Frankenstein (1931)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Zach B

  
  I might as well say right now that if you are looking for a straight adaption of the Frankenstein story, you are in the wrong place. Being someone who has read the book outside of literature classes, this film never really follows the original tale at all. In fact, it actually… More
  I might as well say right now that if you are looking for a straight adaption of the Frankenstein story, you are in the wrong place. Being someone who has read the book outside of literature classes, this film never really follows the original tale at all. In fact, it actually improves the tale. In the original novel, there was quite a few times in which the feel of Shelly being the immature writer (not having that must experience in writing) was very overpowering. But taking the script for a stage play adaption of the novel (just like with Dracula), what we get is probably one of the best telling of Man's attempt to be God. The story we all know by heart: screwed up doctor tries to play God by making man. But what a lot of people don't do is really look at the film for this film is not about Dr. Frankenstein (yeah people: the doctor is named Frankenstein. Not the monster. GET IT BLOODY RIGHT!), but about the symbolism of The Monster. One thing you tend to notice about the classic horror stories is the symbolism each of the monsters stand for. Dracula stood for depression (being alone for centuries). The Wolf Man for a woman's period (watch the film, and you will get why I even say that). The Creature Of The Black Lagoon for puberty (a hideous man trying to win the heart of a gorgeous woman). With Frankenstein, the symbolism is being unaccepted. Once The Monster is free from Frankenstein, it tries to be part of society and be accepted. But due to him literally having the brain of a mass murderer (damn you, Fritz!), he can't help himself and like most misunderstood people, he is hated by everyone. Even his maker. That is why James Whale's adaption strikes such a strong chord with people: it is all about a person that no one understands. No one gets. And Whale shows this perfectly in his flawless direction. He shows this while still providing the morality tale of Man trying to be God and the end results. There are only two people that need mentioning in this film in terms of acting: Boris Karloff and Dwight Frye. First off with Karloff. Like most people, they have to credit this film to him. He seriously sells this film with his timeless portrayal as The Monster. I honestly do not know how to do this review justice. This is one of those performances that just speaks for itself. Everything from the way he moves to his grunts. I am not going to review that performance. All I will say: it is legendary for a reason. I love Dwight Frye. I adore this man's ability to act. In Dracula, I liked how he played a sane man and then turned into an insane maniac while swapping back and forth. Here I love how he plays a mentally disturbed assistant that, in my observation, might have a deeper meaning. Okay, bare with me for a bit. It is known that James Whale was openly homosexual and in his films there are some undertones that suggest his sexuality. With Frankenstein, my believe is that Fritz became jealous of The Monster's relationship with Frankenstein and as such why he has such a strong hatred for the Monster. It is all about jealousy and the feeling that you are going to be replaced by someone you have grown to love. I believe that Frye used that to his advantage and helped to create this hunched back maniac. Brilliant. The rest of the actors (mainly Colin Clive and Edward Van Sloan) do their characters justice in bringing them all to life. But none of their performances actually stand out to me in this film. Hence why I won't go into detail about their acting. When I decided to review there classic horror films, I had to go and see if their horror still lives up. Like with Dracula (and I am guessing like with the rest), it does not. But as a drama and a tale of man's desire to be God, this film lives on for a reason. I have seen numerous adaptions of this tale, and while as an adaption this is terrible, as a film it works. Even 80 years after it's release. So, why only four and a half stars? Simple: While it did touch me in the way that I could relate to the monster, I would have liked it if they expanded on the characters a bit more.

