User reviews

This movie comes off as silly at times and brilliant at others, but it is probably considered to be one of the greatest monster movies of all time. The greatest thing to come out of this movie was the performance of Boris Karloff as the monster, it is just incredible how much emotion and feeling he was able to convey while under all that makeup. The direction of James Whale is spot on with a great use of sets and outdoor locations, in fact, the only real flaw in the film lies in the script, which has a few situations that make very little sense and because of which interrupts the films flow. But other than that, Frankenstein is a classic and very important movie, and it launched Karloff on to a great career, plus the sequel Bride Of Frankenstein is even better. 4 Beards Out Of 5 Check out my video review @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GomHi6vIds4

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 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 spin off 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 prop-master'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 an open mind and watch it in the dark. Boris Karloff and James Whale have created a monstrously fun film.

Revisiting Frankenstein is always a wonderful experience. I watch it today with the same enthusiasm and awe I did nearly 35 years ago. Everything about the film is so perfect. Acting, direction, cinematography, set design, plot, dialogue, special effects, etc. are top notch. And although each of these areas deserves to be discussed in detail (and have in the volumes that have been written on Frankenstein), I'll focus on two areas that really standout to me - Boris Karloff as the monster and James Whales direction.

Is there a more iconic image in horror than Boris Karloff as the Frankenstein monster? I sincerely doubt it. Even those who wouldn't be caught dead watching a horror film are familiar with that image. Beyond Jack Pierce's make-up, Karloff is amazing in the role. Even with the make-up, Karloff gives the monster life. We are able to see and feel the emotions the monster goes through. There is no better example than the scene with the monster and the little girl. As the monster stumbles out of the woods, there is a cautious look about him as his experiences with humans have thus far been less than satisfactory. But when the little girl accepts him and wants to play with him, the look of caution is transformed into a look of utter happiness. He smiles, he laughs, and he plays. But that emotion is replaced by one of confusion mixed with anger when he accidentally kills the girl. It's all there on Karloff wonderful face. It's this life that Karloff imbibes in the monster that makes Frankenstein a real classic.

I've always thought that James Whale's direction was ahead of its time. In an era when directors were using what I call the "plant and shoot" method of filming, Whale made his camera a fluid part of the action. Whale takes the viewer beyond just watching moving images. He uses the camera to take the viewer into the scene. A small example is the way Whale filmed characters moving from one room to the next. The camera moves with the characters. Another example is the tracking shot Whale uses as the father carries his dead child into the town. As I said earlier, it has a fluidity in the way Whale filmed these scenes that makes it seem more natural. Finally, the way Whale introduces the monster is a highlight of the film. The monster backs into the room. As he turns, Whale shows the monster with three quick, ever tighter shots, ending with a close-up of the monster's face. Every Hollywood star of that era could have only wished for an introduction like that.

While I have done nothing but praise Frankenstein, I'm not such a fan that I can't spot flaws in the film. The major issue with me has always been the way the scenes of action, horror, and violence are inter-cut with scenes of tranquility and bliss. I realize that was the way things were done in the 30s so people wouldn't, in essence, overload on horror, but it can make the film seem a little disjointed. But it's difficult to hold Whale overly responsible for this custom of the period.

'Frankenstein', like Todd Browning's 'Dracula' released earlier the same year (1931, a landmark year which also saw the release of Fritz Lang's dazzling serial killer thriller 'M'!), is an important movie and should be compulsory viewing for any SF/horror fan, but it isn't a dull movie to be studied, it is a wonderfully entertaining movie to be ENJOYED. Okay, the modern viewer has to try and watch it without jaded and cynical eyes and take it in its historical context to really appreciate it, but that isn't difficult. The acting is often hokey, the special effects, which were astonishing 70+ years ago, may look a little primitive by our standards, and the movie isn't anywhere near as terrifying to us as it was to 1930s movie audiences, but even so, I can't see how anyone can not LOVE this movie! Director James Whale was a lot more sophisticated and original than Todd Browning, and as much as I enjoy 'Dracula', 'Frankenstein' is a much better movie, and the best from this era, not counting its brilliant sequel 'Bride Of Frankenstein' which to mind mind actually surpasses it. Talented character actors Edward Van Sloan and Dwight Frye, both from 'Dracula', reappear in different but similar roles, and Colin Clive is fine as Henry Frankenstein, the prototype mad scientist, but the real star of the show, and the main reason this movie has lived for so many years, is the utterly superb performance by the legendary Boris Karloff as The Monster. I think Karloff is amazing in this and doesn't get the respect he deserves because many dismiss it as "just a horror movie". 'Frankenstein' is one of the most important and influential movies ever made, and is one movie I NEVER tire of no matter how many times I watch it, and James Whale is one of the most underrated directors of all time, looking at his innovative work in this, 'The Invisible Man', and especially 'Bride Of Frankenstein', the greatest sequel in the history of motion pictures. What a movie! What a director!

