Frankenstein (1931)

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Built a heavy foundation for the Universal Horror films together with "Dracula" that was released the same year! Everything about it is brilliant, the atmospheric sets of creepy graveyards and stereotypical "science" labs, to the Hunchbacked assistant Igor and the mad scientist himself(who's manic laughter and quote is legendary). Of course then there is the monster, played by Karloff and a ton of makeup! And virtually every scene he is in, is memorable!

1931 Frankenstein..... I am a big fan of universal and hammer horror. When it comes to monsters, the Wolf Man and Dracula; they will always be my favorites. When it comes to film, Frankenstein; is at the top of the list. The film called on a great selection of talent. Boris Karloff, did a miraculous job playing the monster; the man's acting talent knows no bounds.The story, by Mary Shelley; was a good tale, that actually opened cross over opportunities with future classic horror ideas. Pitting the Wolf Man against Frankenstein, and Dracula; with many of the favored horror actors reprising their original roles.Classic horror films like Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Wolf Man; gave us a template, for the creation of future masterpieces of horror; that many directors and producers of modern horror look on to this day.1931 Frankenstein, is on of the best films of its time, and it will be enjoyed for many more years to follow.

Frankenstein of 1931 is one of the most iconic horror film and many of the tropes we take for granted ,like a mad scientist in white,Gothic image, the hunchback sidekick, wild mobs and the look of the creature ,all of them have taken cues from this film. Credits where credits do to Boris Carloff whose acting really sell the film and make you believe that what you see is real, with his movements and facial expressions. Also the reactions of the rest of the cast help to the selling of the illusions very well.And the scenery is very well made. And here is were I will become critical to Frakenstein ,to the readers be gentle.DISpute the status of classic the film has(rightfully so) ,we have to be honest back in the thirties was scary but now it doesn't have the same impact as the next generations we have grown accustomed to it. To add to that scenes that ones scared the crowd now there are two reactions ,"wait I didn't get it?" and two "That was funny". Also what hampers the film more is its short duration, clocking only one hour and a quarter, so the building up of the tension it isn't fully realized. Finally my biggest issue with the flick is who must it differed from the source material making it completely different from the original book of Mary Shelley. The ironic part is that the film was one of the starting points of Gothic Literature and the film similarly was one of the pioneers of this imagery in films. I am OK with the creating freedom for adaptations ,but after a certain point ,my tolerance is used up.In the end ,I see and I knew before I watch the film why it is considered a classic ,however this shouldn't make any product immune to well thought critic for its flaws, which don't diminish its quality, but show what to do better the next time.

Scores Overall: 3/10 Script: 4/10 Acting: 2/10 Visuals + Cinematography: 6/10 Character development: 0/10Attempting to make a classic 1931 horror? Look no further because I have the recipe. Take your source material from a classic novel, say Frankenstein, crap all over it, give the actors virtually nothing to work with in terms of dialogue, then put all the mushiness together, and voila, you've got your own 1931's Frankenstein. This movie is one of the most dreadful experience I've had the "opportunity" to sit through. The plot is weak and filled with holes unanswered by the director, the screenplay is nothing but cheese, the pacing is incoherent, and the actors' performances so wooden they could easily be compared to Kristen Stewart's. Sure, cinematography-wise, the movie is somewhat less off putting, considering the fact that it was made more than 70 years ago. Some shots must have certainly been quite revolutionary at the time, but cinematography and visuals alone can hardly help this film's lack of entertainment.The movie's source material, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, is a lesson to its audience in many ways; it anticipates a person's downfall through greediness of knowledge; warns of the devastating effects that neglect can have on people; and all around shows a humane side that can be matched by little other novels. It, however, skips over all the character development and inner thoughts necessary to recreate, or come close to, the same emotional depth that its novel counterpart possesses. I personally feel like the film was too focused on its sound effects (which compared to nowadays effects, are pretty much noises) and production design, which of course, is very important in a movie. However, since the emphasis is put too much on these aspects, the movie falls short of the profundity that its source builds towards. While watching the movie, I could not help but realize that there was virtually no development in the monster's character, as opposed to the immense amount of evolution that Mary Shelley's bestow on her monster. This was the real problem with the movie, that its characters are way too flat to convey any kind of emotions for the audience. This cannot be backed up more by its incredibly short, 70-minute, running time, which is extraordinarily condensed compared to other good movies, or just about any movie at all. The time span of just a bit more than an hour is unable to do the novel justice, which is why the movie fails for me. Technically talking, I thought the script was way too "big". Cheesy, over- dramatized, and just too "big" for its own good. The actors are given very little opportunity to show their feelings and acting because of the terrible screenplay, which explains their extremely wooden acting (notably Colin Clive's). As for the "groundbreaking" visuals, I have no problem with it, except that it takes away a lot of the director's attention from what could have been a well-made and emotionally drenching plot.