they’re this sort of length.

The last film I watched, that was this protracted?

Was the Ryan Coogler directed, Sinners.

Which is a very good film.

Atmospheric, moody, watchable, with gorgeous world building … but one I found very slow, one that could have sacrificed a little moodiness for a quicker pace.

By contrast, this version of Frankenstein was far faster paced: something I welcomed.

Yes: the two films are of a length, of an equal quality, and both said to be Oscar nominees contenders.

Yes: either winning ‘Best Picture’ would be good for the films: and good for horror as a genre.

But given the pace of the two?

Frankenstein is the one I preferred watching.

~≈🧟‍♂️≈~

Part Eight.

Finally.

So … what did I think of this years taken of Frankenstein?

I have to say it, the thing is a a visual feast, is beautifully told, and has a cast that’s superb.

Especially the two central actors, Oscar Isaac and Jacob Elordi.

Granted: it’s re-telling an old story.

But it’s doing so very well: with a measure of warning about abuse, and symbolism that may well be richer than I suspect.

Personally?

I have to tell you to watch this 2025 version of Frankenstein.

It’s a gorgeous thing to see … 

Frankenstein.

★★★★

~≈🧟‍♂️≈~

Part Nine.

Last Words.

After some three days of writing … ?

That is where I’m going to leave things.

I’m going to leave you with my thanks for reading this: or for watching the video version of this review, if that’s what you’ve done.

Before I go?

I should add a couple of points.

I’m planning more reviews in the coming weeks.

Around Christmas?

Around Christmas of this year, I’ll be watching The War Between the Land and the Sea, the upcoming Dr Who spin-off.

That will be in December.

As Christmas is coming, I’ll also be watching and reviewing Stranger Things: in January!

I will ask you to subscribe to my YouTube channel: and follow Nik Nak’s Old Peculiar.

I’m planning those reviews there, as and when.

And if quizzes are you thing, I’ve published the Daily Teaser quiz for years.

Feel free to subscribe, follow my blog, and YouTube channel.

And, above all else?

Stay safe: and have a Happy Christmas, if I don’t see you before then.