This film is my absolute favorite horror film. I know that literary critics consider the novel to be the first SF story, but clearly the tone of the 1931 film is more horror. In any event, I agree it's virtually a flawless film. Most of that credit goes to Karloff's performance. It's hard to verbalize how powerful his sensitive performance was underneath all that makeup and costume, and without saying a word. But he imbued the character with so much personality and pathos. The scene when the creature is locked in the dungeon and is reaching up trying to grasp the light as if it's a thing he could grab still almost brings me to tears even to his day. I don't know how much of that was Karloff's interpretation, or Whale's direction, but he did it masterfully. Also, I totally agree about the scene with the little girl being actually better trimmed. The reason they forced the cut was a wrong motivation, but I agree it actually makes the film better. Seeing the creature actually having fun throwing the little flowers in the water, and the disappointment on his face when they run out of flowers...then the girl says, "what do we throw in now?" and you just see the wheels turning in the creatures mind as he smiles and reaches for the girl, and then cut....that's much more horrific, because the actual scene was a bit anti-climatic.
It's funny how time changes one's perceptions. When I was a kid in the 'sixties, Frankenstein's Creature was a scary undead monster. Now I just tend to think of him as a resuscitated guy with brain damage and a lot of transplants.
Ken Russell's Gothic (1986) is a fictionalized account of the night at the Villa Dioaditi during which Shelley got the idea for Frankenstein. I know most critics didn't take kindly to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994), but I'm actually quite fond of that movie. Wes Craven's Deadly Friend (1986) is an interesting variation of the story.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek Christopher Grayling's book Nightmare: The Birth of Horror has detailed chapters on the genesis of Frankenstein, Dracula, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and The Hound of the Baskervilles. It's worth checking out.
Hail to William Henry Pratt, aka Boris Karloff! What a legend of classic Hollywood. And I believe that Boris was the only actor to have ever appeared on three American postage stamps (two times as the monster, and once as Imhotep, the man under wraps). I love "Frankenstein" and also its marvelous sequel.
I always felt that the set design for this film is what gave it its sense of wonder. Kenneth Strickfaden designed the laboratory set for this film, the first of many films on which he worked, and actually kept it all after filming wrapped. 40 years later Mel Brooks borrowed it all from him for Young Frankenstein in what would be the last film in which Ken contributed.
Thank you for saying Frankenstein is better than The Bride of Frankenstein! I absolutely love Frankenstein, while Bride has its moments... but also has plenty of cringe. Like you said, Frankenstein is a near-perfect movie.
Excellent review and considering how frequently this film is discussed on UA-cam, it's a real demonstration of your strengths as a reviewer/analyst. I know 'Bride of...' is considered the superior film, but that is a fantasy and I still think of the original film as the true 'horror' film. I'm fond of the third film ('Son of.....'), especially the casting and production design, but it does show how important James Whale was to this franchise and his absence is really felt. Karloff's slow turn to the camera in the creature's proper reveal is extremely memorable.
I'm looking forward to seeing this. Thank you. Both FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA were among just a small handful of classic Universal horror pictures that were made before original film scores were composed for them. During the pandemic, I spent many hours meticulously adapting music to both of these pictures. And I designed period-style opening credits to completely replace the original. There are a few minor edits, too, as well as a digital stabilization of the wedding day dolley shot through the village.
I saw this as a child in the early 80's on VHS. Later, around age 20, I got the laserdisc which claims it is uncut...but it's not. That had to wait for DVD when "Van Helsing" came out...whenever it did, over 20 years ago. And the Blu Ray contains the sacreligious line about being God.
The Universal monsters are my all-time favorites! I've never seen a re-make that could catch lightning in a bottle the same way. It's a shame that people today dismiss them completely when they paved the way for the horror genre. Fire Bad!
Great stuff. Informative as always. I really look forward to your content. I hope someday you will review the Abbott and Costello version on the monster
Apart from continually mispronouncing Frankenstein (Frarrnkensteeen), this film is my favourite of the Paramount Horror movies. I do think that Bride of ... is the better movie, but the original really stands out for how it portrays the monster as a victim (more or less) of how he came to be. And I agree that the cut version of the lake scene is the better presentation. It leaves it up to the viewer. Australia's censorship board did a similar thing to Forbidden Planet; they removed/banned the Disney artwork around the Id monster going through the force field "because of the horror" which really does make it MORE horrifying, cos it's left to the viewers to visualise the monster.
I'll have to go with Frankenstein for the best in of the Universal Monsters. It's a case of "there's something about it". I think you gave insight into what that "something" is. The multiple stores about how Boris Karlof got the part shows one can't take what an actor/director/producers says about a how and why of a film shouldn't be taken as gospel.
Abby... Something. Abby WHO??? Abby... Normal😁😁😁 (it was either that... OR, 'It's Alive! ALIVE!!!) Ever read 'Frankenstein Unbound' by Aldiss??? An inadvertent Time-Traveler stumbles upon Marry Shelly whilst writing her Story... only it's NOT a Novel, but an actual account of a local Mad Scientist! (Things go downhill from there!)