"We are about to unfold the story of Frankenstein, a man of science who sought to create a man after his own image without reckoning upon God. It is one of the strangest tales ever told. It deals with the two great mysteries of creation – life and death. I think it will thrill you. It may shock you. It might even – horrify you. So if any of you feel that you do not care to subject your nerves to such a strain, now's your chance to – uh, well, we warned you". -Edward Van Sloan.

Although this movie does not shock or thrill, it fascinates. The movie's cast is well worth repeating, Colin Clive, Boris Karloff, Mae Clarke, Edward Van Sloan, ETC. The movie contains obvious hints to German Expressionism, as the production team was inspired by films like Nosferatu, or The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. The Gothic style fits the setting and the sets work beautifully. This movie would forever solidify Frankenstein in media and launched Boris Karloff into stardom. Although there is no musical score,it still works well without it as the horrifying scenes are much more emphasized than if it had music. All in all, this is a movie everyone should see, if you haven't seen it, go ahead and view this masterpiece. If you have seen it, now is the time for you to watch it again. "However, if you do not care to put your nerves in such a strain, now's your chance to-uh, well, we warned you".

Few will disagree that "Bride of Frankenstein" is in so many ways a better picture than the original. But since they both involve the same director and primary cast, I consider them as two parts of the same movie.

I have no complaints at all about "Bride". It certainly benefits from a more deeply thought-out script and an adequately bankrolled sense of delight in the macabre. The unarguable "improvements" in the sequel are often, for me, the very things that makes the original so special.

The major technical improvements during the short years between the original and sequel have made "Frankenstein" seem perhaps older than it is. The lack of a score and less showy camerawork give it almost a documentary quality, not unlike the famous Hindenberg newsreel footage. "Frankenstein" feels like this is an actual record of exactly how it looked and felt the day Dr. Frankenstein did his evil deed!

I'm not saying that "Frankenstein" seems primitive in a bad way--unlike '31's "Dracula" with it's "point the camera at the stage because we can't move the camera" lack of technique. The oldness adds to it's greatness. The graininess of the picture, the shrill sound effects and James Whale's unusual cutting style of deliberate jump-cuts (especially in the scene when the Creature makes his big entrance and, moments later, reaches longingly for the sunlight)contribute to the realness of the story and the film.

It gave me nightmares as a kid; only now, I know why.

After having been kicked out of school for his controversial work, Dr. Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) has been experimenting with the scientific forces behind the creation and perpetuation of life in his private laboratory. With the aid of his assistant, Fritz (Dwight Frye), Frankenstein finally tries his coup de grace--piecing together human parts to create a "new" life. When his experiments do not go exactly as planned, Frankenstein and his fellow villagers are endangered.

Like a few other classics, director James Whale's 1931 masterpiece, Frankenstein, is one of those films that deserves to have every frame analyzed. Unlike most, Frankenstein is one of those classics that actually has had almost every frame analyzed. Countless theses and dissertations have been written about the film and its subtexts, so I can't imagine that I'd add anything novel along those lines in the space provided here. Instead, I'll take a brief look at some of the more straightforward aspects of Frankenstein that, in my view, contribute to its masterpiece status.

The opening of the film has a very hefty dose of atmosphere, which continues more or less throughout its length. Although it was obviously filmed in a studio--the sky is a painted backdrop complete with wrinkles, this fact actually adds to the atmosphere of the film, even lending a slight surrealism. There is no score to speak of aside from the music playing during the titles, but the sounds that occur are just as effective, such as the ringing bell during the opening. There are also a lot of subtle visuals, and some merely subtly effective, such as the grim reaper at end of a long panning shot in the beginning of the film.

