- I'm a monster. - Only if you act like a monster.'
More recently, The Mummy (1999) star Brendan Fraser triumphantly returned to big cinema with an existential solo in the drama The Whale (2022) of Darren Aronofsky's big original. After winning the Oscars, Brendan Fraser returned to public interest, and not everyone remembers, or does not know at all, that Fraser’s filmography has a strong biopic “Gods and Monsters” (1998), which received an Oscar for the best adapted screenplay. In this film, Fraser showed a subtle and intellectual game with Ian McKellen. And McKellen in turn embodied the image of James Whale. James Whale was popular in the 30s of the last century, when he shot a number of horror films that later became classics of the genre. And it all began with Whale in 1931, after signing a contract with Universal Studios, when her boss Carl Lemmle Jr. offered Whale any film to choose from, and the director decided to stage a film adaptation of the classic Gothic novel by Mary Shelley Frankenstein, or Modern Prometheus (1818).
The horror film Frankenstein was released in 1931. And it became the second in a series of characteristic genre films, thanks to which Universal Studios began to ironically call the House of Horrors. The first such film was the adaptation of Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula, which was released in the same 1931 year, and was a commercial success, and the image of the vampire count, created by White Lugosi, became canonical. James Whale decided not to lag behind, and the little-known at that time Boris Karloff was invited to the role of Frankenstein monster, which became a breakthrough for him. And this character became no less canonical than Count Dracula, and in many ways this was achieved thanks to the outstanding work of makeup artist Jack Pierce, whose merits then for some reason the studio bosses decided not to notice. But the creak in the performance of Boris Karloff, with his flat forehead, short haircut, sunken cheeks, a look under the brow, as well as “bolts” on the sides of the neck forever turned the character of Boris Karloff benchmark, if someone once again decided to film the novel by Mary Shelley.
Universal Studios continued the trend of script processing, as was the case with Dracula. The plot in comparison with the original literary source was noticeably modified, whole storylines were cut out of it, which largely influenced the development of the action, revealing many facets of conceptual stories. However, in Frankenstein, the bet was made on the same terrifying image of the monster, as well as on his actions, although here it should be understood that the monster has the intelligence of a newborn and can not distinguish good from evil. And Boris Karloff even under thick layers of makeup was able to convey this, which makes the monster even imbued with sympathy, because often the people themselves forced him to commit evil deeds. Again, this is seen as an attempt to defend oneself, as a primitive instinct for self-preservation at the most primitive stage. And try to convey it when you're wearing heavy equipment, makeup on your face, applied for three hours a day. So such an acting work from Boris Karloff can only be admired.
And if so much has been said about Boris Karloff, then the rest of the cast is worth mentioning. First of all, this concerns Dwight Fry, who played Fritz - assistant to Dr. Henry Frankenstein (by the way, Fry also starred in Dracula). And it is Fry who gives the monster hatred of people, because this character clearly has sadistic tendencies, so it is he who causes hatred in the first place, and it is still necessary to be able to play. He got used to the image of Henry Frankenstein and Colin Clive, but, as mentioned above, important storylines fell out of the script, so it is sometimes very difficult to properly understand the motivation of the scientist who created a living creature from the parts of the bodies of the dead. And not only from Dracula to Frankenstein Dwight Fry moved. Edward Van Sloan followed the same path, with whom they developed a strong friendship. But Edward Van Sloan was in the same sense unlucky as Colin Clive when his character was not given the right depth, as was screen time. But all these actors are real professionals, so even with a minimum, they tried to squeeze the maximum out of the way.
Like Dracula, Frankenstein became a commercial success (the horror film grossed $12 million with a budget of $291,000), which allowed Universal Studios to develop its own movie universe, which was called Universal Monsters. But although it left its mark on the development of cinema in general, but still purely subjective feeling the main achievement I would like to consider the creation of canonical images. And thanks to this Boris Karloff has forever written his name in the history of cinema. Therefore, despite the claims to the plot, the assessment of Frankenstein:
9 out of 10
“Dracula” made a splash, so Universal studio hastily began to gain momentum in order not to leave chances to competitors. The next picture was created along the already beaten road and was based on the theatrical play based on the cult novel by Mary Shelley “Frankenstein, or Modern Prometheus”.
Young scientist Henry Frankenstein was obsessed with the idea of creating a living being, completely ignoring the family and his lover. Conducting experiments together with his humpback assistant Fritz, he combined different parts of the body of dead people and created a monster from them. Of course, attempts to train him and make him reasonable did not lead to anything good.
Initially, it was planned to attract Bela Lugosi to the role of the Monster, but, in favor of everyone, he brilliantly embodied Boris Karloff. If “Dracula” was more likely to entertain the viewer than to present some author’s idea, then “Frankestein” is a much more holistic work.
The storyline intrigues to the very end, and the monster itself causes great sympathy. It’s scary and touching at the same time, even though Karloff doesn’t say a word for the film. The fate of the character, although predetermined initially, subconsciously wanted him to be able to become a full-fledged person. The film is not outdated in its idea, despite its venerable age. Even apart from the monster universe, I would recommend it.
After Dracula, the world met a new monster. Frankenstein's monster! The classic representation of the mad Dr. Frankestein is met with scientific attempts to create life in a dead body. The tape aims at the life of Henry Frankenstein, which baffled the knowledge of history. Where's Victor? It turns out that they are the same person. In the original novel by Mary Shelley there are all options.
Although the film reeks of the madness of the scientist, it raises philosophical concepts of life after death, the animation and transfer of the soul. For a fairly short time, the picture from the exposition goes a short way, leaving pleasant elements of the “assembly” of the monster. The excavation of corpses in the cemetery, the search for living tissue is accompanied by an eerie background, a gloomy message and gradually growing madness in the eyes of Henry (Victor). The fight against science and the opportunity to overcome the laws of nature open deeper concepts for the creature, which in the end should appear to the world.
Of great importance is the gyrus of the brain, whether the owner was good or bad, which is beautifully reflected in the subsequent. Parallel to the realizations of body revitalization, the plot pays attention to the doctor’s personal life in order to confront the main fact: science or family? The film guides the viewer in waves, opening the upcoming wedding and preparations before the revival. Mysticism and fear pour into the lab to prove Frankenstein right. The episode is entertaining and impressionable, the legendary cry: "It's alive! It's alive!" became a cult. Of course, in the dubbing of the beloved Alexei Borzunov, it is pleasant to listen to the speech, but the emotions and delight of the original, bordering on madness, cannot be compared with anything.
The world met Boris Karloff, who was destined to play monsters forever. The image gained fame, honor, and is referred to to to this day! Dark and cruel, but due to a short performance, director James Whale was able to move from the delight and contemplation of the monster to the reflection of the past life of the monster. Let the aggression look a little attracted, but attempts to stop the monster after the creation found echoes in further cinema.
Here is an irrational creature endowed with inhuman power. What are people doing? They are afraid, and fear gives rise to aggression, the protective mechanism, the instinct of self-preservation, works. He was a great child, became the main villain, curse and fate of future troubles. As for humanity in an animated infernal, the episode with the girl and the battle with its creators open two parts of one soul. Two extremes of the same essence. What could such a monster become? What's he gonna do? What is its purpose? Questions that did not bother Frankestein, and now say goodbye to the monster.
