How can I pick apart something that has become so much a part of our culture? Karloff's portrayal of the Monster is timeless and Colin Clive is bug-nuts as the Doctor. He's quite insane and I still have not been able to buy the fact that he could have or would have wanted a bride for his own. He supposedly snaps out of the work funk he was in when he created the Monster but his character is too crazy for me to believe he could have or would even want a normal marriage. The guy is a grave-robbing, mad scientist! Back to Karloff, there's nothing really frightening about the Monster. I was much more sympathetic to it than I was toward any of the characters of the film. I don't think that was the original intent of the director, though. When this film was released, audiences were probably appalled by it. Maybe it's the Herman Munster effect that endears Karloff's Monster to us.
One thing that made me laugh was when Dr. Frankenstein gets thrown off the top of the windmill, lands on one of the vanes and then drops to the ground. The Doctor is injured but he survives. Tough guy to survive that fall.
The fact that this was scary to audiences of the day is hard to believe because its really quite tame to view today. The original Dracula is the creepier of the two, but I do prefer the look of "Frankenstein" to that of "Dracula".
Its a classic film that can still be enjoyed today. For a film that's nearly 100 years old it holds up surprisingly well. The film is well designed acted and shot. While it does not provide the same special effects and terrors of modern horror, its still a film that can scare someone to there very core. Its a true masterpiece of horror that I think that we can all credit for being the start of something new and intriguing.
This is a classic for a reason, it’s a must see. Most of the movie is a 6 or 7, but the last 20ish minutes, with the child scene and once the mob gets going, the movie is a 9 or 10. I remember thinking when I was a kid how tragic the scene with the child was (although I’m not sure I knew what tragic meant at the time, the idea definitely conveyed). He was out of flowers to float and made the next logical step in his damaged child like mind. I also wondered what happened to the poor kitten. As an adult watching old movies it’s amazing how lackadaisical parents are about watching their children. I was a child of the 70s and we ran the neighborhood alone, but leaving your kid that couldn’t swim, alone near a lake while you go to check traps…I would think that was poor judgment even in the 1800s when the story was written.lol One thing the movie didn’t do, was explain, even a little, how the father came to the conclusion that his daughter was murdered and how they came to the conclusion that it was the monster who did it. I mean the way I see it he had an alibi, everyone saw him crashing a wedding. At one point when they are listening for the monster that is loose in the wedding building the monster “groans”, and it sounds more like a fart box which I laughed at. Anyway I’m going to research how many actors were hurt in the making of this. Colin Clive or a stunt man rolled his leg over a torch in one scene which looked like it could have hurt and I doubt they had much in the way of safety precautions or equipment in 1931. If you get a chance read up on Mary Shelley’s life and all the people that were part of her life…talk about tragedies.
Its no where near as horrifying as it would've been in its time but there are still some aspects of Frankenstein that still work in the modern day. Boris Karloff is still the most legendary portrayal of the character and you do feel little sympathy for Frankenstein and some of the other characters. I was also a little surprised with some of the scenes that are featured in this movie. It wasn't afraid to get a little gruesome.
Finally, I saw Frankenstein!
I liked it, it is good and it is definitely a mark in the history of Cinema but I must confess that I thought this Horror Classic would blow me away and it didn't.
Although I think it needed more creepiness in the atmosphere, I didn't felt that as much as I needed. Another thing that bothered me a bit was also the over the top acting, very teatrical. It should have been more natural.
The Frankenstein Monster is a memorable character! A huge and strong creature that never asked to be in the world. Boris Karloff was great incarnating this beast. I found Fritz maybe a bit too silly although I know he is supposed to be really mad. The set design is amazing, some of the sets are very well done!
It may not have the impact that it had in 1931 but it's definitely a remarkable work that needs to be seen.
