I saw this Thursday night and was quite impressed by the story he put together. Despite it being rather long at 2-1/2 hours it held my interest, and of course the special effects was outstanding. I highly recommend seeing it.
I will not start out with spoilers, but it was a very interesting take on the original with some added insights that really tied together well to make an outstanding version that I believe will stand on its own as a classic.
I found it overwrought and sentimental to the point of being corny. I also didn’t like Mia Goth’s acting. Yes, the effects were good, but that wasn’t enough for me.
Was it any more faithful to the book than any of the other (unfaithful) versions over the years?
In the novel, there’s a scene where Viktor Frankenstein is riding his horse along a highway. He brings the horse to a halt, climbs down, throws himself onto the roadside and sobs for a bit, then picks himself back up, climbs back onto the horse, and rides along.
Sounds pretty faithful to the novel.
The monster was shown to have intelligence, rather than just being a hulking brute. I haven’t read the book, but I understand that’s closer to the original depiction.
He was on Fresh Air the other day. Del Toro has had an interesting life. Transcript follows if you don’t want to listen.
October 23, 20251:31 PM ET
Heard on Fresh Air
https://www.npr.org/2025/10/23/nx-s1-5577963/guillermo-del-toro-frankenstein
Movies not being faithful to books is more of the norm than an exception, so not really a criteria I hold movies. Did it entertain me and hold my interest without wandering far from the original storyline? Yes it did. Did the book have bolts in the monsters neck? If so then even the 1931 version falls short.
Actually I haven’t read the original in 50 years and doubt that many that go to see it have either. I will be surprised if many of younger folks will have the attention span to enjoy the story unless they are del Toro fans.
In the book the daemon taught himself French by eavesdropping. And the only mention of Monster was the thing wondering if he was a monster, because the people he encountered always tried to kill him. Frankenstein the guy referred to the thing as a Daemon.
I have not seen this show.
(ETA: I think it was French. He taught himself a language.)
IIRC, she said he was tall and fast, and wore a long overcoat because he was packing heat.
Perhaps it was bolted on? 
Were the bolts a total deviation from the book?
The bolts were a necessary kludge to keep the head from falling off.
BTW, I want to see this but it’s only playing a few arthouse theaters in my area.
But bolts were not in the book, I googled it. So variations from the book have been going on for 95 years.
Sorry. No idea. I never read the book.
I read the book decades ago, and I like to think of it, not as sci-fi or horror, but rather as a long nightmare. The fact that the wretch anticipates Victor’s moves, or unshakably follows him is nightmare stuff. The way a hideous eight foot tall monster can blend in while following him is nightmare. Shelly is really vague about the monster assembly process. At one point Victor gathers the equipment necessary for building the mate (which he doesn’t do, of course) and it sounds like it amounted to just a couple boxes. A far cry from the elaborate movie rigs. But she didn’t care about any of that. The most she knew was of the electricity from crude batteries making severed frog legs twitch, and she took it from there.
Hmm, so this movie did mention the possibility of a bride for the monster. I always thought that the idea came from Hollywood, but its actually a reference to the actual book. Learning more as we move on, cool
nevermind.
I thought they were electrodes for the electric circuit from the bolt of lightning.
That too.
In the book a mate was a demand made by the thing guy to the creator guy as a condition of thing guy leaving creator guy alone.
So the movie was true to the book in that aspect. Interesting.