Frankenstein (1931)

The Worst Film Ever

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Of course, one of the best monster movies of all time, and one of which we all know, it's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. What's funny is most people get confused, and think the monster is called Frankenstein. In reality, Frankenstein is the name of the scientist who created it. Being that this film is from 1931, starring the amazing Boris Karloff, it really is far ahead of its time. Beautiful effects, and a plot line that doesn't drag along and bore you like a lot of older monster films. In the age it was made, the film must have been absolutely terrifying. A humongous mash up of body parts made into a body that has the mind of a criminal. Sounds like some kind of horrific drug trip. My overall opinion of the movie though? It's wonderful. I've always been a fan of Karloff's and I could watch it again and again.

For one of the first talked movies, the performances are very reasonable, but who steals the show is really 'the monster' Boris Karloff with his image and interpretation. With little more than 1 hour in duration, there are few dead moments and the film manages to grab attention from beginning to end mainly for not losing time with secondary issues unrelated to the plot, but also due to its theme and its victorian-ghotic atmosphere. Unfortunately near the end there are some plot holes: how did that man knew that whoever killed the little girl had been the monster?, how come the little girl could not swim if she lived near a lake or was the lake so much deep so near the shore that she could not reach it?, how did the monster passed unnoticed by the village then found and entered the house of its creator, no less? But apart from these cuts in the narrative (that's me being picky, I know) and the very last scene that does not fit the atmosphere of the movie, this film is a classic to be treasured and respected. So I'm really glad it's still very alive among the cinephile community so many years after its creation :)

"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.

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.