With the exception of Dracula, the staying power of the major Universal Horror film characters is that they're not really horror films or even "monsters", so much as they're largely tragedies dressed up in suspense and spooky elements. The creature in Frankenstein doesn't maliciously inflict harm on anyone, it reacts with fright to fire, is imprisoned and tortured, so it lashes out against its tormenter, it harms the character of Mari, but because it's a child in a body with superhuman strength not because it wanted to harm her. Oh, and the entire towns' people chase it to its doom (well, until the even more tragic sequel) because they don't understand (commentary on hysteria by gay director James Whale...?) Maybe it was visually frightening to audiences in 1931 to see that leap forward in makeup effects, but while I'll call it a near masterpiece of a film today, I don't think of it as "horror".
I respect your opinion on the little girl scene, but I think the cut makes it more confusing and strange. I think the long drawn out shot of the water bubbling, hearing her struggle under the water and seeing the monsters initial reaction to what he did makes the scene absolutely terrifying.
Apparently, Boris Karloff thought that he 1931 film was superior to the subsequent 2 sequels. I agree with him. The dialogue he was made to speak in "Bride" didn't help the character and he didn't look as ghastly and creepy - the dark shadows under his eyes weren't there for some reason. I actually prefer "Son" from 1939 even though Boris didn't have so much to do in that one, it was a more uneasy story. Bride was a little too humorous to be scary. So, yes Boris, I agree with you. The 1st was the best by far.
The story of James Whale committing suicide is terrifying also. An openly gay man in Hollywood, and a genius who’s career was everything to him, and when he felt that his work would be forgotten, he ended his own life. Very, very tragic.
Ghostface, is that you? Nah, seriously, I don't have a great answer. The only movie that ever gave me legit nightmares was Alien, but I'm a fan of a lot of different horror movies.
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This film is my absolute favorite horror film. I know that literary critics consider the novel to be the first SF story, but clearly the tone of the 1931 film is more horror. In any event, I agree it's virtually a flawless film. Most of that credit goes to Karloff's performance. It's hard to verbalize how powerful his sensitive performance was underneath all that makeup and costume, and without saying a word. But he imbued the character with so much personality and pathos. The scene when the creature is locked in the dungeon and is reaching up trying to grasp the light as if it's a thing he could grab still almost brings me to tears even to his day. I don't know how much of that was Karloff's interpretation, or Whale's direction, but he did it masterfully. Also, I totally agree about the scene with the little girl being actually better trimmed. The reason they forced the cut was a wrong motivation, but I agree it actually makes the film better. Seeing the creature actually having fun throwing the little flowers in the water, and the disappointment on his face when they run out of flowers...then the girl says, "what do we throw in now?" and you just see the wheels turning in the creatures mind as he smiles and reaches for the girl, and then cut....that's much more horrific, because the actual scene was a bit anti-climatic.
It's funny how time changes one's perceptions. When I was a kid in the 'sixties, Frankenstein's Creature was a scary undead monster. Now I just tend to think of him as a resuscitated guy with brain damage and a lot of transplants.
Ken Russell's Gothic (1986) is a fictionalized account of the night at the Villa Dioaditi during which Shelley got the idea for Frankenstein. I know most critics didn't take kindly to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994), but I'm actually quite fond of that movie. Wes Craven's Deadly Friend (1986) is an interesting variation of the story.
I enjoy 1994’s Frankenstein. De Niro makes for an interesting monster, and I can’t help but love Branagh turned up to eleven.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek Christopher Grayling's book Nightmare: The Birth of Horror has detailed chapters on the genesis of Frankenstein, Dracula, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and The Hound of the Baskervilles. It's worth checking out.
Hail to William Henry Pratt, aka Boris Karloff! What a legend of classic Hollywood. And I believe that Boris was the only actor to have ever appeared on three American postage stamps (two times as the monster, and once as Imhotep, the man under wraps). I love "Frankenstein" and also its marvelous sequel.
He did an amazing job, acting a role with no dialogue.
@@jdgoade1306 Exactly.
I always felt that the set design for this film is what gave it its sense of wonder.
Kenneth Strickfaden designed the laboratory set for this film, the first of many films on which he worked,
and actually kept it all after filming wrapped.
40 years later Mel Brooks borrowed it all from him for Young Frankenstein
in what would be the last film in which Ken contributed.
Thank you for saying Frankenstein is better than The Bride of Frankenstein! I absolutely love Frankenstein, while Bride has its moments... but also has plenty of cringe. Like you said, Frankenstein is a near-perfect movie.
Excellent review and considering how frequently this film is discussed on UA-cam, it's a real demonstration of your strengths as a reviewer/analyst. I know 'Bride of...' is considered the superior film, but that is a fantasy and I still think of the original film as the true 'horror' film. I'm fond of the third film ('Son of.....'), especially the casting and production design, but it does show how important James Whale was to this franchise and his absence is really felt. Karloff's slow turn to the camera in the creature's proper reveal is extremely memorable.
