Customer Reviews
It might even horrify you... - By: Matthew Mercy, 04 Jun 2008 
James Whale's 1931 film of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is one of those `museum piece' movies that are still regarded as all-time greats, especially by more senior critics, but which can prove to be a bit of a slog for today's audiences. Of course, the movie was a trend-setterin more ways than one, & features one of cinema's all-time finest performances from Boris Karloff as the tragic Frankenstein Monster, whilst Whale's straight-faced direction, the splendid sets, the awesome make-up, & Colin Clive's hysterical turn as Henry also contribute to the movie's overall effect.
Unfortunately, the effect of the film is lessened by the generally mediocre scripting & several below-average supporting performances. Mae Clarke is weak as Henry's bride Elizabeth (nothing like as gorgeous as Valerie Hobsonin the later Bride of Frankenstein), whilst the forgotten Clark Gable look-alike John Boles is almost invisiblein the tedious role of Henry's best friend. Edward Van Sloan & Dwight Frye are nowhere near as effective here as they werein Tod Browning's Dracula (made the same year), whilst Frederick Kerr's camera-hogging Music Hall turn as Henry's father is one of the most excruciating acting performances I've seenin any 1930s' film, & totally out of placein what is supposed to be a straight-faced horror movie (`Are ye, by jove').
Whilst both the blackly comic Bride of Frankenstein (1935) & the action-packed Son of Frankenstein (1939) are superior to this movie, from a historical perspective this first film with Karloff as the Frankenstein Monster is one of sound cinema's great early achievements, & a lasting monument to his status as the horror genre's first real star.
Also included here is a good documentary, `The Frankenstein Files', previously featured on Universal's 2001 VHS release of the movie.
still a classic after all this time. - By: Mr. A. E. Ward Davies, 10 Mar 2007 
what better film for boris karloff to become a star than to be cast as the creature for "frankenstein."
to think this production could have been vastly different originally, with frenchman robert florey directing & bela lugosi appearing as the creature. considering lugosi's eventual attempt at the character years later, i'm glad he wasn't cast for this film.
the brilliant direction of englishman james whale can be seen & felt throughout the entire film. plus the incredible sets built for the film are almost expressionistic. whale was certainly a man of vision & ideas.
the cast are first class; my personal favourite will always be boris karloff. he brings such depth to a character from the first time he appears & what an entrance. walking backwards through a big door & then slowly turning round for everyone to see. more effective than lugosi's entrance as dracula. colin clive epitomized the role of the mad scientist as frankenstein. dwight frye is greatin his limited screentime as the assistant fritz. edward van solan is passable but rather dull.
this version of the film has been restored slightly with the full scene of the creature playing with the girl by the lake.
the documentary on the making of the film is very good & detailed.
as far as i'm concerned, "frankenstein" will always stand as a groundbreaking classic of the horror film.
Great Film, Bad Edit - By: Mr. A. E. Hall, 08 Mar 2006 Universal Studios was without question the most influential studioin the whole of the horror genre. From the silent classics like Phantom of the Opera through to Dracula & the Wolfman, they created some of the alltime great legends of cinema; And Frankenstein is probably the finest of the lot. Although not my favourite of the cycle of horror films it is surely the most refined & brillaint.
James Whale directed the film with loving care for every detail & the sets are simply superb. Every image that is now associated with the legend seems to have come from this film. The makeup for the creature (as Karloff preferred to call him) is also miraculous & again, has now been copied so many times that it has become a cliche. Karloff is of course incredible as the misunderstood & tragic protaganist & plays the part with much more heart than would be afforded the role by later characters. He also says more without uttering a single word than great actors like De Niro couldin hundreds. Colin Clive, Dwight Frye & many others are also brilliant (with the exception of Frankenstein's father who ruins every scenein which he appears).
The reason I give this film 4 stars rather than five is down to the edit & the final scene. The film comes to a climax with the windmill burning, but as the film was much more terrifyingin its day, the studio executives stuckin a final scene with Frankenstein's father drinking a toast to his son. The scene has no bearing on the film whatsoever & leaves a sickly tastein the mouth. My advice is to stop the DVD before you get there, it is not worth watching even once! The other little snag is the edit. The creation scene includes one of my favourite lines of alltime where the mad doctor, on seeing his horrible creation come to life has to be restrained 'in the name of God',in a fit of insanity & ego he cries: 'In the name of God...Now I know what it feels like to be God'. The line is simply stunning. However, to watch it I must watch the making-of-documentary. When the film was released on TVin the 50s, certain religous pressure groups 'passed judgement' on the film & forced the line to be overdubbed with thunder & lightning to considerably lessened effect. It is just such a shame that no restored versions seem to bother putting the original linein rather than the sanitised version.
So, if they rerelease this film with the great line included, & you stop before the ghastly final scene, you will have a film good enough to knock Gone with the Wind & many other classics like it right out of the water!
Easy to see why it's a classic - By: Elise, 28 Jan 2005 Frankenstein is so well known that even if you haven't seen the film, you will know the cadaverous image of Boris Karloff as the monster. Karloff as an icon of cinema history is probably why there have been relatively few remakes of the film - you cannot think of anyone who could actually BE the monster.
Basically we all know the outline of the story, it has become ingrainedin our culture. Henry Frankensteinin convinced that he can create a living being from dead bodies, & does so with the help of an assistant (who surprisingly, for me at least, is called Fritz not Igorin the film - though he is an ugly hunchbacked dwarf). Then, the story goes, the monster goes on a rampage. This, like Igor, is also not fully true, Frankenstein's monster kills Fritz only after being tormented by him, & then inadvertently kills a little girl, who he has been playing with by trying to float her on the lake, the way the two of them have been doing with flowers. We are led to what Mary Shelley wanted us to see, that the monster is an innocent who did not ask Frankenstein to create him, rather than a "real" monster. Generally the creature invites compassion rather than fear, & it is his treatment by others that is the real horror of the film.
Karloff's is the really memorable performance of the film. It was made only a few years after the advent of sound &in this film many of the actors are either ex-silent film actors or ex-stage actors. Whatever their background there is a slight tendency to ham things up a little. This is never a big drawbackin a horror film, but it is Karloff's understated, silent performance which makes this film a true classic.
Boris is Best! - By: Amanda, 26 Oct 2003 Probably the best & most powerful adaptation of the Mary Shelley book, superbly acted by a virtual Hollywood unknown who made the part his own.