How can I praise or pick apart something that has become so much a part of our culture? Karloff's portrayal of the Monster is timeless and Colin Clive is bugnuts as the Doctor. He's quite insane and I still have not been able to buy the fact that he could have or would have wanted a bride for his own. He supposedly snaps out of the work funk he was in when he created the Monster but his character is too crazy for me to believe he could have or would even want a normal marriage. The guy is a grave-robbing mad scientist! Back to Karloff there's nothing really frightening about the Monster. I was much more sympathetic to it than I was toward any of the characters of the film. I don't think that was the original intent of the director though. When this film was released audiences were probably appalled by it. Maybe it's the Herman Munster effect that endears Karloff's Monster to us. One thing that made me laugh was when Dr. Frankenstein gets thrown off the top of the windmill lands on one of the vanes and then drops to the ground. The Doctor is injured but he survives. Tough guy to survive that fall. The fact that this was scary to audiences of the day is hard to believe because its really quite tame to view today. The original Dracula is the creepier of the two but I do prefer the look of "Frankenstein" than "Dracula".
Made the same year as the Lugosi-Dracula, this is the other star-making (for Boris Karloff, this time), hugely influential (or archetypal, you might wanna say) Universal horror vehicle. Both films have in common a rather stunning, german expressionism-influenced gothic visual style and a plot that seems rather simplistic for today's standards, kinda like the writing and editing is still stuck in the silent era and has yet to catch up to the storytelling possibilities of sound film. Dramaturgically though, this one is much better paced than Dracula.
I can't help but notice how rooted in catholicism both of these films are, so it's easy to understand why they were percieved as shocking and blasphemous at their time. Both revolve around a particular sin - in Dracula it's the sin of promiscuity (after all, Count Dracula is coming for your daughters...), while in Frankenstein the sin is hubris, playing god if you will at a time when medicine and particularly surgery was making rapid progress - to the layman, it probably wouldn't have seemed too unlikely that humans would soon create life out of dead body parts. The religious aspects become all the more obvious to me considering that the Jehova's Witnesses still forbid blood transfusions - and thus, most kinds of surgery - to this day.
this flew by quick. the monster is a compelling character and deserved so much better. maria was deserving of the world. this is a beautiful film, the painted backgrounds behind the rocks during the mob search scene were very cool and iconic and i loved it.
It is an horror movie classic.
Interesting movie with some really sublime moments: the expressionistic graverobbing scene, the father's walk through town with his daughter in his arms, etc. Karloff, obviously, has a genre-defining performance and everything that happens with him is fundamentally interesting. The movie struggles, though, because of an insistence on focusing on the Doctor's home life: the father's annoyance with his obsession, the nagging fiancee, the random friend. Momentum slows during these scenes, and they do not sufficiently allow us to connect with the characters in a way that would make the conclusion of the film any more tense.
Second film of Peacock's Halloween movies presented by Jamie Lee Curtis and it has many great movies on there. This came out the same year as Dracula and is in the same cinematic universe. I think people like this better is bc there's no "outdated" effects like in Dracula but I personally liked Dracula more. Boris was great in this but like superhero movies from the 70s to the 2000s, the great horror actors got typecast and only got roles like or similar to their famous one, very sad when that happens to actors and actresses.
One of the best classic horror films! It's a multi-layered horror classic that packs much into its brisk runtime. I like this one a lot more than the other universal horror films because it actually holds up. You can easily how much influence this film has on the genre. Colin Clive portrays the madness of the character incredibly well and Boris Karloff gives a menacing yet sympathetic performance as the monster.
I enjoyed this more than Dracula. Karloff gets all the praise but I was surprised by the actor who played Frankenstein. He was really great. Judging the rest of the performances by modern standards is stupid.
This rather loose interpretation of Mary Shelley's classic novel picks the bones of the source material before spinning off into something very different. Both involve discredited scientists, experimenting while in isolation, and their successful attempts to create new life from the broken remnants of several others. That's where the similarities end.
The movie is certainly less intellectual, less challenging, with a tendency towards a kitschy, garish side. Doctor Frankenstein is more comically unhinged, recklessly dashing about the screen or pantomiming the shapes produced by his personal Tesla coil in a fit of exhilaration. The monster also differs from his printed counterpart, trading eloquence and ambition for a taste of raw, base humanity. In this case, I prefer the film's version: an articulate quarry with existential objections is less compelling than an impulsive toddler in a looming seven-foot frame. Or maybe it's just because this version is so incredible well-realized. Boris Karloff is a showstopper, and not just for the timeless, genre-defining makeup that's weighting him down. There's a sad, quiet pathos to his take on the creature, beneath the fiery temper and blunt physical presence. Even when he's at fault, he draws us in. We wish he were more present as the screen veers back to his tormentors, over and over again. But then again, maybe a larger bite would spoil the flavor.