The seriousness and realism of the grave-digging scene, complete with Henry Frankenstein throwing dirt at the grim reaper, is beautiful foreshadowing. As in the rest of the film, there is nothing jokey about this situation. Watch how effectively the actors convey a sense of toiling and franticness, how they convey the "weight" of the coffin. This is a curious fact about the film overall. Although the material is relatively melodramatic, and occasionally extremely so (especially in the case of Henry Frankenstein), the performances always come across as serious and realistic rather than campy (with the possible exception of a single snarling "growl" from the monster when he encounters Elizabeth, Frankenstein's bride-to-be). Contrast this to how Tod Browning's Dracula plays in the present day. In that film, Lugosi--although I love his performance--does come across as occasionally campy, especially in the close-ups of his "hypnotically staring" eyes. Even the one character that is meant to give some light comic relief, that of Frankenstein's father, Baron Frankenstein (Frederick Kerr), is comic only in that the character is a bit sarcastic, with a dry sense of humor. As such, Kerr portrays the Baron seriously, also.

The production and set design, as in the sequel, Bride of Frankenstein (1935), adds volumes to the atmosphere and beauty of the film. The interior of the "watchtower", where Frankenstein's private laboratory is located, is reminiscent of German expressionist films such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), and they both contrast and cohere wonderfully with the more symmetrical, right-angled lab equipment constructed by Kenneth Strickfaden.

Because there is no score, the actors have no help in amping up the emotions in their performances. Despite this, rarely has either Boris Karloff's monster or Colin Clive's mad doctor been matched. Whale helps with some ingenious shots and sequences, such as the "progressive close-ups" when we first see the monster. He also gives us a number of "stage-like" devices that work remarkably well, such as the pans through cutaways in the set that in the film's world do not really exist. Interestingly, Whale has still had the cutaways decorated as if they are extant in the film's world. Although they may seem dated now, Whale's technique of fading to black between scenes also amplifies the sense of "literary chapters" in the story, and gives an effective, ambiguous sense of time passage between the scenes.

Whale also achieves some wonderful, more understated scenes of horror in the film, often set up by contrasts. For example the severe contrast of the villager walking into the wedding party with his daughter, and the surreal bucolic adventure of the villagers working their way through the countryside to find the monster.

Many younger viewers might have a difficult time watching Frankenstein if they are not used to black & white, slower paced, understated films with a different approach to acting. These classics are an acquired taste for younger generations, but of course it's a taste worth acquiring.

The first thing one needs to realize when watching this movie is that it is useless to compare it to Mary Shelleys book. It has borrowed very little from the book, and has a soul that is all its own. Taken as its own piece of art, it is truly an instant classic: the performance of Karloff is wondrous to behold. He can get more emotion through his eyes than other actors can with a great piece of dialogue. A great great movie.

Just as the Beatles influenced popular music for decades after they came and went, so did "Frankenstein" shape the landscape for cinematic horror. Had this film been an artistic and/or commercial failure, the American Horror Film would have evolved in a totally different direction, had it survived at all.

It is remarkable that the conventions established in this early talking film would continue to be utilized by serious filmmakers for over four decades, until "The Exorcist" (1973) changed the rules.

However, "Frankenstein" remains a flawed classic, partially because it's characters have, over time, become almost comical (even without the endless satires), partially because of some of the supporting performances (which inspired the endless satires), and partially because of the primitive technology available at Universal Studios in 1931. Even the tiny Hal Roach Studios produced more sophisticated product at the time.

But what of the assets? Charles D. Hall's art direction is striking, as are some of Arthur Edeson's photographic compositions. Colin Clive remains compelling as Henry Frankenstein, the intense medical adventurer, although he seems pushed to the brink at times by director James Whale, a smart, imaginative filmmaker who didn't always know when to apply restraint.

Then there is Boris Karloff as the monster; Karloff was (and is) underrated as an actor, mainly because he became content to lend himself more as a personality rather than as a performer in numerous films, especially after the mid-1940's. But Karloff, aided by magnificent makeup designed by Jack Pierce, perfectly captured the misery, desperation and loneliness of an artificially fabricated creature in this film, guided by Whale's unexpectedly sensitive direction.

"Frankenstein" survives as a flawed, but historic -- and necessary -- document that set the course for one of cinema's most enduring genres.

Although I have seen better prints of the film, this DVD issue of Universal Studio's famous FRANKENSTEIN is a magnificent package that is sure to delight any fan of classic horror. The film itself has been restored for content, and the Skal-hosted documentary--which traces the story from Mary Shelly's famous novel through its numerous film incarnations--is a delight, including numerous interviews with various historians, critics, and Karloff's daughter. The bonus audio track by Rudy Behlmer is also quite interesting, as are the various biographies and notes, and although the short film BOO is a spurious mix of footage from NOSFERATU, Dracula, THE CAT AND THE CANARY, and FRANKENSTEIN, it is an enjoyable little throw-away. All in all, it doesn't get much better than this.