On a sad note, the tape concludes its story, leaving an open ending for further sequels and crossovers of the Dark Universe. “Frankestein” turned out to be darker and scarier than “Dracula” due to its unnatural nature. Are vampires mosquitoes in the familiar flora and fauna? However, creepy and suspense when viewed are provided.
God is not God, but the doctor turned on artificial genetics, in the end, achieved his result. The result, in other words, as if predicting future world events (remember Hiroshima and the “peaceful atom”), turned out not to be as friendly as originally assumed. But what about morality when it comes to art? Otherwise, the creation of James Whale can not be called.
The picture, which tells about a little “moved” scientist Frankenstein (again based on the novel Mary Shelley), reveals a whole emotional palette to the viewer who has not yet experienced high-quality horror (not taking into account the tolerant “Dracula” and his more successful “Nosferat”). A palette where there is a place for fear and love and compassion. I don’t think any director has been able to do that before. And to put in the brilliantly executed Boris Karloff monster the most that neither is sympathy and notes of understanding, and generally sensational.
In fact, it is difficult not to repeat itself, speaking about the recognized classics, in its high-quality execution and implementation. And here all the factors of competent cinema “on the face”: the phenomenal camera work, the chic cast (dialogues of the hero Frederick Kerr are simply delightful) and the adapted script (like a breath of fresh air after 1910) – everything is as it should be in the masterpiece. “Frankenstein” is one of those things.
Admittedly, even without external gloss, transfer this story to the meager scenery of James Dowley, the charm of the picture will not disappear anywhere. And allegories on the pond and parallels between the concepts of the importance of the human heart and brain (not in the anatomical sense) leave a quite weighty stamp of quality and understanding of the depth of the phenomenon of the monster of Henry Frankenstein.
In conclusion, one thing can be said: cinema is gradually “merging” with reality, blurring the boundaries between good and evil. And when, after familiarizing with such material, questions arise on the type “is it true that the “right way” is really the right way?”, we can confidently say that this is a success.
10 out of 10
(approximately 25 minutes of the film)
Frankenstein
Karloff vs. Lugosi - the beginning (a-ha-ha!) Jokes aside, Dracula cut a decent cashier. The bosses scratched their turnips and released Frankenstein. Another film that entered the classic horror series Universal. Bela turned down the role. Borya agreed. Choosing between actors, I will always be on Lugosi’s side. He's closer to me.
But I still cry when I review the work of the brilliant director Whale. 1931. By the way, let's deal with Mary Shelley right away. The book is a masterpiece. Whale made his (once again - his) unsurpassed movie. A couple of book moments he even stuffed in the sequel to "Bride of Frankenstein." Book and film are different things.
Think about it! Dracula is a killer. He wants blood. Frankenstein (I mean the monster, not the doctor, so you understand me) - Weil showed him as a huge child, so you have a hell of a lot of sympathy. You're worried, you're hurting. You want to shout that it's people's fault.
Yes, a mad doctor (Colin Clive's chic acting), a mad doctor's assistant (Dwight Fry's chic acting), a mad crowd with torches. You blame everyone, but not the monster. Miracles! Black and white magic and sweet gothic in one bottle. I won't say anything about makeup - an icon.
Secure. Bela or Borya is Bela. Dracula or Frankenstein is Frankenstein. And those contradictions are tearing my soul apart, ahaha. Let's fix it. The coolest Dracula is Bela. The coolest Frankenstein is Borya. Perfect! Watch the classics, love the classics, don’t forget the classics. Director Browning is worthy of your viewing. Director Whale deserves your views.
I would like to end with Frankenstein. Guys, for the sake of this film, you should become a moviegoer, honestly.
P.S.
Low bow for the scene with a girl and a flower. I can't see it without a lump in my throat. Nominated for the best moment in the history of horror!
Both the film Frankenstein (1931) and the book on which it was based - Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein: or Modern Prometheus - have been massively influential in their fields, media and pop culture. Surprisingly, they are not very similar to each other. In the film, a monster is a creature of low intelligence, whose physical appearance is markedly different from a person. In the novel, the creature becomes an intelligent, albeit terribly ugly man, whose main physical difference is his large size.
That doesn’t stop many from admiring the film as the best adaptation of Shelley’s work to date, and it’s not hard to see why. In many ways, it is not a terrible film, it is a terrible tragedy, and the creature, Frankenstein’s “monster,” along with everyone he accidentally harms, is the unfortunate victim of the ambitions of Heinrich Frankenstein.
It's a true horror movie classic that, after 88 years, still holds up perfectly. Frankenstein is one of the best horror films in the Universal collection.
James Keith brings his dark wit and peculiar style to the film. He was able to build up a very fast-paced film that leaves no dead zones. Some modern directors have reason to learn from this master.
It is also worth noting that there is no real villain in the film. A girl dies because of a monster, but blaming him for it inevitably leads to a discussion that science is responsible. In the nineteenth century, people feared that industrialization might occur, and today this debate has become a cloning issue. How many limits can we still break? Henry says he knows what it means to be God, but the film punishes him for it.
The film became the starting point for the fantastic career of Boris Karloff. Combined with the ingenious design of the makeup and the decision of the filmmakers to dehumanize it, indicating it in the credits as “?”, Karloff almost stumbled upon immortality in his first scene.
6.5 out of 10
The first thing I will say is that if you are a fan of the horror genre, but you haven’t seen this movie, then you can not consider yourself a fan of this genre, since it is a classic, and the classics are always relevant. I really liked Frankenstein, so I’ll try to explain why.
First, let’s find out what is important for the horror genre. First of all, of course, the atmosphere. The desired atmosphere can convey the plot, acting and musical accompaniment. To make something brilliant, all these signs must be present, individually, you won’t make a great horror movie. In Frankenstein, all this is present.
Plot: This item is made well for our XXI century, but it is made perfectly for that time, as it is very fresh and addictive, a kind of romance of the USA of the XX century. I'll write a little bit about the story itself: A mad scientist wanted to create a man. In order to carry out his plan, he dug up graves, collecting parts of the future Frankenstein, but when it came to the brain, the most interesting thing began, I’ll end there. I would also like to say that we should not evaluate this story according to the current framework, let’s look at it through the eyes of Americans of the last century. For starters, the plot is not very predictable, since it is not typical for horror films of the subgenre of a maniac, not counting the tick ending, that is, the happy end. There are also small plot gaps, and there are many of them, but again the film of 1931, it can be said the dawn of the film industry, which is why these small gaps do not spoil the overall impression. Therefore, this item, if measured by the current framework, it will be between 7 and 8, if you look at the then framework, it is definitely 10.
