Frankenstein (1931)

I give it five for being the first (monster) horror movie of the modern era. And yes, the Bride of Frankenstein was better.

It creaks a bit with age now, but has fared far better than 1931's "Dracula". Karloff is superb, showing various subtleties of emotion-- fear, rage, loneliness, pain, tenderness-- despite the obstacle of thick, physically-torturous make-up. I've always been fascinated by Colin Clive, with his weathered, semi-handsome face that resembled something out of a Goya painting. An alcoholic bi-sexual, he died young, and alone. The final disposition of his cremated remains (I guess the proper word is "cremains") remains something of a mystery. Clive could ham it up with the best of them, but when he really wanted to, he could be an actor of intense power. The film remains a classic, although, like Irishgit, I personally prefer the sequel "Bride Of Frankenstein". Funny story (to me, anyway): I'm distantly related (not genetically) to old-time character actor J. Carrol Naish. My father told me this once in an off-hand sort of way when I was a kid watching a re-run of "House of Frankenstein", in w... Read more

The first horror movie of a list of thousands I have seen. Saw it back in 1959 on Shock Theatre. Fantastic movie.

Very good, and very well made. I prefer the Bride of Frankenstein sequel.

Interesting, entertaining and still creepy after all these years. Boris Karloff is now legendary as the monster. I find it interesting that even though the makeup job done on him was done over a hundred years after the novel was written, it is now taken for granted by everyone that that's the way "Frankenstein" looks. Dwight Frye is a perfect "Fritz." Colin Clive doesn't get as much recognition as he should as the perfect Dr. Frankenstein. "Well if I could discover just one of these things...I wouldn't care if they did think I was crazy." And Henry Frankenstein's sarcastic father is hilarious!

There may be other versions that are more true to the book, use more realistic or hideous makeup, special effects, have better sets, and locations. But I still respect this one as the first successful attempt to bring Shelley’s very original and imaginative morality play to the screen. Boris Karloff was also very adept at showing us the confused anger as well as the sympathetic side of the “monster” using only facial expressions and body language. And who doesn’t think of this classic makeup artistry when you hear the word Frankenstein? In the 70+ years since this movie was produced the familiar square head, stitches, bolts, tacky suit and big shoes have become more than a costume in an old movie – they have entered the realm of American film folklore. I’m sure there will be more productions of this story in the future, and some will no doubt be very well done - but I don’t think any will ever totally eclipse the first.

Good film, but not one of the best. I think that of James Whale's four horror films, FRANKENSTEIN is the least striking. Of course, Karloff's performance is poignant and of course, it looks like a German expressionistic film, but while it is very good, it does have it's fair share of slip-ups, some forgivable and some not. BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is much better.

Compared to the later re-makes of this movie, I think the later ones are much better. The technical affects are adequate, although we have all been spoiled by the masive modern strides in this area. The only horror signified in the tale is that of man's inhumanity towards man, and the movie is a stark rendition of an attempt at other horror instead of that which the story portrays. Also, many fail to note that the 'monster' was Victor Frankenstien's alter-ego.

Good fun for us horror fans when we were kids. Used to love to watch them on the late show.Technically, it left alot to be desired.

Of course this film is good! People don't keep watching and talking about a movie after almost seventy years if it isn't. Unless it's unbelievably bad, that is, which, in and of itself is a kind of greatness, really. Well, this film is not in that category. The only reason I gave it only four stars, instead of the full five, is by way of acknowledgement to the modernists out there that, were it made using today's technology, it could be better. Funny thing though. It hasn't been made "better". Just differently. The story is simple enough. Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive), assembles a vaguely human-looking body from various parts assembled from grave and gallows. Unknowingly, he puts a damaged brain into it's large, remarkably flat head. He brings it to life ("It's alive! It's alive!" Line restored to new prints after about sixty years- "In the name of God, now I know what it feels like to BE God!"), learns that it is brain-damaged, and rejects it. It escapes, kills a litle gi... Read more

A superb example of man's inhumanity to man, and man's ego. Why try to perfect God's perfection? Omitted line in the movie was "I know what it feels like to be God!"

Maybe I'm spoiled by the abilities of contemporary movie producers, but this film is not scary or exciting. It's even worse if you've read Shelley's novel. The characters are flat and the ending is trite. Pass on this one for some newer scary movie.