cinephile-27690 Yes it is. I have seen it twice and the 71 minutes fly by! I had seen parodies of the story and even read the novel and Young Frankenstein, but I never saw the real deal until I was 16. It never ceased to amaze me. If you are worried about this scaring you, know I found it more shocking then scary. And he is a MONSTER, not a villian-he does not intend his evil actions, he was literally created that way-by mistake. This is one of the greatest horror films of all time-see it!

Ian (Flash Review)This effort is what kicked off several sequels and other spin offs. The plot in a nutshell for those unfamiliar is Frankenstein is actually a scientist who has been experimenting to see if he can bring life to dead things. After small animal tests, he feels he is now ready to resurrect a human so he and his partner Fritz search a graveyard for a worthy body and parts. As everyone knows, his experiment works and his monster awakens much to his ecstatic enthusiasm. The monster can't speak yet manages to convey many emotions. So well in fact that during the story, you kind of care for the old lug. The film is rather simple and while not as scary today as it was in the early 30's, it is neat to see the pure frightening idea shine. Unfortunately, due to a brain mix-up, his actions are clumsy and imposing. Will the monster be able to blend into society? Special mention to the set creators as Frankenstein's mansion/castle was very dramatically haunting.

tankace Frankenstein of 1931 is one of the most iconic horror film and many of the tropes we take for granted ,like a mad scientist in white,Gothic image, the hunchback sidekick, wild mobs and the look of the creature ,all of them have taken cues from this film. Credits where credits do to Boris Carloff whose acting really sell the film and make you believe that what you see is real, with his movements and facial expressions. Also the reactions of the rest of the cast help to the selling of the illusions very well.And the scenery is very well made. And here is were I will become critical to Frakenstein ,to the readers be gentle.DISpute the status of classic the film has(rightfully so) ,we have to be honest back in the thirties was scary but now it doesn't have the same impact as the next generations we have grown accustomed to it. To add to that scenes that ones scared the crowd now there are two reactions ,"wait I didn't get it?" and two "That was funny". Also what hampers the film more is its short duration, clocking only one hour and a quarter, so the building up of the tension it isn't fully realized. Finally my biggest issue with the flick is who must it differed from the source material making it completely different from the original book of Mary Shelley. The ironic part is that the film was one of the starting points of Gothic Literature and the film similarly was one of the pioneers of this imagery in films. I am OK with the creating freedom for adaptations ,but after a certain point ,my tolerance is used up.In the end ,I see and I knew before I watch the film why it is considered a classic ,however this shouldn't make any product immune to well thought critic for its flaws, which don't diminish its quality, but show what to do better the next time.

alexanderdavies-99382 "Frankenstein" ranks as one of the very best horror films in cinema history. Scene for scene, it is virtually unmatched in its acting, direction, photography and writing. It's influence on the horror films that followed is unparalleled. In my opinion, "Frankenstein" overshadows "Dracula" as the former movie is a much more professionally made one and is a lot more entertaining. There is nothing I would want changed about "Frankenstein." I enjoy this film each time I view it. Boris Karloff was made a star overnight, in a career-making performance and James Whale sealed his own success with this film. Even though Karloff is fourth billed, he steals the film. He turned what could have been a one-dimensional character into one of great depth. Credit must go to Jack Pierce for the exceptional make-up that he created. It is interesting to note how different a film "Frankenstein" might have been if the original director Robert Florey and original star Bela Lugosi had remained. Their version would have been just as visually striking as the one James Whale made but a rather depressing film all the same. I doubt Lugosi would have bothered to create much of a performance, seeing as he wasn't very keen when offered the role. His screen test as the Frankenstein creature has long been lost but I am given to understand that his make-up resembled that of the creature from the silent horror film, "The Golem." However, James Whale intervened to replace Robert Florey - who wasn't very happy and Boris Karloff was cast as the creature. The rest, as they say, is history. Dwight Frye gives a very good performance as the sadistic assistant, whose untimely end becomes somewhat justified. Colin Clive is very good as Frankenstein - he is far removed from the more evil interpretation given by Peter Cushing. Edward Van Sloan is good but bland, as is John Boles. Mae Clarke is surprisingly effective as the love interest but Frederick Kerr as the elderly baron is absolutely brilliant! The running time of the film is only 66 minutes but what an enthralling 66 minutes it is! Screen horror would rarely be as good as this.