Acting: If to be honest, it was like sitting in a small theater or a big theater and watching a play, those who have been to such places will understand what I mean. The emotions of the characters were fake, but not in a bad way, just very fake, which sometimes caused a smile, especially the moment when Elizabeth, played by a not very famous actress even then May Clark, was attacked by Frankenstein, just as if I was sitting in the theater again. I also want to highlight Colin Clive, who played the role of Dr. Frankenstein, his emotions were just as much played, but to play the role of a crazy doctor who thinks he is God, turned out to be 10 points. And the last one is Boris Karloff, a certain Derek Mears of the XX century. To play the role of Frankenstein’s monster, he was just amazing, he completely got used to the role, that’s what I want to highlight. But I can’t say that about the other actors, because only these three were revealed as personalities, but also Frederick Kerr, who played the role of Baron Frankenstein, but the rest, I repeat, only differed from the scenery articulate speech, but again it is 1931 and I think it is impossible to blame for this.
Soundtrack: The musical accompaniment was typical for America of those times, such American classics for horror films, that is, playing individual instruments in a minor, I will not talk about this much, since I do not know much about music and I will not get into this sphere. I can only say that many tracks are relevant to this day and have become a feature of horror films, here Frankenstein is the ancestor of all this, not even Psycho, but this film. The music gives a very big atmosphere, I liked it more than that.
Maniac: I can't help but give our killer a separate paragraph. Frankenstein is one of my favorite maniacs of this great genre. He is completely exposed as a person, he is insane, but due to a medical error, he did not choose this path. He, despite everything, is smart, but I can’t say that he is directly very cunning and creative, in this regard, Jason Voorhees or the maniac from “Silence of the Lambs” will be better, but if you compare with the killer of the same terrible film “Bearing the Cross” or “Orphan-Murderer”, then he is a real Nobel Prize winner, despite the year of these films. Therefore, in our time, maniacs who are revealed as Frankenstein can be counted on the fingers. He's kind of craving for himself, I don't know how, but it's a fact. A very deeply made and revealed personality, thank you for that to Boris Karloff and James Whale.
Atmosphere: Unbelieveable, excellent, amazing, wonderful and other beautiful English epithets and adjectives of a delightful degree. This could have ended the whole point, but I will reveal it more because there is something to reveal. The plot, the actors, the music all together and so made the atmosphere of "Frankenstein" amazing, but James Whale did not stop there, here the atmosphere adds the castle where Frankenstein was resurrected, these black and white tones also give a strong atmosphere, our maniac himself, these lightning, cemeteries, the madness of the main character, all this just immerses you in this amazing world. This item is made really amazing, incredible, etc. etc.
Thus, “Frankenstein” for me is the progenitor of most modern maniacs, it is the most worthy representative of its genre. The only thing missing for the full ideal is the following, this is some kind of disclosure of the global problem, here James Whale shows us that man is not God, his authority does not include creating new lives, in other words, the functions of nature cannot be transferred to us, we must respect the world around us, this is the message of the director of the film. In total, I recommend for mandatory viewing, this is a true classic, any self-respecting fan of the great horror genre is obliged to watch this film, you can also watch ordinary viewers, the film is not very cruel, there is no blood and meat in particular, because of this I recommend watching from the age of 14, nothing terrible will happen to the psyche. The collections of the film speak for themselves, even in our time, not everyone will collect a huge amount of $ 12,000,000.
10 out of 10
Among all the horror novels, the undoubted "mastodon" is the classic "Frankenstein, or Modern Prometheus" by the English writer Mary Shelley. She was the wife of the famous poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, best known for creating the sonnet Ozymandia.
"Bow down!"
To me, Ozymandias, the name is the king of kings.
My works, kings, see and despair!
We all look at Napoleons. Who among us would not like to leave something behind, to add even a tiny touch to the history of the world? For many of us, the realization of the most secret dreams is the subjective meaning of life. This can be seen in the example of the main character of the feature film "Frankenstein" James Whale.
Dr. Henry Frankenstein, brilliantly performed by actor Colin Clive, is an example of a happy man - he grew up in a rich family, spends time with a beautiful bride, outstripped all his colleagues in education and created his own laboratory. What else can a young and passionate scientist dream of? In the course of the story, the viewer learns that Frankenstein all these years secretly dreamed of creating life from dead matter. The crazy dream kept him awake, no matter what. This character is literally a reflection of people moving progress in reality. He is a man of the future, a madman, in the good sense of the word, a fantasist whom nothing can stop. But, as we understand, the most terrible things are always done with the best of intentions.
Oh, in the name of God! Now I know what it feels like to be God!
The Frankenstein experiment was successful and this led to the appearance of a new piece on the chessboard of the film - a creature played by Boris Karloff. It is worth noting that when people hear the word "Frankenstein", they represent in their head exactly the canonical image of Karloff. In fact, at first glance, it may seem that this dead person is quite primitive and does not need too much consideration, but be careful, because it is much deeper than you think. This will be especially noticeable in the direct sequel to the original film, The Bride of Frankenstein. This “ubermensch”, created from different parts of the bodies of the deceased, is a rather tragic character, because if you look at some moments of the film, you can conclude that he is able to feel beautiful, see the picture charm around him, but his immature mind and lack of understanding of the surrounding social environment turn the “being” into a “monster”. This can be seen in modern society, where people who differ in views, faith and moral foundations, give rise to wars and persecutions among themselves, which obviously leave nothing but grief behind. In the same way, the creation, after a series of terrible events, was forced to run from people who became a threat to him, as it was to them.
The director of the tape told through the prism of classic horror a unique story of its kind. He did not completely repeat the plot of the original book and, with a minimum of means, possibilities and cinematic delights, looked at the idea of deification of man from a different angle. The time of creation plays along with the picture, since the aspect ratio of 4:3 and the black and white film on which the film was shot, very appropriately look within the framework of the narrative, thus creating a space inside the work. But most importantly, the movie manages, 87 years after its appearance on the big screens, to perform one of its main functions - to shock the viewer. "Frankenstein" is relevant, culturally significant, and to this day is a golden classic of cinema.
10 out of 10
I rejoice in this gloomy sky, for it is kinder to me than your human brothers.
Shortly
All such a simple in its essence Frankenstein 1931, made under the direction of James Whale has a special charm, which is not found in modern adaptations of the same work. I can give you an example of all of us “beloved”. "I, Frankenstein," where they wanted to focus on scale and epic, but in the end we didn't see either. Unlike the classics of 1931. Where everything is, and nothing else needs an introduction. What's amazing is that when I saw it today, I didn't see any falsehood, any pomp, any caricature.
Everything is smooth and smooth enough. For example, Frankenstein himself is very interesting, undoubtedly, the actor Boris Karloff, who played his role, tried to fame. What I would like to emphasize is that the picture is not a drop drawn. She walks as long as she has to go. The story is not off course, everything is smooth and perfect. So my surprise was that a pretty old, dusty movie made me feel so much, and I wouldn't be lying if I said I was a little scared. Actually, the movie is pretty dark. There are even murders! What does it cost to drown a little girl or strangle a doctor? Yes, certainly in its time, the film awakened many tantrums and traumatized hearts. At the beginning of the film you are warned about it. They want a good look, and they don’t lie. The viewing, I tell you, was great. The final scene with the mill is a separate plus. And now looking at such creations, you understand that you can not touch the classics. It's mostly bad.