A risky take for its time, one that ran afoul of censors across the globe, Frankenstein is surprisingly well-realized, considering its age, and its morals remain both simple and profound.
It's undeniable that the production values and cinematography of this movie are amazing. The fiend's make-up was also incredible. It's a really well-made movie from beginning to end. But I guess that that's where it ends for me, because I didn't really feel the rest of the movie. The subpar acting was off-putting at times, and the pacing was atrociously fast. It felt really rushed, with very few breathing moments, and it also lacked a lot of key moments to establish necessary information for later on, particularly for the character arcs.
1h10 minutes does not serve this movie imo.
I thought this was a brilliant film. The story is very interesting and entertaining. I thought Boris Karloff did a great job portraying the iconic character that is the monster of Frankenstein. I thought the scene in which the entire village goes to the mountains to defeat the monster was great for example. This is one of those classic horror films that I can watch multiple times and still enjoy, definitely a film I would recommend.
Universal’s classic Frankenstein is a groundbreaking horror film that stands as one of the greatest films ever make. Mary Shelley’s immortal tale is adapted for the silver screen and tells the story of Dr. Frankenstein’s obsession to create life, and the consequences that follow when his creation goes awry. Boris Karloff gives a truly outstanding performance as the Monster, making the character both terrifying and sympathetic. Additionally, the makeup and set designs are captivating, and create a dark and Gothic visual style. But in addition to offering thrills, the film explores controversial themes surrounding science and morality. Frankenstein ushered in a new age of horror films and spawned one of the first major franchises of the genre.
A simple story and good makeup on the monster that still makes him look super creepy today.
"Look! It's moving. It's alive. It's alive... It's alive, it's moving, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, IT'S ALIVE!" - Henry Frankenstein
Such an iconic scene in our cinematic history. This was my fourth watch of Frankenstein in my 6 years on Letterboxd. It is still as good as it was the first time. Each rewatch is a joy. And after Bela Lugosi, Boris Karlhoff couldn't be left out of Hoop-tober 6.0.
An astounding piece of film which shall out live us all! Made for so little money and still manages to trounce any modern multimillion dollar adaption of Mary Shelley's seminal novel.
Each and every time I route for the Monster - abused and feared from his creation. Man is the real "Monster".
Bravo Mr. Whale!
Review by Dsnake1VIP 8BlockedParent2018-10-04T16:30:08Z
Frankenstein, a movie primarily about how Doctor Henry Frankenstein deals with the fallout of his monster actually coming to life, holds up very well almost ninety years from its release.
Starting with the monster itself, we find a fantastic character. Without any lines of dialogue, the filmmakers and Boris Karloff had to use actions and emotions to display the motivations of the monster, and they did a fantastic job of it. The fear, confusion, and longing that the novel describes are evident in the monster's actions, to the point of pushing the audience to root for him.
The rest of the characters are also a bit of fun. Baron Frankenstein, played by Fred Kerr, was also a hoot. He played a no-nonsense character that functioned well in the comic-relief role needed with Edward Van Sloan's Dr. Wladman and Mae Clarke's Elizabeth being quite serious, even dramatic. Colin Clive, the man who played Doctor Henry, did a decent job in his role as well, pulling off the role of being consumed by his work, even when he desired to be free from it.
The acting, overall, was a touch more theatrical than I would prefer in a horror movie, but it wasn't so distracting that it pulled me out of the film. The film is a ton of fun to watch, but I do have to say it isn't exactly terrifying. The atmospheric creepiness is somewhat lacking compared to modern-era horror, even going back fifty years. That being said, the movie, if thought about and rewatched, does a good job of displaying how the fear of the unknown, and letting that fear take over, can be the real monster.