George Taylor
I've always loved this movie. Since I first saw it as a little kid until today. It's a classic that, unlike many over done movies today, has no flab to it. It's simply a great movie. The story is well known, Doctor Frankenstein creates life and it causes him all kinds of misery. The role that made Karloff, who called the monster his best friend, is one of sympathy for the real evil in this movie is the Doctor, who creates life and then rejects it. Simply a brilliant movie with an excellent cast.
cinephile-27690
Yes it is. I have seen it twice and the 71 minutes fly by! I had seen parodies of the story and even read the novel and Young Frankenstein, but I never saw the real deal until I was 16. It never ceased to amaze me. If you are worried about this scaring you, know I found it more shocking then scary. And he is a MONSTER, not a villian-he does not intend his evil actions, he was literally created that way-by mistake. This is one of the greatest horror films of all time-see it!
alexanderdavies-99382
"Frankenstein" ranks as one of the very best horror films in cinema history. Scene for scene, it is virtually unmatched in its acting, direction, photography and writing. It's influence on the horror films that followed is unparalleled. In my opinion, "Frankenstein" overshadows "Dracula" as the former movie is a much more professionally made one and is a lot more entertaining. There is nothing I would want changed about "Frankenstein." I enjoy this film each time I view it. Boris Karloff was made a star overnight, in a career-making performance and James Whale sealed his own success with this film. Even though Karloff is fourth billed, he steals the film. He turned what could have been a one-dimensional character into one of great depth. Credit must go to Jack Pierce for the exceptional make-up that he created. It is interesting to note how different a film "Frankenstein" might have been if the original director Robert Florey and original star Bela Lugosi had remained. Their version would have been just as visually striking as the one James Whale made but a rather depressing film all the same. I doubt Lugosi would have bothered to create much of a performance, seeing as he wasn't very keen when offered the role. His screen test as the Frankenstein creature has long been lost but I am given to understand that his make-up resembled that of the creature from the silent horror film, "The Golem." However, James Whale intervened to replace Robert Florey - who wasn't very happy and Boris Karloff was cast as the creature. The rest, as they say, is history. Dwight Frye gives a very good performance as the sadistic assistant, whose untimely end becomes somewhat justified. Colin Clive is very good as Frankenstein - he is far removed from the more evil interpretation given by Peter Cushing. Edward Van Sloan is good but bland, as is John Boles. Mae Clarke is surprisingly effective as the love interest but Frederick Kerr as the elderly baron is absolutely brilliant! The running time of the film is only 66 minutes but what an enthralling 66 minutes it is! Screen horror would rarely be as good as this.
WildestDreams
Fast-paced and engaging. Gothic atmosphere is immersive. The creators used the novel as a springboard to invent a sort of separate mythology. They succeeded totally.I don't pretend to be an expert on old cinema. But I do need to explain how impressive this is: Even with fewer tools at hand to obscure the fiction of a motion picture, I could not outsmart this movie. I watched 1931's 'stein and the '35 sequel back-to-back, alone and in the dark. I was then victimized by various nightmares throughout my sleep. To the parties responsible for these high- caliber classics: well-played, folks.
AD