There is no point in saying many introductory things about Frankenstein, except that the monster, Karloff’s hero, is most often confused with the doctor-creator himself, for the image of the monster certainly has a more central cue.
Of course, epoch-making films are difficult to consider from the point of view of comparison with modern films, which can be devoted to a separate investigation, which has, in principle, no sense. The section of the horror story begins with the images of Karloff and Lugosi, so sinister that both are natural legionaries in their origin. Although this is unlikely to affect the film, but their very essence made it possible to have a cold behavioral tone, which determined the characterization of the characters.
I want to note one really important detail – on Frankenstein you can clearly see how the script grammar begins to work, where every scene lacks atmospheric, lyrical, but simplicity and accessibility prevail – each scene leads to the development of the story, excluding unnecessary awkward information for the narrative. Found, created, revived, feared, tried to defend himself. Strictly working verbs that give the picture an action, due to which the annual countdown is unlikely to have power over it, because the tape looks like an apologist for modern tapes placed on cinema screens and having a target audience among the first courses of studentship.
I would also like to note the behavior of the characters of the film, because, in my opinion, for all other similar films, especially those fed by Universal, the actions of the characters look most authentic to the work itself and the flow of its history. Theatricality is not a way of acting, theatricality is the effect of presence, the effect is more internally emotional than externally demonstrating. In addition, the very genre affiliation of the film requires an excessive influence of emotions, since the very feeling of fear has not only the form of surprise, but also the property of relating oneself to the expression of fear and helplessness of the victim heroes.
Watching the tape is definitely necessary. And in view of the fact that the old horror stories have acquired the form of imperishable classics, and in view of the fact that the genre of targeted commercial films in the Frankenstein area acquires a sign of its quality, which now only changes the preferences of the viewer, but remains unchanged.
To watch the film, I was motivated by the desire to get acquainted with classic horror films.
This movie, like all monster movies, does not have a long time. In an hour, the picture manages not only to reveal the plot, but also to ask a very good question. Who is a monster? Frankenstein or Monster? The answer is hard to find.
The script for the film is quite simple. But it doesn’t make the film any worse. The cast is perfectly selected. Boris Karloff is perfect for his role.
In my opinion, Frankenstein is a bit worse than Dracula, but it's easy to explain. The monster and Count Dracula are completely different characters who have different, well-written stories. And in their own way they are both good, but Bela Lugosi likes me better.
The film is good, but not without sins. He's great for his time. I recommend it to all fans of the genre.
If I'm not mistaken, this is the very first film about a legendary genius who has found a way to bring the dead to life. And it would be science fiction, if the fruits of his activities did not turn out too violent and thirsty for human flesh, and, since they turned out to be such, then we have a perfect example of a classic horror film, which can be put on a level with no less chic representatives of the genre of the same era as “Dracula” in 1931 and “White zombie” in 1932, never ceases to amaze even the modern viewer, spoiled with computer graphics. Although, if we have already begun about the entertainment, it is worth noting that even in the days of silent cinema (!) Americans had something to surprise the visitors of the cinematography in visual terms, and for a lot of money real blockbusters were shot in the genres of fantasy, historical and horror, most of which can be envied by many modern talentless crafts. The authors of the film, which will be discussed, set themselves the task not only to scare the viewer, but also to surprise him with entertainment, and prove in this way that in modern cinema at that time everything is possible. They managed to show an incredible story, in which there are not only frightening and striking effects , but also a lot of plot surprises , which means that we have an example of an old movie attraction.
At the beginning of the film, we are warned that this sight can shock and frighten to death. Then we are shown a scene of the theft of a coffin from a cemetery in order to revive the deceased, followed by a scene where a scientist shows visitors the brains of a deceased man who was a mad criminal. Then the action returns to a man obsessed with bringing the dead back to life, and soon the scene begins with the resuscitation of a body created from the body parts of different people whose corpses were recovered from the cemetery and from the gallows. In his home, his father and bride are waiting for him, and do not suspect what he does. The creature created by the scientist turns out to be too aggressive and rushes at people, meanwhile, the relatives of the scientist come to where he conducts his experiments. It is not clear how the monster managed to escape, but they will catch him only when they learn that he drowned a little girl.
Yes, the spectacle is really not for the faint-hearted, but the film is not aimed at causing disgust with scenes of violence (although this is perhaps what opponents of cruelty on the screen experience at the sight of this), but at surprising with an unusual story and a rich visual that consists not only of scenes with murders: in the film gorgeous camera work, mass scenes, special effects; professional makeup of zombies, which even George Romero’s 1968 Night of the Living Dead will envy. Before us is the immortal classic of horror, which will always be remembered, in contrast to the less successful picture from the 30s “The Secret of the Wax Museum”, which could easily be replaced by a remake, released only 20 years after the original. “Frankenstein” of 1931 – a brilliant film that will stand on a par with the remakes of “The Curse of Frankenstein” in 1957 and “Frankenstein Mary Shelley” in 1994, which also surpassed the original, but did not replace it completely – these three tapes will remain the best of everything that was shot about a brilliant scientist, whose discovery served as the beginning of horrific events, to the delight of fans to tickle their nerves.
8 out of 10
I was going to see this movie a long time ago. It's a horror classic. Got it! How every self-respecting filmmaker should! I saw it. He concluded that no one owes anything to anyone. But you won't know until you look.
The film is probably a historical landmark. The visual embodiment on the screen of the heroes of the cult novel gave rise to a lot of repetitions in various fields of culture (mostly pop). The process of creating a character and shooting a film probably has some cultural and historical value from a technical point of view. That's probably it. But is it worth watching the film not for fun, but for dedication or a tick? As they say, every product has a buyer.
In general, the movie itself I was disappointed. I love watching old black and white movies sometimes. They have a certain charm, but on condition of good acting. In Frankenstein, everything is as if to say that would not offend anyone, too naive and playful. That's understandable. Actors aren't used to sound yet. The first sound film appeared some 4 years before the creation of this horror classic. The plot is again ugly simple and looks like part of an amateur theatrical production. The only thing I liked was the image of the most miserable monster, whose fate is tragic to tears. But unfortunately, the rest of the entourage had too depressing an impression on me.
So I can advise cinema only to true connoisseurs of the history of cinema or narrowly focused seekers of something based on the fact that repetition is the mother of teaching. I don’t think anyone will like the movie.
To sweeten the pill a couple of interesting facts.
Created by Jack Pearce makeup and the image of the monster protected by a special patent and will be in the exclusive possession of Universal Pictures until 2026.
The sound effect, dubbed Castle Thunder, is a loud burst of thunder during a downpour; it was originally recorded for Frankenstein in 1931. It was used extensively in many films from 1940 to 1980, especially in Disney and Hanna-Barbera cartoons and television series. It is also often used as the basis for making other sounds, such as the Enterprise warp accelerator effect in 1979's Star Trek or the X-Wing laser gun shot in Star Wars. Castle Thunder ceased to be used in cinema around the mid-80s, but is found in animation and advertising in the 90s and zeros.
