MisterWhiplash 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.

Leofwine_draca This short has a place in film history, due to the fact that it is the first filmed version of the FRANKENSTEIN story. The piece will be familiar to any horror fan, with the creator making his creature which then terrorises lover Elizabeth.The acting is over the top and the film is crudely simple, yet it holds a certain charm due to the period in which it was made. Although the special effects are extremely primitive, there is a spooky moment of a flesh-covered skeleton waving at Frankenstein out of a creation bath.The Monster is a strange looking beast, played in a stilted manner typical of the era by Charles Ogle, and its appearance is unlike any other screen monster, the bushy hair and dirty clothing a total contrast to Karloff's black-clad and deathly pale figure. Although this film is too short to summon up anything other than some ghastly imagery and a few moments of atmosphere, it's a must for horror fans interested in the evolution of the genre.

skybrick736 Before Boris Karlof brought Frankenstein to stardom there was this particular short silent film that got the horror genre ball rolling. I'll admit I'm a tough critic on the film with a three rating but I thought two scenes dragged on way longer than what they could have, especially the scene inside the cauldron. Also, while that was going on there was a blatant few seconds of over acting by the main lead. Besides that gripe I thought the monster looked tremendous afterwards and I really dug the music and thought it flowed really well with the script. Finally, I was intrigued about the camera work and why different colors were shot at different scenes. Pretty sure there is a meaning to the hot (orange) and cold (blue) contrast as well as the typical black and white scenes. I wasn't impressed with the old 1910 Frankenstein but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. Its a pretty neat film I suggest watching it if you are a horror buff.

artpf Is this very first version of Frankenstein a great film? Not by any means.However it IS great to watch a movie made at the dawn of the film industry.Like most silent films made at the turn of the last century, acting is very "theatrical" and broad.Not realistic at all.Still Ogle, who plays the monster, is really creepy looking and effective.The version I saw had new titles, was 12 minutes long and had some scenes tinted.It also ended rather abruptly with a freeze frame so I'm not sure this was the entire movie.None the less, it was really cook to watch.