Telling an old story in a new way is a colossal task that many undertake, but few succeed in. Creating an original story, while staying true to the underlying themes and structure of the original is a difficult balance to maintain. However, The 1931 film adaption of "Frankenstein" is possibly the greatest example of a reimagined classic story told right cinematic history. The underlying themes of Mary Shelley's tale regarding whether scientific inquiry can go to far and the what makes someone a monster are preserved and relayed brilliantly through out this movie, while also forming an identity of it's own. It's because of this film that the depiction of Frankenstein's monster as dead eyed, flat headed behemoth has been the default image of horror for generations. Frankenstein is a timeless tale warning about what happens to those who fly too close to the sun, and the 1931 film adaptation more than lives up to its title.
... View MoreFor 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 :)
... View MoreScores 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.
... View MoreFrankenstein, (though not the very first adaptation), is one of the best re-imagining of the classic horror novel by the late Mary Shelly. The film's leading portrayal is the Frankenstein Monster (Boris Karloff), the body language expressed by Karloff makes you feel sympathetic for the creature. The character of Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive), the madman that creates the monster is relentless in his pursuit to finish the creature even when it means stealing brains from the university. The hunchback Friz (Dwight Frye), gets afraid of a skeleton while attempting to steal the normal human brain, the jar drops to the floor causing Friz to pick the abnormal one instead. The film does have a few extra characters that are close to Frankenstein, but they are somewhat bland and forgettable. Dr Waldman is decent enough, but is killed early on, which was a little predictable. The film has many great moments that make you feel sympathetic for the creation. Despite having the brain of a criminal, the monster does have good intentions. I don't like the way that in the movie, Henry isn't horrified at his creation and feels like a mean person. Overall, the film has it's flaws, but the bleak atmosphere, and the stronger characters make this movie. 8/10
... View More