All such a simple in its essence Frankenstein 1931, made under the direction of James Whale, has a special charm, which is not found in modern adaptations of the same work. Let me give you an example of what we all love. “I, Frankenstein,” which seemed to focus on scale and epic, but in the end we didn’t see either. Unlike the classics of 1931. Where everything is, and nothing else needs an introduction. What's amazing is that when I saw it today, I didn't see any falsehood, any pomp, any caricature.
Everything is pretty smooth and on its own. For example, Frankenstein himself is very interesting, no doubt the actor who played his role tried to fame. What I would like to emphasize is that the picture, well, not a drop of drawn. She walks as long as she has to go. The story is not strayed from the course, everything is smooth and clear. My surprise was that a rather old, dusty film made me so emotional, and I wouldn’t be lying if I said that even on the tape I felt a little fear. In fact, the movie is pretty dark, and there are even murders! What does it cost to drown a little girl or strangle a doctor? Yes, certainly in its time, the film awakened many tantrums and traumatized hearts. At the beginning of the film you are warned about it. They want a good look, and they don’t lie. I'll tell you, I was great. The final scene at the mill is a separate plus. And now looking at such creations, you understand that you can not touch the classics. It's mostly bad.
Dr. Henry Frankenstein, collecting corpses from gallows and cemeteries, made a terrible monster. Having done many experiments, checking everything, waiting for the full moon and a terrible thunderstorm, he and his partner Fritz decided to take a huge step. After doing all the machinations, they saw that the creature became alive.
The brain of the dead will live again
In the body that I assembled with my own hands.
With his hands..." - rejoiced Henry, but he did not yet know what troubles this creature will turn, how many lives it will destroy!
I found the plot quite interesting, it was very different from Mary Shelley’s book, probably because the writers and director wanted to create their own story in order to get more respect, but they missed the main point. According to the book, at first Frankenstein was quite kind, kind, but because of ugliness, not everyone accepted him, and he refused to create him. Then the creature began to take revenge, which was pretty logical. In the film, it goes down and it all falls on the fact that he was given the brain of a lunatic bandit. This destroyed the main idea that people are not ready to accept a person if he looks different from everyone else, even though they do not know his inner world. Of course, it was not according to the book, it destroyed the main idea, but the film still turned out to be spectacular, the plot still turned out to be interesting, although it did not have the main idea, but was malicious, ready to kill everyone Frankenstein! I really liked the acting. It was 1931, but the same Colin Clive (Henry) - the creator of the monster, plays much better in his genre than many today. He was able to show joy when he created a monster, anger when his wife was almost killed, care. May Clark (his wife) was also able to show his anxiety when she felt threatened, cared for, helped, loved and believed. I really liked Dwight Fry (Fritz), he was able to show his “half-smart” character, for which he paid his death to someone he teased. He was told to "go, Fritz," "take the fire away, Fritz," but he didn't understand anything, and almost always did what he wanted! Frankenstein himself was played by Ted Billings. He played great, he showed all his anger, and those screams, it's just class! I think he can play better than any current villain, like the Joker, etc. He was able to show not only hatred and anger, but also a bit of kindness when playing near a lake with a girl. I pay special attention to him, because he was able to show all this without words!
Given its shortcomings, this film is one of the best of its time, namely the first half of the 20th century. After watching this film, you may be nervous, you may be a little scared, and you will also be in some scenes worried about the characters who are expected to attack. Even after reading Mary Shelley’s book, you still have to watch it.
The name Frankenstein has long been a household name. And this is called not only adepts of artificial creation of life, but also mad scientists in general. It is unlikely that such a fate for her hero wanted herself Mary Shelley. Victor Frankenstein, who came out of her pen, primarily remained a man of science, he was not interested in a long line of enthusiastic admirers of his own talent. When genius intelligence is superimposed on youthful excitement and hunting instinct, the arguments of boring prudence cease to have any meaning. The novel "Frankenstein, or Modern Prometheus" is the same representative of the golden fund of Gothic literature as Bram Stoker's "Dracula". It is symbolic that the fate of the vampire count and man-made monster embodied on the screen began their countdown from the same 1931.
Just as in the case of Tod Browning’s Dracula, James Whale’s film is only based on the novel, but not its detailed adaptation. The young writer avoided detailed explanations regarding the method of creating the Beast, so the world-famous creation of giant growth, with a clumsy complexion and a creepy face, is a full-fledged creation of the filmmakers. It is safe to say that the direction of the novel and the movie was different. The director deliberately leads the audience away from Shelley’s book, even changing the name of the main character. Dr. Henry Frankenstein appears to us as an obsessed scientist whose theory of the resurrection of dead matter has long since become the idea of fixation. In his native land, the explorer is waiting for an elderly father, a charming bride, a loyal friend and mentor, but all this is secondary for Henry - he is a step away from realizing his dreams. The required number of corpses has already been found, only a brain for an artificial man and a storm of rainforests remained.
The emphasis on which brain was designed to create Frankenstein is not entirely correct. Fritz’s negligent assistant stole the criminal’s head organ from the university, but does this mean that if he had brains from a scientist, the monster would have turned out differently? I'm sure not. The resulting creature a thousand times justified any shortcomings of the writer or director. The world was amazed by White Lugosi in the role of Dracula, but Boris Karloff did not give way to his aristocratic “colleague”. The monster is huge, terrible, his silence, coupled with a cloudy look, chills blood. But this is NOTHING more pity-inspiring than pervasive terror. Huge force is asleep, but it is awakened through the fault of the same dumb-headed Fritz. It is bad for a great scientist, since he has to rely on some hunchback as an assistant.
Edward van Sloan ceremonially warns viewers about the terrible stuffing of the film, but what really is Frankenstein? The creator quickly begins to fear his own creation, and it remains unclear how he saw the result of his work. The monster is not mad, he has a mind, but not some criminal, but a defenseless child. Even a full-fledged person, isolated from society, does not know what power he has. What can we say about an artificial creature that has seen nothing in his life, except the gloomy casemate of a lonely tower and the mockery of a hunchback. The scene of playing Monster with a little girl is more memorable than anything in this legendary picture. Resemblances to Dracula, if there were before, finally disappear. A terrifying creature unable to speak looks like a miserable victim of an inhuman experiment. Even recognized luminaries usually keep silent about how many times they failed before gaining success. Henry Frankenstein had only one attempt to realize his plans, but it seems that he himself was not ready for the results.
Who is more important in this picture: the scientist-creator or his creation? In evaluating Frankenstein, one should ask the main question: what next? Well, he succeeded in his experience, but what fate did he prepare for his offspring? A full-fledged, albeit artificial life or an experiment for the sake of an experiment? Not just a dilemma, but the key to the whole idea of the film. It seems that the young man simply did not think about the future, including the switch, so he had to be responsible for the actions of the Monster. The scientist’s thoughts were as inhumane as the methods of extracting material. And the monster, as noted, was impressive. Given the film’s age, visual effects work should be considered exemplary. But it would be fundamentally wrong to attribute the success of this character exclusively to makeup. Boris Karloff, in fact, only eyes, mooing and gestures, managed to convey the emotions of a creature doomed to universal fear and contempt. Whale's monster has nothing to do with Shelly's monster and it's not about appearance. The film hero does not run from his creator, he runs from this world that will never accept him. Probably, he would like to end such a “life”, but, unfortunately, he has no idea how to do it. This doom and managed under kilograms of makeup brilliantly portray Karloff. And therefore, in my opinion, the Monster is much more significant for the film than its short-sighted creator.
