The horror classic. Obviously filmed at the beginning of the talkie era, but the german expressionist influence and the story itself make it a horror breakthrough. The book is a bit overrated. There is a reason that the Frankenstein everyone actually knows is the Karloff interpretation. A short and sweet Frankenstein film that gets to the action quickly.
One of the best scenario I have ever watched.
Also this is our(humanity's) first (fictional) AI experience in modern times. Awsome movie, must-watched.
It is interesting how writer fictionalized AI and how humanity respond it (in a most bigoted and irrational way)
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.
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.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 21
KaramAkerfeldt
Good film. Found it hilarious when he drowned the little girl.saydin7
best horror movie ever.Bill.MI.1
The horror classic. Obviously filmed at the beginning of the talkie era, but the german expressionist influence and the story itself make it a horror breakthrough. The book is a bit overrated. There is a reason that the Frankenstein everyone actually knows is the Karloff interpretation. A short and sweet Frankenstein film that gets to the action quickly.fakirfikir
One of the best scenario I have ever watched.Also this is our(humanity's) first (fictional) AI experience in modern times. Awsome movie, must-watched.
It is interesting how writer fictionalized AI and how humanity respond it (in a most bigoted and irrational way)
E. T. Blunt
Proof that society oftentimes sees the monster in the creation, not the creator.roobin_22
d'oh this is awful.. liked the part with the drowning girl though..Earring72
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]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.Showing items 1 – 15 of 21