I'm looking forward to seeing this. Thank you. Both FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA were among just a small handful of classic Universal horror pictures that were made before original film scores were composed for them. During the pandemic, I spent many hours meticulously adapting music to both of these pictures. And I designed period-style opening credits to completely replace the original. There are a few minor edits, too, as well as a digital stabilization of the wedding day dolley shot through the village.
That was really good work, man. Lot of rich content to unearth the production, actors, history and philosophical layers of the film.
I saw this as a child in the early 80's on VHS. Later, around age 20, I got the laserdisc which claims it is uncut...but it's not. That had to wait for DVD when "Van Helsing" came out...whenever it did, over 20 years ago. And the Blu Ray contains the sacreligious line about being God.
The Universal monsters are my all-time favorites! I've never seen a re-make that could catch lightning in a bottle the same way. It's a shame that people today dismiss them completely when they paved the way for the horror genre. Fire Bad!
Great stuff. Informative as always. I really look forward to your content.
I hope someday you will review the Abbott and Costello version on the monster
I do plan on getting there some day!
Apart from continually mispronouncing Frankenstein (Frarrnkensteeen), this film is my favourite of the Paramount Horror movies. I do think that Bride of ... is the better movie, but the original really stands out for how it portrays the monster as a victim (more or less) of how he came to be. And I agree that the cut version of the lake scene is the better presentation. It leaves it up to the viewer.
Australia's censorship board did a similar thing to Forbidden Planet; they removed/banned the Disney artwork around the Id monster going through the force field "because of the horror" which really does make it MORE horrifying, cos it's left to the viewers to visualise the monster.
I'll have to go with Frankenstein for the best in of the Universal Monsters. It's a case of "there's something about it". I think you gave insight into what that "something" is. The multiple stores about how Boris Karlof got the part shows one can't take what an actor/director/producers says about a how and why of a film shouldn't be taken as gospel.
Abby... Something.
Abby WHO???
Abby... Normal😁😁😁 (it was either that... OR, 'It's Alive! ALIVE!!!)
Ever read 'Frankenstein Unbound' by Aldiss??? An inadvertent Time-Traveler stumbles upon Marry Shelly whilst writing her Story... only it's NOT a Novel, but an actual account of a local Mad Scientist! (Things go downhill from there!)
🎹 The narrative that accompanies this clip is excellent
Karloff’s performance as the monster is probably the most influential in all of cinema history.
With the exception of Dracula, the staying power of the major Universal Horror film characters is that they're not really horror films or even "monsters", so much as they're largely tragedies dressed up in suspense and spooky elements. The creature in Frankenstein doesn't maliciously inflict harm on anyone, it reacts with fright to fire, is imprisoned and tortured, so it lashes out against its tormenter, it harms the character of Mari, but because it's a child in a body with superhuman strength not because it wanted to harm her. Oh, and the entire towns' people chase it to its doom (well, until the even more tragic sequel) because they don't understand (commentary on hysteria by gay director James Whale...?)
Maybe it was visually frightening to audiences in 1931 to see that leap forward in makeup effects, but while I'll call it a near masterpiece of a film today, I don't think of it as "horror".
When it comes to Universal Monsters it's always been between Frankenstein or The Creature from the black Lagoon .
Funny you should mention Creature. That’s the video I’m working on now!
I respect your opinion on the little girl scene, but I think the cut makes it more confusing and strange. I think the long drawn out shot of the water bubbling, hearing her struggle under the water and seeing the monsters initial reaction to what he did makes the scene absolutely terrifying.
Apparently, Boris Karloff thought that he 1931 film was superior to the subsequent 2 sequels. I agree with him. The dialogue he was made to speak in "Bride" didn't help the character and he didn't look as ghastly and creepy - the dark shadows under his eyes weren't there for some reason. I actually prefer "Son" from 1939 even though Boris didn't have so much to do in that one, it was a more uneasy story. Bride was a little too humorous to be scary. So, yes Boris, I agree with you. The 1st was the best by far.
Great content sir Geek.
Excellent review as always Thank You (:
The story of James Whale committing suicide is terrifying also. An openly gay man in Hollywood, and a genius who’s career was everything to him, and when he felt that his work would be forgotten, he ended his own life. Very, very tragic.
Wish they had more of Fritz.
Could you please review Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein from 1994? It's my favourite adaptation of the novel.
great video.
I saw all those older horror films in the mid 70s. I loved them as a kid. Now they seem a tad cheesy but still cool. lol 😂
4:45 I thought his servant was named Igor?
Nope. Most people think that. It's actually Fritz.
One of the quintessential movies that is responsible for all of us being horror fans!
fun fact:
bürgermeister is the german word for mayor.
what is your favourite scary movie?
Ghostface, is that you? Nah, seriously, I don't have a great answer. The only movie that ever gave me legit nightmares was Alien, but I'm a fan of a lot of different horror movies.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek ok.
Frankenstein, he was big and green, I guess you could say that he was the Original Hulk !!!👍💪🤢