Two classic horror films released in the same year spiritually combine Edward van Sloan and Dwight Fry. They played similar characters in both Dracula and Frankenstein. Scientist, mentor and idiotic assistant of the main character. Colin Clive has nothing to do with White Lugosi. Clive's dramatic gift is undoubted, but the integrity of his hero, prone to excessive shuffling, was slightly lacking. In the actions of the scientist from the very beginning through criminal negligence: not that brain, not that assistant, not that sleeping pills, finally, the wrong way out. Henry is used to running from fate and his actions, but one day he will have to answer for them.
You can have different attitudes to the genre of horror, but one thing is certain – without it, cinema would not be the way we know it. The monster and the genius of Frankenstein created a whole layer of creativity, which is not tired of developing today. Mad scientists now number several dozen, and their creepy and wordless creatures and even more. Dr. Frankenstein and his monster. They will live longer than all the others.
Immediately after Bela Lugosi became famous as Dracula in the 1931 Universal studio film of the same name, he was immediately offered the role of a wordless monster in the film Frankenstein, based on the immortal novel by Mary Shelley. But after reading the script, Lugosi refuses the role, since the Monster did not have lines (unlike the book), and throughout the film he would have had to be in massive makeup.
The director of the upcoming film James Whale begins to look for an actor for the role of the Monster. In the acting dining room, Whale met then a little-known actor - Boris Karloff. Whale was impressed with the structure of the actor’s face, which prompted him to offer him the role.
By that time, the Englishman Boris Karloff was interrupted by casual earnings and for many years played episodic roles in films. By 1931, he had already played in 60 films, but remained unknown.
That was until James Whale approached him with an offer to play a role in Frankenstein. Karloff agrees.
For the role of Monster Karloff for 4 hours put on makeup. The makeup together with the suit and huge boots cheered more than 20 kilograms. The makeup was superimposed by Jack Pierce, who was a makeup wizard at Universal Studios. To give a more "dead" look Monster, Karloff Pierce put wax designed for the dead. Karloff took out his denture, causing his cheeks to become sunken. All this together created the appearance of the most famous movie monster of all time.
Karloff played great. To this day, he remains the best performer of the role of the Monster.
He gave a lot of compassion to his character. His monster is not understood by people, he is feared, while he wants to do good to people. The main fans of the film were children who like no one understood the Monster and empathized with him.
The role of Frankenstein was brilliantly performed by Colin Clive. He perfectly managed to convey the obsession and madness of his character.
As with the mad assistant in Dracula, Dwyatt Fry played a similar role in Frankenstein. He plays the hunchback-assistant mad doctor.
Edward Van Sloan is also present here as Dr. Waldman, a professor at the university where Frankenstein studied. Dr. Waldman embodies the moral side of the plot. He initially realizes how horrific Frankenstein’s experience is, and tries to dissuade him from it by citing various scientific theories. But Frankenstein was not interested in theories, he was completely obsessed with his crazy idea.
The film has all the classic components of the genre: the cemetery, the Gothic atmosphere, and the sinister laboratory.
The film itself is very different from Mary Shelley's original novel. Because of this, it is an independent work.
In the book, Frankenstein worked independently, and in the film he had a hunchback assistant named Fritz, which later became a common phenomenon in the genre.
One of the main differences from the novel is that in the film all the emphasis is placed on the fact that Monstru was originally transplanted the brain of the criminal (this happened due to Fritz’s mistake). The book did not describe whose brain Frankenstein used for his Creation. In addition, in the film, the image of the Monster is completely opposite to the book. In the novel, the monster was endowed with a brilliant mind that even exceeded human. In the film, the monster is endowed with the mind of a baby who is not yet aware of anything.
Nor does the original describe how Frankenstein created his Creation. In this film, the idea of revitalization using electricity was first used. This concept was used in subsequent films about Frankenstein.
Frankenstein was an incredible success, and even managed to overshadow the success of Dracula. Subsequently, it became one of the most famous classic horror films.
The role of Frankenstein Monster glorified Karloff for life. Thanks to her, Karloff became the greatest star of the genre.
Bela Lugosi later regretted turning down the role of Monster. Now, apart from being icons of the genre, Karloff and Lugosi have become professional rivals.
Bottom line: a brilliant classic from Universal with the brilliant Boris Karloff in the title role. A masterpiece.
The talented scientist Henry Frankenstein decides to surpass God himself, and create a human being with his own hands. He does that. Glued together from the remains of corpses and with the brain of the killer, the creature immediately behaves aggressively towards the creator.
Shot on the novel by Mary Shelley, the film immediately became a classic of horror films, and the monster of Frankenstein immediately took the halo of a movie monster, and quite deservedly. It is surprising that filmed in the 30s, the movie amazes with its interesting script, which contains a rather instructive idea and idea. And most importantly, that frightening then movie, can impress and now at least how it is filmed. The camera work is good, the acting is surprisingly kept at a high level, the script moves are thought out, and the movie itself is quite gloomy and cruel.
Of course, the ideological film is that one day a person who imagines himself above others will be punished by the person he created. A monster is a dead person, actually a zombie. Experiencing constant physical pain and an irresistible craving for murder (the killer’s brain is embedded in the monster), the creature is forced to exist aimlessly on this earth, killing against his own will. This is well illustrated in the scene with the little girl - the most violent, but serving as the main plot twist in the film. By the way, the creature itself is shown here from an interesting side - by canon terrible, with the gait of a dead man, with a dead eye. It cannot speak, but as it exists, it displays emotions, and a monstrous part of the creature is inferior to its humanity. I don't know if I should feel sorry for him because he's a murderer. But on the other hand, he is a murderer against his will, which burdens him (again the scene with the girl). This is a choice for the viewer.
For the 30s, special effects and scenery look at an interesting level, and the atmospheric cinema is performed magnificently - never once did you leave the feeling that you were now in the cinema at 31 and watching this movie for the first time. Amazing, and indescribable. Well, the cinema itself deserves high praise, not only because the classics of horror films, but because cinema is relevant to this day.
9 out of 10
Of all the Universal horror movies I’ve seen, this is undoubtedly the best. Really great, without any reservations and clarifications, the movie.
Young Henry Frankenstein and his crippled servant Fritz dig graves and collect gallows to create a new man. But Frankestein needs a fresh brain. Stupid and fearful of corpses, Fritz, sent for a canned brain to a university anatomy, brings the criminal's degenerative brain. Meanwhile, Frankenstein’s fiancée is embarrassed by his frantic letter and absence, and together with a friend who is unrequitedly in love with her, goes to his former teacher, Dr. Waldman, who tells that Henry dropped out when the university did not give him corpses to investigate the mysteries of life and death. The three of them go to the tower, where the undergraduate student has equipped his laboratory. At first, Henry does not want to let them go, but when he is called a madman, he becomes enraged and, to prove otherwise, shows a golem sewn from pieces of corpses and tells about the radiation higher than ultraviolet radiation that created life on Earth. The guests appeared just during the final stage of the experiment - in the categories of thunderstorms, the creation of Frankenstein comes to life. Later, his father, Baron Frankenstein, complains that Henry is not in a hurry to marry and, convinced that it is not about science, but about another woman, goes to his son in the tower. Meanwhile, Frankenstein is full of hopefuls about his creation, but keeps it in a dark basement and does not particularly follow it, so that the evil half-diot Fritz is happy to poke a newborn creature with a torch and beat it with a whip. And Dr. Waldman strongly advises Henry to kill the monster he created.