As for the film itself, the production of FRANKENSTEIN was prompted by the incredible success of the earlier Dracula--but where Dracula is a rather problematic and significantly dated film, FRANKENSTEIN was and remains one of the most original horror films to ever emerge from Hollywood. Much of the credit for this goes to director James Whale, who by all accounts was deeply influenced by silent German film and his own traumatic experiences during World War I--and who mixed those elements with occasional flourishes of macabre humor to create a remarkably consistent vision of Mary Shelly's original novel.

Whale was extremely, extremely fortunate in his cast. Colin Clive was a difficult actor, but Whale not only managed to get him through the film but to draw from him his finest screen performance; Mae Clarke is a memorable Elizabeth; and Dwight Frye, so memorable in Dracula, tops himself as Fritz. But all eyes here are on Boris Karloff as the monster. Karloff had been kicking around Hollywood for a decade, and although he appeared in quite a few films before FRANKENSTEIN he never really registered with the public. But in this role, acting under heavy make-up, weighed down by lead weights in his shoes and struts around his legs, and without a line of intelligible dialogue he offered a performance that transcended the word "monster." This is a suffering being, dangerous mainly through innocence of his own power and the way of the world, goaded from disaster to disaster to disaster. Even some seventy-plus years later, it is difficult to imagine any other actor in the part.

Karloff would play the monster again in two later films, one of them directed by Whale, but although THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is a remarkable film in its own right, this is the original combination of talents and the original vision. Truly a national treasure, to be enjoyed over and over again. Strongly recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Growing up in the early 60's this movie scared the heck out of me every time I watched it. The sets, the Gothic atmosphere, the make up and Boris Karloff make this movie a true horror classic. The movie may be vintage by today's standards, but even without the blood, gore and special effects of the modern horror films this movie is still number one in my book. Although the film was made 68 years ago, and numerous horror films have been made since, come Halloween you can always find Karloff's monster on a display somewhere. Without a doubt this movie is the grandfather of all horror films.

After buying the 'Legacy' DVDs for the classic Universal Big Three (Wolf Man, Dracula, Frankenstein monster) I've had a good time going back & revisiting all the old favorites of my childhood. I started with the monster & have to admit I found this first interpretation of Whale's monster story to be a bit lacking. Not bad, but not as great as it's hyped to be, unlike its sequel.

The opening setting for the film is certainly impressive, with the tearful mourners and the 'mad' doctor and henchman lurking in the background, waiting to take the freshly buried corpse (He's just resting, waiting for a new life to come). Colin Clive sets the tone for the movie as he tosses a big shovel full of dirt in the face of the statue of Death that's positioned behind him. Clive is really the star in this one & it's his performance that kept me into this one for the most part, particularly the unforgettable sequence as he gives life to the monster in front of the stunned eyes of his soon to be wife Elizabeth, Victor, and his old mentor Dr. Waldman.

Any review of FRANKENSTEIN wouldn't be complete without a mention of "Karloff". He gives a good deal of humanity to the monster & I certainly empathized with his plight of being thrust into an alien world, where everyone, including his maker, is all too ready to shun him because of how different he is from the "normal" folks. But Karloff's screen time feels awfully small compared to how much we get of him in the "Bride". There's a feeling that there could've been a lot more for Whale to explore with the monster in the movie, but couldn't due to the limited runtime.

To conclude, I'll say 'Frankenstein' is just a "good" movie that certainly is a sufficient starting point for the greatness that would come 4 years later.

7/10

I try and keep my modern biases out of my movie going, but I feel this film is so dated, that it's almost unenjoyable. Not to say that I haven't enjoyed films even older than this one, but I feel that in what it's trying to do, scare, horrify, terrorize, it's not so effective anymore. To explain further, it's a bit boring, and drones on in certain instances, and doesn't do a satisfying job at being a horror film. On this basis I can't rate it as good since In fact we are viewing this in the modern era, and I can't say it will be a good film to watch. However I do appreciate it as an historical piece which is why I chose to watch it, and for that it interests me, but not entertains.

A brilliant young scientist creates life from the dead but lives to regret it when his creation goes on the rampage.

Though inevitably dated and primitive by modern standards, Frankenstein remains a tremendously impressive film and a tribute to its still somewhat under-rated director, the eccentric Englishman James Whale.

