Also I'm not saying that the creature is unsympathetic in the novel; it absolutely is. But there are glaring differences in the choices it makes between the novel and the film. Again, I think the movie is fantastic. It's a different telling of the story. Nothing wrong with that at all.

It's well acted, decently written, visually fantastic, and enjoyable overall. The liberties it takes do diminish some of the original story, but it uses those changes to tell a different version, and that's okay. If you have an extra two and a half hours to watch it, I recommend it.

The argument of the original tale is who the monster is and the movie takes away some viewer agency by outright stating it's Victor and definitely not the creature. With all of this in mind, it's a solid adaptation on it's own and follows the book closer than any other film version of Frankenstein.

The creature learning to speak and read is done better in the movie than the novel, I feel, where the former has the creature learning from a blind man who cannot see or judge him as he is, whereas the latter has him learn by watching a family while living in a nearby hovel.

There is an allegory to the cycle of abuse throughout and while it's a worthy tale, it's not necessarily the tale of Frankenstein. It glosses over Victor's growth with a single line, "I've regained sanity at a great cost, and yet here you are, madness calling me back."

This allows the movie to make it entirely sympathetic. The creature is never allowed to be a monster beyond the means of its existence. There is a scene where the creature tells Victor to his face, "you are the monster". In fact, from that scene onward, the film begins to lose it's footing for me.

The movie entirely foregoes Victor's fiancee, instead opting to make Elizabeth his younger brother's fiancee. She becomes strangely infatuated with the creature, almost at first sight. Further, the creature only ever kills out of self defense or when forced to.

The creature grieves this, not out of genuine love or forgiveness, but because the game they played was all the creature had left. With this, he chooses death. Whether he dies or not, we don't know. The movie skirts these arguments throughout.

Since Victor will not make a companion for him, the creature vows to torment Victor for his remaining days, beginning a long time back and forth hunt between the two; Victor seeking to kill the creature while also fleeing the torment of it. After telling his story to a ship captain, Victor dies.

This time, he threatens the life of Victor's fiancée. Victor agrees to the task, but ultimately changes his mind. He cannot, will not, create another thing so potentially dangerous. The creature holds true to his promise and kills Victor's fiancée.

But then, after learning his creator's name, chooses to seek him out and demand a companion to forever join him in unlife. Victor, recognizing his mistakes, chooses not to oblige the creature. As a result, the creature kills Victor's younger brother and demands a bride again.

On the other hand, the monster, creature, Adam, whatever you like to call it, while sympathetic, does make monstrous choices for his own gain. He did not ask for life, but is not justified in taking life. He doesn't kill out of self defense. The first life he takes is accidental, a misunderstanding.

Victor is blinded by the pursuit of science and believes that what he is doing will ultimately benefit mankind. He is seen as a monster for the extremes his methods go to and as a consequence of his creation. Throughout the novel, Victor comes to terms with his mistakes and grows to understand this.

To the layman, most people can look at the story of Frankenstein and explicitly say the creature is innocent and Victor is the real monster, and Del Toro's adaptation leans into this quite heavily. In the book, this is somewhat debatable.