Mary Shelley’s novel dealt with two related themes: the condemnation of human pride and playing God, on the one hand, and the denial of responsibility for one’s creations, on the other. In the recently mentioned film adaptation of 1910, the first topic was relevant, in many other subsidiaries, directly or indirectly imitating Shelley plots, which turned into a real phobia of science. Whale's film focuses on the second. Science is not evil (and in this sense, the plot with the brain of the killer seems imposed, superfluous) – the bad fruits of science can become in the hands of degenerates obsessed with inferiority complex; Frankenstein is clearly not quite balanced, but his Promethean impulse does not seem bad in itself either - but further indifference to the monster is irresponsible. The monster itself does a lot of bad things, but nothing ethically reprehensible; to kill someone who with consistent sadism tortures you or is going to open you alive is a natural basic impulse of any living creature, and the monster did not want evil to the girl, and it is not his fault that he was not taken care to teach the most basic concepts. A monster is as dangerous as a strong mentally retarded or a child with the power of a bull, but like them, it is not responsible for this danger. And so it is quite natural that the sympathy of the viewer is on his side, and not on the side of Dr. Waldman, who without hesitation insists on murder before the monster has done anything wrong. And looking at the torchlight procession of angry Germans throwing up their hands, we have to remind ourselves that the film was shot in 1931 and the authors could not have meant anything like this.
The film stands out among other Universal horror films for its deep study of the characters, and the actors, accordingly, have something to play. The romantic figure of Henry Frankenstein, half-crazy and at the same time lofty with his ambitions, did well for Colin Clive. Van Sloan partially departed from his always-present role of van Helsing, performing a more ambivalent and characteristic (albeit carrying the same plot function) role of Waldman. I really liked Baron Frankenstein Sr., a kind of angry father from the operetta, but quite vital, played by Frederick Kerr. Dwight Fry, who perfectly played Ranfield in Dracula, here no less vividly played the role of another assistant villain, Fritz. And, of course, the most famous role of Boris Karloff, who created a touching image without words and with minimal facial expressions.
The film is shot professionally and stylishly, there are many beautiful shots, camera finds (for example, the views of Frankestein and the monster through the mill wheel), and even the obvious pavilion of the shooting in this case rather plays on the atmosphere than against it. The monster’s make-up went down in history for a reason and created a canonical visual representation of the Frankenstein monster, which has no alternative to this day.
In general, Frankenstein is not only a milestone in the history of horror, but also a very good movie. I strongly recommend watching even those who are not interested in the genre: of all Universal products of that period, perhaps, only this film deserves attention, regardless of the love of horror.
Here it is, a real classic of cinema: the black and white horror film Frankenstein of 1931.
A mad scientist has found a way to revive a dead man. To do this, he decided to collect the body from different pieces of dead people. He excavated the newly buried bodies and used the bodies of the hanged. But for a complete set, an intact human brain was needed. After collecting all the ingredients, Dr. Frankenstein resurrects the monster he created, which eventually became uncontrollable.
Of course, to retell this story is not particularly necessary, but still in a series of remakes and parodies of Frankenstein, you can lose the very classic story of creating a monster that would not want to be, but he simply does not know how to coexist with the world around him.
I would like to note the unusual scenario, scenery and camera work. For 1931, the film was made at a height. Yes, you can find improbable scenes, but I'm sorry, in our time there are scenes and worse. In general, the film turned out for centuries, and even after 80 years it looks quite good.
Atmospheric horror film, which every self-respecting moviegoer must watch.
Perhaps the main drawback of Frankenstein is that it is old. What the modern viewer will see in this exemplary horror of the first half of the last century is a handful of film dust. Not that many scenes, but the whole film is not surprising: the plot is linear, the characters are the same type and in general, this so-called horror film is not at all scary. Owls are exactly what they seem. It doesn’t matter that at that time all these solutions were innovative. All these facts have long been buried in the archives of Universal. But at the same time, old age is the main advantage of this film. Magic console retro provides an alibi, leaving fans of the horror genre around the world to choose only two options: either you look at where your favorite horror originates, and be sure to admire minimalism, or do not look and be unworthy to be considered a connoisseur of the genre. Cruel, violent retro.
Frankenstein is as much a horror movie as Mary Shelley is a man. In terms of the degree of far-fetchedness of being classified as a genre, he is second only to Tod Browning's "Freaks." In the 30s, despite the already decent age of blue, not everyone was ready in a dark hall on a white background to see revelations that destroy their fundamentally conservative views in the trash. Thus, even the simplest, which has already become a classic and a Bayan, morality of the type “It does not matter what person is outside, it is important what he is inside” barely reached the mind of the viewer. It was easier to look at the incredibly gloomy makeup on the morose face of Borka Karloff and get scared. So poor Frankenstein, misunderstood by people on both sides of the screen, became a symbol of evil, although, of course, I would like the opposite.
He's not bad, though. The image is truly cultic and significant not only for film horrors, but also for popular culture, for many years ahead formed the idea of this character. Good-natured monster Frankie became, without knowing it, the forefather of all the horror stories about creatures other than vampires, because they are from another opera. Frankenstein is the head of all monsters and maniacs who support the concept of murder for murder. That's right, because despite mitigating circumstances, a newborn corpse was killed for a single purpose: just like that. Dementia, self-defense and fear are no excuses for such terrible crimes. That's probably the scariest part. Imagine that somewhere a piece of dead flesh wanders, kills people with impunity and does not even understand how bad it immediately becomes. The goodness of the soul is the tenth.
This is the first stage in the development of horror films. Fear is external, fully conscious. Fear of banal physical violence, with a well-developed imagination or a poor distinction between reality and fiction. James Whale does not play with the subconscious mind, does not pull into the light from the depths of the soul any phobias, except perhaps xenophobia, does not give pleasure from cruelty. In order to drive someone crazy, all you need is to show someone scary and hint that he is dangerous. Level complets. Otherwise, you can not explain why a film with good morals, which by the level of suspense barely beats any Caring Bears, turned out to be so unusual that we had to urgently remove the warning for the faint of heart.
Of course, the film “Frankenstein” under the guidance of the master of the horror genre James Whale has long acquired a cult status. The image of the monster, created in the laboratory by a young scientist Frankenstein for fame, horrifies even modern viewers, not to mention so far back in 1931, when moviegoers were not spoiled with an abundance of blood and modern visual effects. Therefore, a warning was inserted before the opening credits that the film is very cruel and terrifying, and it is not recommended to watch for faint-hearted people.
