Frankenstein Reviews

  • May 09, 2020

    This is a film that should be appreciated for what it is. Having been made 110 years ago it shouldn't be held to modern standards. And even if it is, it holds its own as a creative and inventive take on the Frankenstein story with the most interesting version of the monster, if not the one that has become engrained in our minds.

    This is a film that should be appreciated for what it is. Having been made 110 years ago it shouldn't be held to modern standards. And even if it is, it holds its own as a creative and inventive take on the Frankenstein story with the most interesting version of the monster, if not the one that has become engrained in our minds.

  • Jan 04, 2020

    Spend 15 minutes to watch this thing on YouTube, it's worth it. The creation scene delivers way more gruesome creature effects than I expected, the scraggly, hoary monster that results looks great, and the loose adaptation of Mary Shelley results in a unique and surprising story. This Frankenstein's monster isn't evil due to mistreatment or an abnormal brain, rather he manifests the evil side of his creator. He's also not a killer, but a bully who somewhat hilariously menaces and intimidates the fey doctor. SPOILER: Only after Frankenstein loses his virginity does he find the might to stand up for himself. (I did not make that up.) The fantastical twist ending resolves the story on a beautiful, bittersweet note. CAUTION: The version I watched used 'Danse Macabre' by Camille Saint-Saëns as a score, which brought out the cheesiness of this old-timey film. By searching ‘scary classical music' I found Schoenberg's 'Verk Verklärte Nacht, Op.4 – Boulez' and played that while I watched instead. Dude's nasty violins worked shockingly well, I highly recommend using it.

    Spend 15 minutes to watch this thing on YouTube, it's worth it. The creation scene delivers way more gruesome creature effects than I expected, the scraggly, hoary monster that results looks great, and the loose adaptation of Mary Shelley results in a unique and surprising story. This Frankenstein's monster isn't evil due to mistreatment or an abnormal brain, rather he manifests the evil side of his creator. He's also not a killer, but a bully who somewhat hilariously menaces and intimidates the fey doctor. SPOILER: Only after Frankenstein loses his virginity does he find the might to stand up for himself. (I did not make that up.) The fantastical twist ending resolves the story on a beautiful, bittersweet note. CAUTION: The version I watched used 'Danse Macabre' by Camille Saint-Saëns as a score, which brought out the cheesiness of this old-timey film. By searching ‘scary classical music' I found Schoenberg's 'Verk Verklärte Nacht, Op.4 – Boulez' and played that while I watched instead. Dude's nasty violins worked shockingly well, I highly recommend using it.

  • Apr 28, 2019

    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.

    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.

  • Jan 10, 2019

    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.

    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.

  • Dec 08, 2018

    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.

    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.

  • Nov 24, 2016

    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.

    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.

  • Nov 01, 2016

    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

    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

  • Jul 05, 2016

    Great for 1910 with very innovative filming techniques

    Great for 1910 with very innovative filming techniques

  • Sep 30, 2015

    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.

    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.

  • Aug 18, 2015

    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.

    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.