• Jeff "

  
  One of the most famous horror films ever filmed, Frankenstein starring Boris Karloff is a must see for every horror fan. Universal Studios brought horror to a mainstream audience with such titles as this. Frankenstein has got to be one of the most famous horror films in the history of… More
  One of the most famous horror films ever filmed, Frankenstein starring Boris Karloff is a must see for every horror fan. Universal Studios brought horror to a mainstream audience with such titles as this. Frankenstein has got to be one of the most famous horror films in the history of cinema, and with good reason. This 1931 horror classic secured Karloff's reputation and made him famous. Loosely based on Mary Shelly's book of the same name, this adaptation was changed quite a bit, but nonetheless is very exciting to watch. If you're a fan of old school horror films, then this 1931 version of Frankenstein is the one to watch. This is a must see monster flick, and after all the years, still manages to terrify and thrill the audience. Boris Karloff is a horror icon, and though his role in The Mummy cemented his reputation even further, his role as the monster in Frankenstein is his ultimate performance. Director James Whale crafts a solid film and every cast member delivers a strong performance. Of course I think the best performance of all belongs to Boris Karloff as he really brings a certain quality of innocence to the monster, which makes the viewer sympathetic towards him. Overall this is a fine horror classic that should be on the list of horror films to see by every horror fan. A flawless film, Frankenstein may differ from Mary Shelly's classic, but for what it is, this is a unique twist on a classic horror tale. I very much loved the film, and if you want to explore the genre than the regular horror flicks of today, and watch something different, and great, then this is a terrific monster flick to watch.

• Tim S

  
  James Whale's landmark 1931 release of Frankenstein is one of cinema's most engaging and thought provoking pieces of material. Not quite the horror film one might expect, it delves into the subject of xenophobia. Colin Clive's performance as the mad scientist is… More
  James Whale's landmark 1931 release of Frankenstein is one of cinema's most engaging and thought provoking pieces of material. Not quite the horror film one might expect, it delves into the subject of xenophobia. Colin Clive's performance as the mad scientist is absolutely wonderful, as is Boris Karloff's career-defining portrayal as The Monster. I find this to be an annual film to watch every Halloween. It's such a wonderful film, regardless of the year it was made or how much it ages as time goes on. The story and themes themselves don't age.

• Graham J

  
  A horror classic. For me, honestly I think it's lost a little of it's magic over time but still has some shocking and beautiful moments. The scene where the monster meets the little girl is great. Also the image of her father carrying her dead body through town, with all the… More
  A horror classic. For me, honestly I think it's lost a little of it's magic over time but still has some shocking and beautiful moments. The scene where the monster meets the little girl is great. Also the image of her father carrying her dead body through town, with all the laughing people suddenly noticing her and looking in silence is one of my favorites.

• Morgan S

  
  Truthfully I dont really know why people always overrate this movie over the Original Dracula wich was much better on so many levels. Yes some of the acting ine Dracula might have been over the top but you cant tell me the same is not true for this movie. Besides that prejudice I hold… More
  Truthfully I dont really know why people always overrate this movie over the Original Dracula wich was much better on so many levels. Yes some of the acting ine Dracula might have been over the top but you cant tell me the same is not true for this movie. Besides that prejudice I hold this is a great classic horror movie so I love it. :)

• danny d

  
  although the sequel is usually considered the better film, i prefer this original in most aspects. the acting and story are better and the images a bit more iconic, although the sequel produced many great images as well. the philosophy behind mans attempt to play God shines through… More
  although the sequel is usually considered the better film, i prefer this original in most aspects. the acting and story are better and the images a bit more iconic, although the sequel produced many great images as well. the philosophy behind mans attempt to play God shines through in the film as much as the novel, and for a 1931 film the subject matter was challenging. one of the truest classic horror films in history.

• AJ V

  
  A classic movie with horror great Karloff.

• Chris W

  
  A satisfying and entertaining monster movie with a good moral message. It doesn't do justice to the novel, and it's influence is greater than the film itself, but still, it's worth a watch. I could go on and on writing about this film, but it's been praise enough,… More
  A satisfying and entertaining monster movie with a good moral message. It doesn't do justice to the novel, and it's influence is greater than the film itself, but still, it's worth a watch. I could go on and on writing about this film, but it's been praise enough, so very little of what I could say would be original. All people who call themselves movie lovers need to see this.

• Martin S

  
  It's no Citizen Kane. But it's pretty impressive for being from 1931. Beats Nosferatu in every way......not even close man. Murnau....suck it!