Where so many early talkies were static and wordy, Frankenstein skips unnecessary dialogue and exposition and drives through its plot at a speed that seems almost indecent nowadays. Compared to overblown remakes like Kenneth Branagh's 1994 version, Whale's work now seems like a masterpiece of brevity and minimalism. His constantly moving camera, incisive editing and dramatic use of close-ups are a mile ahead of anything far more prestigious directors were doing at the time. Expressionist photography and eccentric set designs lend atmosphere, menace and help augment some rather ripe performances; a foretaste of the paths Whale would tread in the sequel Bride of Frankenstein four years later.

And then of course there's Karloff. With comparatively few scenes and no dialogue he nonetheless manages to create a complex, intimidating, yet sympathetic creature - one of the great mimes in talking cinema and thanks in no small degree to the freedom given to him under Jack Pierce's iconic make-up.

A historic piece of cinema, and one that still stands the test of time as both art and entertainment.

Forget about Mary Shelly's novel. This is pure Hollywood, at one of its greatest moments! "Frankenstein" is one of those films that speaks not of its original inspiration, but of its director. James Whale has created a cinematic masterpiece, surpassed only by its sequel. It is a shame that Karloff's interpretation and Jack Pierce's make-up have for the past 70 years overshadowed the novel. At the same time, however, both men gave the monster, and the movies, an entirely new personality. Besides, what would we have if all movie makers stuck unwaveringly close to the original source? Nothing very original, I'm sure. If you want the book, read the book. If you want a good scare, or laugh, or cry, see the movie.

I just wonder in awe at the uniqueness and charm of this movie, the atmospherics, sets, backgrounds, lighting, effects, sound and visuals etc. Even by watching you just get a totally uncanny sense of being part of and being real-time witness of a magnificent period of cinematic history.

You can almost taste the 1930's. It's the nearest thing you'll ever experience of whats its actually like to get in a time machine. Just switch off the lights and you can even imagine yourself being a 1930's cinema goer. Beautiful experience!

This film is nothing less than a classic! It just encapsulates the best of everything involved in movie making!

While Boris Karloff retains a genuinely frightening presentation of the monster and the messaging is clear (although gene technology, transplants, cloning and the ability to grow organs coupled with A.I. is considerably more terrifying), this picture, viewed through younger eyes or older eyes in a modern context has not stood the test of time. I can be sentimental about its affect on me in the 1970's as a child and recognise its impact on release in 1931, its place in history, but some of the acting is absolutely atrocious and Baron Frankenstein is the most ridiculous and misplaced character and casting I've ever come across.

Even though in 1931 this movie was already a remake, this is an age-old classic. Done in 1931, fully black and white, this amazingly creepy tale still bears the marks of a genuine masterpiece. Having withstood the tests of time, I find this brilliantly directed portrayal just as darkly enchanting as I did 30 years ago. It is hard to believe that it has been over 70 years since this wonderful production was first released, but that not withstanding, it is a hauntingly beautiful, disturbingly tragic work of pure genius which is still just as compelling today as it was when it was made.

In my opinion, this is also Karloff's best work. In this desensitized society, I feel honored and humbled to be able to view a movie of this caliber. When it was released, it was the scariest thing to be put on film. Today, there are gore effects, CGI, and a plethora of other mediums with which to shock and amaze us.

Soon, the makeup artists of old will be wholly lost to the industry. If for no other reason, we should cherish these classics. Witness the industry when true artisans plied their crafts.

The casting of Karloff in this part was the epitome of ideal casting. There was no other actor at that time, who could have contributed to this role, the darkling charm which Karloff demonstrated through this character. Of all the remakes done of this classic, I still favor the original work. The only remake which contains even the smallest degree of the magic of this original was the 1974 Mel Brooks parody, "Young Frankenstein."

I love this movie, and even by today's standards, it still rates a 9.1/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Just because a film is "the original" doesn't always mean that whatever follows automatically is going to be inferior. Regarding this one, I much prefer the 1994 "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein," a very underrated adaptation.

Most of the times I do agree that the original is better than the re- make, but not aways, and particularly when it comes to horror or science-fiction films. A case in point in this classic, which I re-visited on VHS in the '90s after a long hiatus.

When I saw it again, I was surprised that very little of the film had the monster coming to life. Most of it centered around what happened before the culmination of Dr. Frankenstein's work. Afterward, we see the result and then the famous last scenes in which the townspeople went after the monster at night with torches.

