Frankenstein is a great horror classic and this is a horror film but it isn`t scary of anything like that because it is a 1931 film and has some of the mosr rubbish specail effects i have ever seen and also one of the worst horror films i have ever seen. if i was alive and around in 1931 i would love this movie. when i mean by a classic horror film there have been many films about Frankenstein and those films are the best and this is one of the worst.
Based on the Mary Shelley 1817 novel, "Frankenstein" is one of Universal Studio's classic horror monsters, even though "Frankenstein" is actually the creator.
Colin Clive plays the "mad scientist" obsessed with creating life with his own hands. However, he is unaware his hunchbacked assistant "Fritz" brings to him a murderous, violent brain to control the body he created from corpses he collected from graves and gallows.
Boris Karloff is wonderful as "The Monster". He was very good at making "The Monster" a sympathetic character.
Other actors are good at their performances. The only one I did not like was Frederick Kerr's performance as "Baron Frankenstein". He seemed to be dazed and struggling through his lines most of the time.
Another minor problem was audio quality. In wide-shots that showed the actors performing in a distance from the camera, they could be barely heard. It is quite obvious that there was no microphone close enough so they could be heard clearly. Another scene has Colin Clive deliver a line with a thunder-clap sound effect masking his line, but that was done to please the censors of the time since it was blasphemous at the time to talk about God (the line was "Now I know what it means to be God!!").
The flaws are totally forgettable, since this movie is done so very well. "Frankenstein" is good enough for children, but they should be old enough to understand this is just a movie.
I will probably be crucified for this, but I've always felt this was a film that was badly aged and inferior to Browning's DRACULA. Wait! Don't misunderstand me... I'm not suggesting that this isn't a masterpiece - it is, and along with DRACULA is one of the most important horror films ever made. But there's just something about it that feels so... artificial. Maybe the things that make most viewers prefer this to DRACULA are the very things that make me feel the opposite: Perhaps I'm turned off a smidge by what I see as James Whale's very show-offy direction. Perhaps I prefer Tod Browning's much more straightforward approach.
Yes, FRANKENSTEIN is a classic and I love it. I just happen to think DRACULA is better...
"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.
Mary Shelley's brilliant novel about birth, playing God, what makes a monster or a man, and the dangers of technology gets a twisted macabre early-talkie treatment in a now classic film. Actually, it's beyond classic. It's an iconoclast. That rare level where a piece of art is so inspirational and influential that it seems to exist outside of time as we think of it, like it always has been and always will be. Boris Karloff's performance, what more can be said about it really? It's soulful and haunted, moving and frightening. His gaunt appearance and labored walk might not accurately reflect how the monster is described in the book, but it gives across the tormented and tortured soul at the center of the work. There are some dark, macabre, and disturbing images for the time period. Seeing two men wait in the cemetery to dig up a freshly buried body is dark enough, but seeing those same two men cut down freshly hung bodies is just plain macabre and twisted to the next level. The plot might not be completely faithful to the novel, but it correctly captures the tone, mood, characterization, and general feel.
Saw this in my AP Lit class after we read Mary Shelley's book...wow, there was no Igor in the book, and Frankenstein did not pitch little old crazy biddies down a well either.
Reminds me of staying up late on a Saturday glued to the Channel 4 late night Universal double bills. Very atmospheric, great sets and of course Boris is the one and only Monster.
For the most part I enjoyed this, but a lot of the time I couldn't get past the (relatively) primative effects. Perhaps I've been spoiled by today's big blockbusters, but this film didn't have me fearing the monster.
From the opening scene to the climax, this movie is fantastic. Boris Karloff is absolutely fantastic as the best monster of all time. Bride Of Frankenstein is also just as good, so check that one out, too!
I had to watch this in school. It was totally dated and cheesey. The acting was bad, the speical effects were bad, and overall, I'm glad technology caught up to the storytelling ability of writers.
Ok, by now James Whale's "Frankenstein" looks very dated, simply the movie hasn't really stand the test of time. But what we have here is pure cinema classic. Colin Clive is great as Dr. Henry Frankenstein and Boris Karloff did not become a movie icon for nothing. The story is classic and the movie, even for being dated is still a good hour of cinema entertainment.
Karloff was a fantastic looking monster... He made great sounds... Clive was great in expressing his God-like feelings... Great screams from Clarke... Sad what happened to little "Maria." A great looking lab structure... This movie was the pioneer in 1931 to create great visual effects... The bonus feature "Boo" was very creative, funny & entertaining with a narrator with a great sense of humor...
High marks for setting the standard for the new genre of 'chiller"so long ago. Although not really scary at all. Karloff is fantastic as the monster. Some scenes are quite fantastic. Some great set pieces, e.g. the laboratory and the windmill.
This movie captures a certain amount of simple science fiction and wonderful imagination that is hard to come by in film today. This may very well be responsible for the entire horror genre. Frankenstein pulls no punches and is outrightly scary. It's certainly interesting to go back now and see what was believable then. It's refreshing!
In my opinion, it was Frankenstein, not the earlier Dracula, 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 lion's 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 Frankenstein and thus, no Bride of Frankenstein, and thus, no Universal Studios.
its a good movie, but i liked the second one better, its so sad at the end when frankie is screaming cuz hes been trapped in the burning windmill, but this movie turned an obscure english actor into a household name, and made karloff a star :)
MCT:July 30, 2008
MCT:July 28, 2008
MCT:July 8, 2008
MCT:June 29, 2008
MCT:June 15, 2008
MCT:May 16, 2008
MCT:May 12, 2008
MCT:April 28, 2008
MCT:April 15, 2008
