While this adaptation also eschews some of the complexity of the original novel, and largely truncates it for time, this film, like "Dracula" before it, has largely transcended the source material. While enthusiasts of the genre would largely recognize the disparity between the film and the novel, to a more casual viewer, this film is very much the definition of "Frankenstein," both in terms of its visual design of the creature as well as the signature (and oft-parodied) set-pieces. Even those who have never seen the film in its entirety would recognize large swatches of the story, based on nothing more than cultural osmosis. Additionally, the make-up, a creation of Jack Pierce and the glorious happenstance of Boris Karloff's distinctive visage, has become one of the most instantly recognizable icons of cinema.

They really don't make 'em like this anymore. They're trying to again, like The Mummy with Tom Cruise, but it totally sucked beyond belief. Here, we have the tale of a mad doctor named Henry Frankenstein (In the book, it was Victor. Source material!) who is taking pieces of dead bodies and using them to create life with electrical devices which he has perfected. After he creates the monster, he becomes repulsed by it and leaves to finally marry Elizabeth. The monster gets loose and wreaks havoc on the town, so the villagers whip out their handy torches and pitchforks and begin to hunt the monster down. If you love old school horror, you'll love FRANKENSTEIN!!!

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 :)

Since I had only seen The Creature From The Black Lagoon's movies, I figured I would give the other Universal monsters a chance. After watching The Mummy and now this, I may be moving on to greener pastures. While this wasn't really bad, it was a bit boring and there was lots of stuff that didn't make sense. Most of the actors have American and British accents but during the entirely too long pre-wedding scene, everyone is dressed like a German stereotype. I didn't mind that when they were outside in the dark there was tons of echo, I know they didn't have good technology back then. At least they were able to have it really be dark, A feat that tons of later movies couldn't accomplish. But why do the "mountains" look like the surface of the moon? There's literally nothing growing in their mountains. The story itself is quite weak with lots of filler. I wasn't expecting much and I didn't get much. But the acting was decent and it looked OK. Four stars.