Although slower than I remembered, I still found the first half of the movie interesting. However, I think the film lacked one essential ingredient for a good "horror movie" - atmosphere. I saw much more of that atmosphere in "The Bride Of Frankenstein," or the Dracula films - old and new, or the Val Lewton series from back in the 1940s.

I will forever remember hearing Colin Clive yelling, "It's alive!!!" but other than that, this did not turn out to be that memorable or exciting...at least not now, over 75 years later. A lot of those '30s horror classics look too dated and are too slow. The big exception, of course, is "King Kong," which has never been equaled.

James Whale's direction and Boris Karloff's performance as the Frankenstein monster help to make FRANKENSTEIN a true classic horror film. Karloff is able to transform the monster into both a sympathetic and terrifying creature, which is no easy task. Karloff was able to find the humanity in what many others have portrayed as a lumbering, stiff-walking oaf. However, James Whale and Boris Karloff together were able to craft a film that remains a masterpiece of early horror to this day.

"Dracula" may be the first classic Hollywood scare film in the sound age, but "Frankenstein's" power to horrify remains uniquely strong. That's in large part on account of its existential, post-Christian theme, it being a rare horror movie that not only eschews the supernatural but fairly cries out against concepts of a caring divinity or an afterlife.

No wonder the makers felt they needed to say something at the outset about the mistake Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) made of conducting his experiment "without reckoning with God." Clearly the idea is to put 1931 moviegoers more at ease, but this introduction, so wryly given by one of the film's actors, Edward Van Sloan, also pushes forward the atheistic theme the rest of the film will pursue less gingerly.

Cooped up in a lonely watchtower set against a dark, foreboding sky, Dr. Frankenstein builds his own blasphemy stitched together from robbed bodies. Given life by lightning, the Monster (Boris Karloff) quickly gives Frankenstein cause to regret his creation, while sowing terror across the countryside.

"Have you ever wanted to do something that was dangerous?" Dr. Frankenstein asks his former mentor Waldman (Van Sloan). It's this transgressive quality, both in the character and the film named after him, which gives "Frankenstein" much of its frisson even today.

The chills begin right away, when we first observe Dr. Frankenstein and his assistant Fritz skulking around the edges of the world's spookiest cemetery, watching hollow-faced extras who look a few short breaths away from their own funerals mourning someone whose body Henry plans to steal. No middle-class moralist he!

There's a lot of artful gloom in "Frankenstein," part of it carried over from German expressionist cinema like "The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari" (Dwight Frye as Fritz, Frankenstein's assistant, performs a function here similar to Conrad Veidt's in "Caligari") and part of it the function of director James Whale and the others responsible for the look of the film; set dressers, special effects hands, and most notably makeup man Jack Pierce, who gave Karloff his distinctive, deathly look, stronger here than it would ever be again.

"Frankenstein" holds true to its hard tone at some loss to the picture's quality. There is little humor or light in this film, something sorely missed in a dated period piece like this, and the acting around Clive is notably weak across the board, except for Frye and of course, Karloff. It helps Boris that his character remains mute, what with exchanges like: "But Elizabeth, you can't do that!" "I must!" pocking the script. Clive does well, albeit with a character who is rather inconsistent, going all of a sudden from ready lawbreaker to civic paragon. In the denouement he isn't chased by a mob, but leading it.

Though stitches do show in this somewhat patchwork creation (sorry, couldn't resist), there is resilient majesty in its greatest scenes, like our first glimpse of Frankenstein's face (three close ups, each moving further in from a different angle) and the dreadful image near the end of the father taking his daughter in to the village fair. Though I admire "Frankenstein" more than I enjoy it, it's still a powerful thing to watch.

In my mind, if you are going to create a movie that is based on a book, then actually use the book as a reference when making the film. When watching the 1931 version of "Frankenstein", I can easily see that the only things the movie shares with the book are the characters' names and what the scientist's experiments were. There is no one named "Fritz" in the book, the man that works on the experiments is Victor, not Henry. (Henry is Victor's little brother that is killed by the creature at a very young age). The way that the creature is made evil (by giving him a "criminal" brain) is completely inaccurate. The creature has a normal brain and begins his life as a benevolent, while grotesque, human being. In short, there is NOTHING that this pitiful film has in common with the novel. This is an awful representation of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", which is an excellent book. If you want the story, read Shelley's novel, and forget this inaccurate and dim-witted, (not to mention untalented) movie.