Frankenstein (1931)'s comments - page 2

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

Dieguito

it's sad to be a monster

12 years 9 months ago

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.

1 year 3 months ago

george4mon

much better than dracula!

12 years 8 months ago

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.

11 years 11 months ago

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.

12 years 5 months ago

caley

It's surprisingly sad.

13 years 1 month ago