Toy Story 4
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
Honestly I feel like this movie is bad but i'm not bothered or mad by the fact that it is. It's over a century old and film was a new concept back in 1910. It was just honestly boring and it was filmed like a play.
Absolutely amazing to see a silent movie that's 108 years old. The creation scene is the best part of this 13min short. The acting is also very good as its very easy to understand the flow of the movie.
The ending is interesting, the score is beautiful and the prosthetics on the monster are well done, but most of the film is kinda boring outside of those features. Often, we are the sources of the evil in our own lives, and that's the message of the film.
FEED MY ALTERNATIVE FRANKENSTEIN!
The two amazing things about this first adaptation of Mary Shelley's book about the "Modern Prometheus" is seeing how Frankenstein is created here, and what he looks like and how he's portrayed. It's impossible to watch this without remembering what James Whale did with showing Dr. Frankenstein's process (aka as Gene Wilder would discover: "How I Did It") where Frankenstein gets the corpse up on a gurney, raises it up to face outside, and with wires and special connectors uses a lightning strike to reanimate the body so "IT'S ALIVE!"
But the thing is this scene, which has influenced so much of popular culture, is a pure creation of Whale and his team - the Shelley book doesn't have a description of how Dr. Frankenstein brings his creation to life, it's skipped over because the good Doctor doesn't want anyone to copy him or to know the secret. So here, we have via J Searle Dawley a unique interpretation of showing this 'creation' had no description in the source: here, it's like the Monster is made in an oven, piece by piece and limb by limb, with the Doctor looking through a tiny window on the monster being made in slow but deliberate fashion. It's a wonderful sequence not just because I can finally get a different perspective on this iconic thing, but because it holds up over a century later as being genuinely creepy - it's a Frankenstein cake or something.
The other thing is the actor playing the Monster, Charles Ogle, who is also not at all how we all picture a Frakenstein Monster to be ala Karloff: this guy looks more like a character that one might've seen being thrown out on his ass from Mos Eisley Cantina in Star Wars: a freakishly haired man with a giant forehead and radical features, hunched over (in a strange way it's almost like Igor, who isn't a character here by the way), and I thought it funny how the character of the Monster seems to be talking with Dr. Frankenstein (because, you know, silent movies did that). He's a true MONSTER, and he makes him a scary but vulnerable thing on screen: he comes into the room at one point and seems like a stumbling child more than some existential threat (the way he hides behind the curtain so the future wife won't see him for example).
So a lot goes in 12 minutes of (today grainy which is what we can get and take) silent film, though it's obviously streamlined to the bare essentials, like a super-Cliff-Notes version of this story. I liked it a lot for being a totally alternative version of this story than seen before, and for fans of Frankenstein I highly recommend it.
Si Voy a crear una Horrorteca Personal con el "Salón de la Fama del Género" obviamente se debe incluir La primera película que podría ser denominada del género terror como lo fue Frankenstein en el año de 1910 por J. Searle Dawley. Esta cinta de 16 minutos es la primera adaptación a la pantalla de los personajes de la novela de Mary Shelley y fue producida por Thomas Alva Edison. La película fue rodada en cine mudo y cámara fija en plano general durante toda su duración
Se rodó en tres días en los edificios Edison Studios del Bronx en Nueva York, a pesar de que Edison era su productor no tuvo una participación activa en la película, únicamente puso su nombre. Se estrenó el 18 de marzo de ese mismo año y fue una adaptación libre de la novela, por desgracia no se cuenta al menos que se recuerde una versión remasterizada de la misma y las versiones actuales carecen de la nitidez idónea para brindar una opinión acertada sobre las actuaciones.
Se debe ver como netamente un film histórico que nos llevarà mas de 100 años atrás en el tiempo donde un científico juega a ser dios para crear el primer prometeo aunque su experimento no tendrá los resultados deseados y el mismo le dará mas dolores de cabeza que beneficio real
Great for 1910 with very innovative filming techniques
This is a classic from the silent era. If you love horror films. This is a must watch, since its the very first film adaptation for Frankenstein.
Really good for what it is and I enjoyed it. Not completely sure about this but I think this might be the first movie to ever use a mirror to show two angles in one. It was used with Frankenstein's wife walking into the room while Dr. Frankenstein was sitting on the chair. That alone deserves credit. This is very short and on YouTube and I would watch it just to see the very first adaptation of Frankenstein.
Of course, since Mary Shelley never specified how Frankenstein's monster was created it is interesting to see the way this film crew envisions it. In a big cauldron, the student Frankenstein forms the hideous creature out of fire. Charles Ogle's makeup looks pretty wild, but scene after scene is so static with bland sets, histrionic actors, and oversimplified title cards advancing the bare bones plot.
This early silent adaptation of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" is decent, but really short and simplified. I thought this was an interesting version of the story, but mostly from a historic standpoint. It is public domain and short, so you can find it on YouTube of the Internet Archive for free, check it out if you are into such things, but this isn't going to convert any people into silent films.