I do agree that as a standalone film it's pretty good and I can see that it definitely left a mark on pop culture.
However, I also have to agree with kellyoung that this is absolutely terrible as an interpretation of the book. Nothing that made the original story deep, interesting and horrifying is in here and the monster in the film is about the worst character portrayal I've ever seen in a film.
I don't like to throw in phrases like "The book is better" when judging a film(s plot), because I understand a film can never tell a story as deep and elaborate the way a book can. But in this particular case it is absolutely true.
Visually is good, but the plot is poor, and even more in comparision with the book.
Here it is much more simplistic, they through everything at your face. There's a lot of incoherences... "I believe in this monster" really?
What we see in the first 40 minutes are less than 2 chapters in the book and they are not even the first 2 chapters.
The way the kid reacts in the book is way more realistic. Also, almost no one dies here, and the ones that should have died, didn't.
The film is fine, but personally I don't recommend it, the book made me go trough a lot of emotions and also made me think, this movie didn't.
I love old movies, and here they could have done it better, even with the limitations of the time. M (1931) is way more deep and emotional. Even the plot of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) is more complex.
Universal's Frankenstein, with Boris Karloff, came out in 1931, just like Dracula, its cousin franchise, did, and I'm happy to report it doesn't suffer from a similar slowness. Of course, it's not the Mary Shelley novel. I find her book to be astonishing in that it creates an entirely new Gothic monster, not one pulled from folklore like vampires, werewolves, etc. Universal's version does that too, because its child-like, but dangerously strong monster with an "abnormal brain" is completely different from Shelley's existential "Modern Prometheus". It's worth celebrating its originality and sustained popularity. The film is well shot, the violence shocking without being overwhelming, the make-up iconic, and the monster sympathetic. I might question the mix of American and European accents in what appears to be Gothic Bavaria, but overall, Frankenstein retains its power and does not feel as dated as Dracula.
Oh boy, so what if it's way too different from the original book plot? IT IS A MOVIE! Is not supposed to be a video-book!
It's absurd to claim "but the book was better" both are different thing's, or was the comic book better than the operetta? Pfff! Stop being pretentious guys, you obviously don't read neither see enough movies.
Would have liked this to have been the first Frankenstein adaptation that I saw. It was good, not particularly great. Book is much better - not always something that needs to be said but I feel that it does here.
I enjoyed it MUCH more than Dracula - only comparing for obvious reasons, not that the two movies are similar.
It’s all about Boris Karloff’s performance. He’s phenomenal. If it were released today, he would receive an Oscar nom. He, Colin Clive and Dwight Frye (Fritz) are the only ones who can act. Everyone else’s performance is Amateur Hour, early-talkies crap (especially Frederick Kerr as Dr. Frankenstein’s father). The screenplay is also crap, although the monster’s story was surprisingly intriguing. That is, until he randomly attacked Elizabeth. From his creation up until that point, I was enthralled with how tragic his story was. After the monster’s interaction with the little girl (which is the best part of the film, IMO), it just takes a left turn with too many questions as to what the monster’s agenda is.
: And the ending is terrible - Dr. Frankenstein should not (and would not) have survived that fall. It should have ended with the windmill burning. Oh well. It was 1931. Whattayagonnado?
I feel like it could have used a soundtrack. The pace and tone of the film feels somewhat off with just sheer silence punctuating the screen. Karloff does a good job portraying the monster.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 21
caley
It's surprisingly sad.BeasleyOnFilm
Karloff injects a surprising amount of warmth into the monster actually. It only works if you see it as completely different to the book.Auz
I do agree that as a standalone film it's pretty good and I can see that it definitely left a mark on pop culture.However, I also have to agree with kellyoung that this is absolutely terrible as an interpretation of the book. Nothing that made the original story deep, interesting and horrifying is in here and the monster in the film is about the worst character portrayal I've ever seen in a film.
I don't like to throw in phrases like "The book is better" when judging a film(s plot), because I understand a film can never tell a story as deep and elaborate the way a book can. But in this particular case it is absolutely true.
Shidan
Visually is good, but the plot is poor, and even more in comparision with the book.Here it is much more simplistic, they through everything at your face. There's a lot of incoherences... "I believe in this monster" really?
What we see in the first 40 minutes are less than 2 chapters in the book and they are not even the first 2 chapters.
The way the kid reacts in the book is way more realistic. Also, almost no one dies here, and the ones that should have died, didn't.
The film is fine, but personally I don't recommend it, the book made me go trough a lot of emotions and also made me think, this movie didn't.
I love old movies, and here they could have done it better, even with the limitations of the time. M (1931) is way more deep and emotional. Even the plot of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) is more complex.
george4mon
much better than dracula!Siskoid
Universal's Frankenstein, with Boris Karloff, came out in 1931, just like Dracula, its cousin franchise, did, and I'm happy to report it doesn't suffer from a similar slowness. Of course, it's not the Mary Shelley novel. I find her book to be astonishing in that it creates an entirely new Gothic monster, not one pulled from folklore like vampires, werewolves, etc. Universal's version does that too, because its child-like, but dangerously strong monster with an "abnormal brain" is completely different from Shelley's existential "Modern Prometheus". It's worth celebrating its originality and sustained popularity. The film is well shot, the violence shocking without being overwhelming, the make-up iconic, and the monster sympathetic. I might question the mix of American and European accents in what appears to be Gothic Bavaria, but overall, Frankenstein retains its power and does not feel as dated as Dracula.Joker of Gotham
Well I finally understood of what movie this scene came fromA classic of horror that at this day it don´t seems so scary like it probably was back then.
3.5/5
Woliver
Oh boy, so what if it's way too different from the original book plot? IT IS A MOVIE! Is not supposed to be a video-book!It's absurd to claim "but the book was better" both are different thing's, or was the comic book better than the operetta? Pfff! Stop being pretentious guys, you obviously don't read neither see enough movies.
Oneironaut
Would have liked this to have been the first Frankenstein adaptation that I saw. It was good, not particularly great. Book is much better - not always something that needs to be said but I feel that it does here.Dieguito
it's sad to be a monsterEarring72
Classic tale and movie. Seeing it in the right perspective for that time very chilling. For now, fine old fashioned horrorTomReagan
I enjoyed it MUCH more than Dracula - only comparing for obvious reasons, not that the two movies are similar.It’s all about Boris Karloff’s performance. He’s phenomenal. If it were released today, he would receive an Oscar nom. He, Colin Clive and Dwight Frye (Fritz) are the only ones who can act. Everyone else’s performance is Amateur Hour, early-talkies crap (especially Frederick Kerr as Dr. Frankenstein’s father). The screenplay is also crap, although the monster’s story was surprisingly intriguing. That is, until he randomly attacked Elizabeth. From his creation up until that point, I was enthralled with how tragic his story was. After the monster’s interaction with the little girl (which is the best part of the film, IMO), it just takes a left turn with too many questions as to what the monster’s agenda is.
DisneyStitch
I feel like it could have used a soundtrack. The pace and tone of the film feels somewhat off with just sheer silence punctuating the screen. Karloff does a good job portraying the monster.SLionsCricket
Great storyline, good performances, well paced, interesting yet lacks tension. 3.5/5myrnawilliams
it's surprisingly sad. [2]Showing items 1 – 15 of 21