Guillermo del Toro’s 2025 Frankenstein reimagines Mary Shelley’s classic with Oscar Isaac delivering a career-defining performance as Victor Frankenstein. Opposite Jacob Elordi’s emotionally raw Creature, the film explores themes of abandonment and creator’s guilt through stunning visuals and haunting symbolism.

This adaptation stands apart with its poetic ending and fresh character interpretations, challenging audiences to reconsider who bears true monstrosity. From Elordi’s youthful physicality to Isaac’s clinical obsession, the casting choices redefine Shelley’s timeless tale for modern viewers.

Oscar Isaac’s Frankenstein 2025 Review: Jacob Elordi’s Age, Ending Explained, and How It Compares to Classic Adaptations

Oscar Isaac’s Haunting Performance as Victor Frankenstein

In Guillermo del Toro’s 2025 adaptation of Frankenstein, Oscar Isaac delivers a career-defining performance as the ambitious scientist Victor Frankenstein. Unlike previous portrayals that leaned into melodrama, Isaac presents Victor with clinical precision, showing how his intellectual curiosity gradually transforms into destructive obsession. The actor spent six months studying 19th-century surgical techniques and the writings of real-life polymaths to perfect the role.

Isaac’s most powerful scene comes during the creature’s “birth” sequence – a single unbroken 4-minute take that transitions from scientific triumph to horrified realization. His physical transformation throughout the film is equally compelling, with Victor’s appearance deteriorating alongside his mental state. Costume designer Luis Sequeira created wardrobe that subtly tightens as the story progresses, visually representing Victor’s psychological constriction.

Mr. Owl: What makes Isaac’s performance so remarkable is how he communicates Victor’s inner conflict without words. Watch how his hands tremble differently when handling scientific instruments versus human remains – it’s masterful physical acting.

Comparing Victor Frankenstein Actors

Jacob Elordi’s Age and Transformative Performance as the Creature

At just 27 years old during filming, Jacob Elordi became the youngest actor to portray Frankenstein’s Creature in a major production. This casting choice creates fascinating tension between the Creature’s physical enormity (achieved through 7-foot prosthetic extensions) and Elordi’s youthful vulnerability. The actor spent 4 hours daily in makeup and another 2 hours practicing the Creature’s unique movement style – described by choreographer Vanessa Vanderpluym as “a wounded bear learning to walk.”

Elordi’s interpretation emphasizes the Creature’s childlike qualities, particularly in scenes where he discovers simple pleasures like sunlight or music. His performance peaks during the controversial cottage sequence, where unnamed villagers attack him – the combination of his massive frame and terrified reactions creates profound cognitive dissonance for viewers.

Mr. Owl: The genius of Elordi’s performance lies in his eyes. Despite towering over everyone, those wide, frightened eyes make you forget he’s playing a monster at all – you see only an abandoned child in a too-large body.

Creature Actors Through the Ages

• Boris Karloff (1931): Age 43 – Defined the iconic lumbering walk
• Christopher Lee (1957): Age 35 – Introduced more articulate speech
• Robert De Niro (1994): Age 50 – Emphasized the Creature’s education
• Rory Kinnear (2011): Age 33 – TV version with rapid aging
• Jacob Elordi (2025): Age 27 – Youngest and most physically imposing

The Ending Explained: A Poetic Departure from Shelley’s Original

Del Toro’s adaptation concludes with a breathtaking Arctic sequence that both honors and transforms Mary Shelley’s original ending. Rather than dying together on a ship as in the novel, Victor’s frozen corpse is carried across the ice by the Creature (Elordi) until supernatural blue bioluminescence surrounds them. Cinematographer Dan Laustsen’s “drowning light” technique creates the illusion that the Creature is ascending rather than sinking.

The most significant departure comes in the Creature’s final monologue. While Shelley’s character vowed to burn himself, this version whispers “I shall walk into the light” before disappearing into the glowing ice. The scene’s composition deliberately mimics Renaissance pietà sculptures, suggesting the Creature achieves something like sainthood through his suffering.

Mr. Owl: That final shot isn’t just beautiful – it’s theological. The bioluminescent organisms form something like a halo around the Creature, implying his tortured existence has been a kind of purgatory he’s finally escaping.

Key Symbolism in the Ending

How Del Toro’s Adaptation Compares to Classic Frankenstein Films

The 2025 version stands apart from previous adaptations through its psychological depth and thematic complexity. Where James Whale’s 1931 film relied on Gothic horror tropes and Kenneth Branagh’s 1994 version amplified the romantic elements, del Toro’s interpretation explores medical ethics and systemic oppression. The film introduces new subplots about Victor sourcing bodies from prisons and poorhouses, making his disregard for human life more methodical than manic.

Notably, this adaptation softens some of the Creature’s violence while making Victor morally darker. The famous drowning of the child becomes an accident here, and the Creature’s revenge focuses more on emotional torment than physical destruction. These changes prompted divided reactions from critics, with some praising the nuance and others lamenting the loss of Shelley’s sharper edges.

Mr. Owl: Del Toro’s greatest innovation might be making Victor the true source of horror. That scene where he selects bodies like cuts of meat disturbed me more than any monster makeup could.

Major Frankenstein Adaptations Compared

• 1931 Universal Version: Established the flat-headed look; focused on mad scientist tropes
• 1994 Branagh Film: Most faithful to Shelley’s plot; overly melodramatic
• 2015 Penny Dreadful: TV version blending multiple monsters
• 2025 Del Toro: Emphasizes medical ethics; most sympathetic Creature

The Making of Frankenstein: Locations and Production Design

Del Toro insisted on practical locations to ground the fantastical elements, shooting across Europe for maximum authenticity. The production transformed the University of Edinburgh’s historic medical school into Victor’s laboratory, using actual 19th-century surgical tools sourced from museums. For the Arctic sequences, the crew braved subzero temperatures in Iceland’s Vatnajökull glacier, where they built a full-scale ship frozen in ice.

Production designer Paul Austerberry revealed fascinating details about the Creature’s forest refuge, constructed in Bavaria’s Hohenzollern Castle woods. They used real animal carcasses (ethically sourced) to create the Creature’s food sources, and the set incorporated over 200 book pages from Shelley’s era for his self-education scenes. The attention to period accuracy extended to handwritten notes in Victor’s journals, which were penned by a historian specializing in 1820s scientific shorthand.

Mr. Owl: That laboratory set is a work of art – every flask contains period-accurate solutions, and the electrical apparatus replicates actual 1820s experiments. Del Toro even had the props team age each instrument based on how frequently Victor would use it.

Key Production Details

• Makeup Time: 4 hours daily for Elordi’s Creature prosthetics
• Location Count: 17 practical sets across 5 countries
• Historical Consultants: 9 experts across medicine, literature, and period technology
• Practical Effects: 87% of effects achieved in-camera