Frankenstein (1931)
Mad scientist's experiment goes awry, creating a misunderstood creature. Fans of gothic horror and classic tales will be enthralled.
Genres: Drama, Horror, Science Fiction
Cast
- Cast member 1
- Cast member 2
- Cast member 3
- Cast member 4
- Cast member 5
- Cast member 6
- Cast member 7
- Cast member 8
- Cast member 9
- Cast member 10
Your Status
Frankenstein(1931)
Overview
Tampering with life and death, Henry Frankenstein pieces together salvaged body parts to bring a human monster to life; the mad scientist's dreams are shattered by his creation's violent rage as the monster awakens to a world in which he is unwelcome.
My Friends' Ratings
None of your friends have rated this yet.
Cast
Full Cast & Crew
Colin Clive
Henry Frankenstein
Mae Clarke
Elizabeth
John Boles
Victor Moritz
Boris Karloff
The Monster
Edward Van Sloan
Doctor Waldman
Frederick Kerr
Baron Frankenstein
Dwight Frye
Fritz
Lionel Belmore
The Burgomaster
Marilyn Harris
Little Maria
Ted Billings
Villager (uncredited)
Mae Bruce
Screaming Maid (uncredited)
Jack Curtis
Villager (uncredited)
Arletta Duncan
Bridesmaid (uncredited)
William Dyer
Gravedigger (uncredited)
Francis Ford
Hans (uncredited)
Soledad Jiménez
Mourner (uncredited)
Carmencita Johnson
Little Girl (uncredited)
Seessel Anne Johnson
Little Girl (uncredited)
Margaret Mann
Mourner (uncredited)
Michael Mark
Ludwig (uncredited)
Featured Comments/Tips
Finally, I saw Frankenstein! I liked it, it is good and it is definitely a mark in the history of Cinema but I must confess that I thought this Horror Classic would blow me away and it didn't. Although I think it needed more creepiness in the atmosphere, I didn't felt that as much as I needed. Another thing that bothered me a bit was also the over the top acting, very teatrical. It should have been more natural. The Frankenstein Monster is a memorable character! A huge and strong creature that never asked to be in the world. Boris Karloff was great incarnating this beast. I found Fritz maybe a bit too silly although I know he is supposed to be really mad. The set design is amazing, some of the sets are very well done! It may not have the impact that it had in 1931 but it's definitely a remarkable work that needs to be seen.
A staple in the history of horror, I respect what it inspired, but thank god we got better at doing movies over the years. This didn't age well! I was bored throughout, no scares, no comedy, no drama, and it's like watching a stage play. Not my cup of tea. I do admire the black and white aesthetics and there's a tiny bit of fun whenever Frankenstein's doing some havoc, everything else is a bore. I can't even praise Frankenstein's makeup, it looked so cheap. So disappointed with the transformation scene, I was ready for a light show with the lightning but it was all hidden by a ceiling, a lifeless sequence.
I don't get everyone saying this movie has "aged well" cuz it sure as shit hasn't aged that well for me. So the whole movie felt like a PowerPoint presentation with them hopping from scene to scene with a cheap fade transition in the middle. It's like the movie has one scene...and then a transition followed by another scene with no flow. THe runtime is 70 minutes and it still took me 2 sittings to watch. Well the modern era of having a shot attention span ain't helping my case much but I don't use TikTok or Instagram so don't come at me. Despite being technically terrible the movie doesn't capitalize in the acting department either, maybe it's the way the movie is shot or structured, there is literally no "life" in any of the characters (no pun intended). Actors try to breath in some life but the dialogue holds them back even further, it feels like they are reciting quotes from a quote book. Also I don't get why almost all classic movies I've watched up to now has a dramatic romantic situation in the third act. Maybe it's just me who feels that way?
Classic, great background watch, holds up to multiple viewings. It's nice to sympathize with the monster, seeing bits of the movie from his POV.
Its no where near as horrifying as it would've been in its time but there are still some aspects of Frankenstein that still work in the modern day. Boris Karloff is still the most legendary portrayal of the character and you do feel little sympathy for Frankenstein and some of the other characters. I was also a little surprised with some of the scenes that are featured in this movie. It wasn't afraid to get a little gruesome.
this flew by quick. the monster is a compelling character and deserved so much better. maria was deserving of the world. this is a beautiful film, the painted backgrounds behind the rocks during the mob search scene were very cool and iconic and i loved it.
It is an horror movie classic.
Interesting movie with some really sublime moments: the expressionistic graverobbing scene, the father's walk through town with his daughter in his arms, etc. Karloff, obviously, has a genre-defining performance and everything that happens with him is fundamentally interesting. The movie struggles, though, because of an insistence on focusing on the Doctor's home life: the father's annoyance with his obsession, the nagging fiancee, the random friend. Momentum slows during these scenes, and they do not sufficiently allow us to connect with the characters in a way that would make the conclusion of the film any more tense.
Second film of Peacock's Halloween movies presented by Jamie Lee Curtis and it has many great movies on there. This came out the same year as Dracula and is in the same cinematic universe. I think people like this better is bc there's no "outdated" effects like in Dracula but I personally liked Dracula more. Boris was great in this but like superhero movies from the 70s to the 2000s, the great horror actors got typecast and only got roles like or similar to their famous one, very sad when that happens to actors and actresses.
One of the best classic horror films! It's a multi-layered horror classic that packs much into its brisk runtime. I like this one a lot more than the other universal horror films because it actually holds up. You can easily how much influence this film has on the genre. Colin Clive portrays the madness of the character incredibly well and Boris Karloff gives a menacing yet sympathetic performance as the monster.
I enjoyed this more than Dracula. Karloff gets all the praise but I was surprised by the actor who played Frankenstein. He was really great. Judging the rest of the performances by modern standards is stupid.