• Conner R

  
  A classic that lives up to all of it's hype. Of the Universal Monsters, Frankenstein is the king. The tone and style is amazing, beautiful and haunting at the same time. The acting is perfect and allows you to enjoy the movie. The story was told so simply, yet powerful and… More
  A classic that lives up to all of it's hype. Of the Universal Monsters, Frankenstein is the king. The tone and style is amazing, beautiful and haunting at the same time. The acting is perfect and allows you to enjoy the movie. The story was told so simply, yet powerful and meaningful. It feels like a horror/noir and definitely gave influence to the majority of later horror films and just film in general. It made horror a believable world.

• Stella D

  
  i can't watch this now without thinking of spirit of the beehive :(

• Randy T

  
  One could argue that it was <i>Frankenstein</i>, not the earlier <i>Dracula</i>, that cemented Hollywood's stake (pun intended) in the horror genre and ultimately saved Universal Studios from pending bankruptcy. No single person can be credited for the… More
  One could argue that it was <i>Frankenstein</i>, not the earlier <i>Dracula</i>, that cemented Hollywood's stake (pun intended) in the horror genre and ultimately saved Universal Studios from pending bankruptcy. No single person can be credited for the success of this classic. James Whale, Boris Karloff, Mary Shelley, Jack Pierce, Carl Laemmle Jr., all should be praised for bringing Frankenstein to life. Having said that, there is one person who deserves a share of the praise and, to this day, goes virtually uncredited for the picture's success, French writer Robert Florey. Florey was the one who took Shelley's unfilmable novel and carved out a treatment that met Universal's time and budget requirements. It's a shame that Florey goes without recognition because without him there would have been no <i>Frankenstein</i> and thus no <i>Bride of Frankenstein</i> and, quite possibly, no Universal Studios.

• Chris G

  
  After striking gold with Dracula Universal tried again with Frankenstein, the adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel about a scientist (Colin Clive) who is obsessed with creating life to the point of grave robbing. He pieces together a man and attains life, but it goes terribly wrong… More
  After striking gold with Dracula Universal tried again with Frankenstein, the adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel about a scientist (Colin Clive) who is obsessed with creating life to the point of grave robbing. He pieces together a man and attains life, but it goes terribly wrong as his creation (Boris Karloff in his breakout role) begins a reign of terror throughout the countryside. James Whale directs Frankenstein in a way that makes it different from other productions of the era. His camera angles are more complex and interesting as they follow the action of Dr. Frankenstein's rise and fall. You see multiple angles of the lab, giving us more of a subliminal understanding of what's going on, even if we don't. Karloff's monster is a great achievement of cinema. Without speaking, he portrays the creature as sympathetic, even when he's throwing children into the lake. He doesn't understand. He kills when he's threatened, not out of blind rage. Karloff shows us this without even speaking and makes us feel sorry for this heinous monster. Frankenstein was yet another achievement for Universal and made them two for two in the monster making business, ushering in decades of superior and pathetic creature features for the world to digest.

• Veronique K

  
  "frankeinstein" along with "dracula" have been listed as the legendary horror phenonmenon in the 1930s, and they saved lots of theaters from going bankrupt then, and they're the saviors of box office as long as they're double-featured together. it shall… More
  "frankeinstein" along with "dracula" have been listed as the legendary horror phenonmenon in the 1930s, and they saved lots of theaters from going bankrupt then, and they're the saviors of box office as long as they're double-featured together. it shall be the myth of 1930s. lots have been said about frankenstein, even its dismissed scriptor robert fortley who got fired becuz of his support for bela lugosi has been mentioned. mae clarke, the woman who gets hit by james cagney with grapefruits in "public enemy", plays the finacee of dr. frankenstein after her copperation with james whale in the original "waterloo bridge" ignored by some, frankenstein does have something deeply profane within its ideology. "frankenstein" daringly suggests the possibility of creating life without natural course that is the best target bombarded by puritanical american society then, and the fragmented outlook of frankenstein is the symptom of modernism, a half-baked state of man-machine stumbling along to demonstrate the contaminating sin of industrialization. homoeroticism as well as autoeroticism is also suggested in it since dr. frankeinstein chooses to create life in the abscence of female, and dr. frankestein exclaims "it's alive" when the monster arises to life, his excitement seems to border on sexual ecstacy, and then he marvels "with my own hands!!!!" the masturbatory insinauation is reeking everywhere. besides the course of "making life" with his hunchback assistant seems to appeal dr. frankestein more than endearing his finacee's bedroom. and the subliminal purpose for the existence of deformed monsters like frankenstein is the phobia toward disfiguration after wwi. audience needs some surrogates to suffer from their suppressed subconscious fear so flicks like "frankestein", "dracula" even tod browning's "freaks" could occupy a space in this decade.

