Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Doomtomylo 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.

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

calvinnme ... how prescient of Universal Pictures! Well, actually, no. And actually, if you have read the novel, this film only loosely resembles it. For some reason Victor Frankenstein is "Henry", and John Bole, a family friend, is named "Victor". For some reason and background never given "Victor" is in unrequited love with Elizabeth. There is no motivation given here for Dr Frankenstein wanting to give life to a dead being like there is in the novel. And the monster he creates is mute and without reason, also unlike the novel. And yet it all works. Even now, 87 years after it was filmed it is a fun watch, not the shocking one it was in 1931, and we probably have Mel Brooks to thank for that, but that's another story. The big news here is the direction. James Whale, in one of the few smart moves Universal made in the early 30s, was given great authority with what projects he took on to direct and how he executed his job. What he produced is an artistic masterpiece. Why is all of that odd electronics in Dr. Frankenstein's lab? I am an electrical engineer and I don't know. Why did Whale decide to make this film "present day" when almost every other filmed version of Frankenstein is set in the 19th century? Again, I don't know, but it works. It allows Mae Clarke as Elizabeth to be dressed to the nines in the fashions of the day, and because "the townspeople" themselves are not yet living in modern times, it allows the settings to be gothic. There are just some unforgettable images - the townspeople after the creature as hundreds of torches that spread into the night, the old decrepit windmill almost as a distinct character in the film as the monster's last refuge, the peasant carrying his dead daughter into the celebration of Dr Frankenstein's impending wedding, the monster and the doctor facing each other with the look on the monster's face that says "you got me into this and you are getting me out - we are in this together".And Whale does all of this in 70 minutes with minimal dialogue and maximum use of atmosphere with an ending that is left open and is definitely precode. Highly recommended.

Julian R. White 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.

merelyaninnuendo FrankensteinA beautiful little kid playing with a not-so-human stranger and welcoming him on her territory is probably one of the most innocent scenes I have encountered in the cinematic history (the writers speak more than they say here). Frankenstein conveys surprisingly more on moral term and less on its clichéd generic characteristic which is the key here that allows it to enter into the bigger picture. James Whale projects the on-paper vision with a great conviction but fails to offer on the gripping side to it by stretching some of the work here (needs better editing and it comes off more disappointing considering its runtime) resulting into an overlong sequences even though being only of 70 minutes. Apart from that, Frankenstein is more satisfying than horrifying, more on morality and satire than entertainment and more human than any other.

Artur Machado 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 :)