Its a classic film that can still be enjoyed today. For a film that's nearly 100 years old it holds up surprisingly well. The film is well designed acted and shot. While it does not provide the same special effects and terrors of modern horror, its still a film that can scare someone to there very core. Its a true masterpiece of horror that I think that we can all credit for being the start of something new and intriguing.
Featured User Reviews
How can I pick apart something that has become so much a part of our culture? Karloff's portrayal of the Monster is timeless and Colin Clive is bug-nuts as the Doctor. He's quite insane and I still have not been able to buy the fact that he could have or would have wanted a bride for his own. He supposedly snaps out of the work funk he was in when he created the Monster but his character is too crazy for me to believe he could have or would even want a normal marriage. The guy is a grave-robbing, mad scientist! Back to Karloff, there's nothing really frightening about the Monster. I was much more sympathetic to it than I was toward any of the characters of the film. I don't think that was the original intent of the director, though. When this film was released, audiences were probably appalled by it. Maybe it's the Herman Munster effect that endears Karloff's Monster to us. One thing that made me laugh was when Dr. Frankenstein gets thrown off the top of the windmill, lands on one of the vanes and then drops to the ground. The Doctor is injured but he survives. Tough guy to survive that fall. The fact that this was scary to audiences of the day is hard to believe because its really quite tame to view today. The original Dracula is the creepier of the two, but I do prefer the look of "Frankenstein" to that of "Dracula".
Frankenstein, a movie primarily about how Doctor Henry Frankenstein deals with the fallout of his monster actually coming to life, holds up very well almost ninety years from its release. Starting with the monster itself, we find a fantastic character. Without any lines of dialogue, the filmmakers and Boris Karloff had to use actions and emotions to display the motivations of the monster, and they did a fantastic job of it. The fear, confusion, and longing that the novel describes are evident in the monster's actions, to the point of pushing the audience to root for him. The rest of the characters are also a bit of fun. Baron Frankenstein, played by Fred Kerr, was also a hoot. He played a no-nonsense character that functioned well in the comic-relief role needed with Edward Van Sloan's Dr. Wladman and Mae Clarke's Elizabeth being quite serious, even dramatic. Colin Clive, the man who played Doctor Henry, did a decent job in his role as well, pulling off the role of being consumed by his work, even when he desired to be free from it. The acting, overall, was a touch more theatrical than I would prefer in a horror movie, but it wasn't so distracting that it pulled me out of the film. The film is a ton of fun to watch, but I do have to say it isn't exactly terrifying. The atmospheric creepiness is somewhat lacking compared to modern-era horror, even going back fifty years. That being said, the movie, if thought about and rewatched, does a good job of displaying how the fear of the unknown, and letting that fear take over, can be the real monster.
How can I praise or pick apart something that has become so much a part of our culture? Karloff's portrayal of the Monster is timeless and Colin Clive is bugnuts as the Doctor. He's quite insane and I still have not been able to buy the fact that he could have or would have wanted a bride for his own. He supposedly snaps out of the work funk he was in when he created the Monster but his character is too crazy for me to believe he could have or would even want a normal marriage. The guy is a grave-robbing mad scientist! Back to Karloff there's nothing really frightening about the Monster. I was much more sympathetic to it than I was toward any of the characters of the film. I don't think that was the original intent of the director though. When this film was released audiences were probably appalled by it. Maybe it's the Herman Munster effect that endears Karloff's Monster to us. One thing that made me laugh was when Dr. Frankenstein gets thrown off the top of the windmill lands on one of the vanes and then drops to the ground. The Doctor is injured but he survives. Tough guy to survive that fall. The fact that this was scary to audiences of the day is hard to believe because its really quite tame to view today. The original Dracula is the creepier of the two but I do prefer the look of "Frankenstein" than "Dracula".
Made the same year as the Lugosi-*Dracula*, this is the other star-making (for Boris Karloff, this time), hugely influential (or archetypal, you might wanna say) Universal horror vehicle. Both films have in common a rather stunning, german expressionism-influenced gothic visual style and a plot that seems rather simplistic for today's standards, kinda like the writing and editing is still stuck in the silent era and has yet to catch up to the storytelling possibilities of sound film. Dramaturgically though, this one is much better paced than *Dracula*. I can't help but notice how rooted in catholicism both of these films are, so it's easy to understand why they were percieved as shocking and blasphemous at their time. Both revolve around a particular sin - in *Dracula* it's the sin of promiscuity (after all, Count Dracula is coming for your daughters...), while in *Frankenstein* the sin is hubris, playing god if you will at a time when medicine and particularly surgery was making rapid progress - to the layman, it probably wouldn't have seemed too unlikely that humans would soon create life out of dead body parts. The religious aspects become all the more obvious to me considering that the Jehova's Witnesses still forbid blood transfusions - and thus, most kinds of surgery - to this day.
Not a totally faithful adaptation of the Mary Shelley book, still extremely important for not just horror movies, but movies as a whole. I thought about coming at this review from the perspective of what 1931's _Frankenstein_ meant for the future of cinema, and how it was still essentially in its infancy and doing anything even close to what _Frankenstein_ did, changing the culture forever and remaining in the zeitgeist even now, almost a hundred years later, is a monumental achievement and should be viewed as such. But that's never really been my jam. _Frankenstein_ might have been great for the time, I don't know, I wasn't there, but I personally only ever found it to be okay. Re-watching it this Halloween was, I think the fourth time I've given it a go, and it's really not as enthralling as people seem to give it credit for. My roommate fell asleep. It's not that it's black and white either, it just doesn't have as clear a philosophical intention as the book, nor as gripping an output as more modern offerings. _Final rating:★★½ - Not quite for me, but I definitely get the appeal._