Frankenstein became one of the first full-length horror films in the history of cinema and, accordingly, a classic of the genre. He was warmly received by both critics and ordinary viewers, giving him good ratings and warm reviews. However, do not forget that the film is based on the book of the English writer Mary Shelley, who wrote it in 1818. This novel became a real sensation and brought its author worldwide fame (although Shelley initially published it anonymously, only a few years later confirmed its authorship). In the film, the narrative is very different. The writers and the director wanted to create their own story and did it, but unfortunately they lost the main essence, namely that society rejects physical freaks, without even knowing about their internal level. The whole drama of Shelley’s novel is that the monster created by Frankenstein was not evil at first, and his soul was capable of noble deeds, but all people turned away from him (including the creator himself) because of his physical ugliness. No one even tried to learn about the spirituality of the creature; society made him an outcast, so the creature began to take revenge. In the film, that reason is omitted. Here the reason for the cruelty of the monster is that the young scientist gave him the brain of a mad criminal, whose behavior was transmitted to the carrier of this brain. From the complex inner drama of the creatures, from his unhappiness and loneliness, indicated in the book, made a quality horror film of that time, losing the main idea.
Two years later, the film “King Kong” will be released, which will also receive worldwide recognition, and in which the narrative, as in “Frankenstein”, is about a creature not accepted by society. However, here we see that Kong is a creature who was capable of love, but was not aware of his actions. A being who was taken from his world and transported into the world by a stranger in which he did not know what to do. In Frankenstein, however, the idea of cruelty is lost, the cause of which is the expulsion of society due to serious physical differences.
But despite all this, the film Frankenstein does have an impact on the viewer, as well as a smooth and connected narrative, which is important. The director managed to keep the composition intact despite the fact that he strongly deviated from the plot of the book. The film contains really cruel, scary and breathtaking moments, which makes this film a benchmark in the horror genre. Each episode will make the viewer experience some tension, both with the help of high-quality acting, conveying fear, madness, hatred or grief, and with the help of increasing fear in the audience with every minute of the film. With each episode, the plot becomes more interesting, the film itself has a small timekeeping (70 minutes), because of which it looks without the thought that it is even slightly stretched. In general, “Frankenstein” is a high-quality film of the first half of the twentieth century in the horror genre, deserving the title of classics of its genre, but losing in the presence of an idea to its successor – the film “King Kong”.
Having its certain shortcomings, the picture still manages to make nervous and frightening, even if the book was read before. Next, a high-quality sequel was created by the same director Whale, and then various sequels and remakes were released and released, directly or indirectly related to the story of the scientist Frankenstein and the monster he created. But neither one has ever surpassed the first two films, and that’s for the best.
7 out of 10
The heartwarming story of Professor Frankenstein is so popular that over the past hundred years it has appeared on screens more than a dozen times - actors, directors, even the genre of cinema have changed, the world around has changed, but the story itself has always remained the same. It’s hard to imagine someone who has never heard of Frankenstein. In my opinion, the story of the mad professor who gave birth to a monster is familiar to everyone, and if not, then the vast majority of the population of the Earth.
I don’t want to say much about the film of 1931, because then I risk getting into the wilds that I should not touch. For example, if I start talking about a movie as a horror movie, I’ll say right away that it’s not a horror movie at all. At least, he is not able to frighten the modern viewer, because he has become so archaic over the years, which is understandable in principle - 80 years have passed since the release of this version, which cannot be ignored.
But what Frankenstein (1931) takes with the guts is the atmosphere. You watch the film with interest and fading of heart, the story turned out to be whole. But the most important thing to say about history is that it is instructive. The essence of the film in modern versions remains the same: you can not play God, a person has no right to do so. Frankenstein, who thought he was capable of giving people life, created a monster, and people around him began to die at his hands. The monster is only capable of murder, he does not have a drop of elementary compassion for his victims. A monster is a killing machine.
The verdict. The film cruelly ridicules humanity’s desire to know what must remain unknown forever.
Cinema Classics
In 1931, the film Frankenstein was released. The film tells the story of a young ambitious scientist who decided that science is capable of anything and can even defeat death. In his lab, Frankenstein creates a creature in his own image. However, the experiment proved to be a failure. A new form of life created by a scientist does not find a place in this world and becomes a monster.
The film, created by Universal Pictures, had a plot on which many modern horror films are based. A man creates a monster intoxicated with his power and in the future the characters try to get rid of the monster. And the creature itself does not cause any feelings in the viewer except fear or hostility. Unlike these pictures, in this film, the monster itself often evokes feelings of sympathy and excitement. Which resembles a large child who was left without parental care and just trying to survive, not understanding what is good and what is bad.
The film also contains scenes of cruelty that were unacceptable for the time, because of which the moment with the little girl was cut in the original version.
The result is a moral picture: that scientific progress does not always bring positive results.
One of the first and one of the most popular adaptations of Mary Shelley’s “Modern Prometheus”. The film was released in 1931, under the direction of the classic director James Whale, who directed another classic “The Invisible Man”.
I personally do not like to read, but Frankenstein was still read, succumbed to the temptation, it was very interesting. The book is brilliant. I saw the film adaptations, I liked them, but it was far from the book. The best film adaptation I think is a TV movie that came out in 2004, but in second place I will have a Weil film from 1931, definitely.
I doubt that there are those people who have not heard about the legendary image of the monster Frankenstein, most people associate this monster with the actor Boris Karloff, who played his best role here, in my opinion. Even children on Halloween night now dress up as Frankenstein-Karloffe and Dracula-Lugoshi. This is the cult of Frankenstein.
What are the classic horrors of the 30s (or early)? It was then that cinema was born, there were not so many stamps, there were tights on the acting and filmed at that time with the soul. Remember Friedrich Murnau, how he was eager to shoot his “Nosferat”, he was ready to give everything to make this film, for the sake of art, and not for the sake of royalties, as they are now doing.
There are differences from the book, but the film has a wonderful charm and atmosphere of horror. And by the way, the fact that the film is black and white is not a reason not to watch, since the picture is quite clear and it is just a treat for the eyes, and if you look at the licensed disc, it is generally beautiful. Timekeeping is only 70 minutes, all those 70 minutes the movie keeps in suspense, actually. I also want to mention the excellent camera angles, beautiful landscapes, excellent stage production. And the local musical composition is perfectly combined with the film, instilling horror in the viewer. It may not be the scariest movie, but the fact that a horror fan will appreciate and respect this film is for sure.
I have some of my favorite scenes in this movie. The first scene is, of course, the revival of the monster, the second scene is the death of a little girl, do not think that I am a maniac, but this scene is really the most (I think) important in the film, the third scene is the finale. To me, this is the best ending for the entire film adaptation of Frankenstein.
This movie is just impossible not to love, masterpiece. Boris Karloff is the best performer of the role of Frankenstein, it is not surprising that this man (along with White Lugosi) is the king of horror. Unfortunately, I have not seen any sequels, I will probably watch only The Bride of Frankenstein, since this sequel was again directed by James Whale.
If you have not seen the original "Frankenstein", then I highly recommend, and better do this viewing in the evening, with the lights out, so it will be more effect, believe me. Have a good view! Classics are priceless.