• Emily A

  
  James Whale knew what he was doing and this one definitely earns its status as a classic (as opposed to its being one of a set like SOME Universal studios horror 'classics'). Well acted on everyone's part and everyone really threw tehmselves into thier job: set design,… More
  James Whale knew what he was doing and this one definitely earns its status as a classic (as opposed to its being one of a set like SOME Universal studios horror 'classics'). Well acted on everyone's part and everyone really threw tehmselves into thier job: set design, costume, makeup and lighting. I have nothing bad to say about this movie.

• Jason S

  
  This movie delivers on the creepy. It may have been made a long time ago but the make up effects still hold up today. The acting was great and the movie is just well made. It is a classic and you can tell why.

• Cassandra M

  
  James Whale's original FRANKENSTEIN is a short but memorable horror classic that has influenced so many other fright flicks, it should be considered the Godfather of Horror Movies. This was one of the first of Universal Studios moody screen adaptations of literary gothic horror… More
  James Whale's original FRANKENSTEIN is a short but memorable horror classic that has influenced so many other fright flicks, it should be considered the Godfather of Horror Movies. This was one of the first of Universal Studios moody screen adaptations of literary gothic horror (the other being DRACULA). Put all thoughts regarding Mary Shelly's novel aside and see this original work of art, with Boris Karloff bringing the ultimate monster to life. The sets are a pure spinoff of German Expressionism. The good Doctor Frankenstein's castle is twisted and distorted and seems to be not of this world. He is played by Colin Clive in a delightfully freakish performance. And, of course, the well-proportioned Fritz is there to help. Notice the signposts of evil in the opening grave robbing scenes. It is a propmaster's dream and the black and white photography displays a theatrical sense of spookiness. "It's Alive!" will live forever as one of the cinema's most familiar lines and the picture begins to sparkle as Karloff is brought to life. The influence of Fritz Lang's METROPOLIS is evident during the dazzling scene of the Monster's birth. Boris Karloff is and always will be the prototypical Monster. The closeups of his face are truly frightening after all these years. He is walking death, however, Karloff gives him a hint of sadness, of a creature who was not meant to be. The flower-toss scene with the little girl was so controversial at the time of the film's release, it was cut from many versions. The new, restored print available on video has it. I know FRANKENSTEIN has been spoofed many times and is wide-open to criticism regarding its dated look. Mel Brooks went so far as to use the actual props from Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory in his hilarious send-up, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. Be sure to keep and open mind and watch it in the dark. Boris Karloff and James Whale have created a monstrously fun film.

• moon r

  
  are you kiddin'?!? boris' stuff still hasn't been touched!!

• Dr Blood  

  
  The 1931 black and white Universal monsters movie is still the best version of Mary Shelley's classic novel. Boris Karloff creates great pathos even with all the heavy and uncomfortable makeup.

• Cindy I

  
  This movie is less horror to me than the sad story of a lost innocent let loose in a cruel world. Boris Karloff is magnificent. Why they continued to sully this character by adding sequel after sequel -- without Karloff! -- is beyond me. Timeless. I love this film, even more so than… More
  This movie is less horror to me than the sad story of a lost innocent let loose in a cruel world. Boris Karloff is magnificent. Why they continued to sully this character by adding sequel after sequel -- without Karloff! -- is beyond me. Timeless. I love this film, even more so than Bride of...I prefer the sensitivity and pathos of this over the comedy in Bride.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings