Watch
Frankenstein
Your probable score
?

Frankenstein

1931
Drama, Sci-fi
1h 10m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 63.98% from 2571 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews

(2571)
Compact view
Compact view
Rated 02 Nov 2020
85
86th
It’s Frankenstein and it’s like 70 minutes just go watch it.
Rated 13 Apr 2012
92
98th
The monster is remarkable but the performance of Colin Clive as Frankenstein is a joy to watch. The sets look a little too real, so hopefully George Lucas can secure the rights and digitally put in bigger beakers or something.
Rated 02 May 2021
80
65th
Kudos to James Whale for making this film while simultaneously getting around the conservative censorship of 1930's Hollywood. The story is visualized so well that the imagery is still used as tropes to this day. But what's phenomenal is how it essentially created the Monster in the House mythology by having the monster scare those villagers to the point that they had to grab pitchforks and fight. It also holds up--outside of the repeated cautionary theme about man playing God. Great fun!
Rated 30 Jun 2007
80
61st
This film is confused about what it wants to say about the monster and Frankenstein's project. On the one hand it suggests that the monster is inherently evil because of its "evil brain"; on the other hand it says that perhaps all he needs is for someone to take care of him. Fortunately the film is more successful in other areas. The sound is excellent for the time, and Whale's direction, Karloff's monster and the pacing team up to make this a very enjoyable film.
Rated 01 Jun 2008
81
69th
I love how economical the Hollywood classics are. In a time when it seems like most modern movies are bloated to 140 minutes (and when I have far too much stuff to watch as it is), it's nice to see one that accomplishes its goal in half the time. Even the slow parts, and there are a few, are only a couple minutes long. Karloff is superb as the monster. When he reaches out to the sun coming in through the skylight, he projects genuine sadness. Whale's gothic sensibilities are spot-on, as well.
Rated 19 Feb 2009
72
25th
Oh, what am I supposed to give this? I'm not gonna trash Frankie, but I just watched this for the first time and it's not nearly as well done or effective as I thought it'd be. And I LOVE older movies and have nothing but respect for the limitations of the time period. Respect to Colin Clive and his, "Mad..am I?" delivery, and the makeup (which still looks great), but I don't need to see this ever again.
Rated 08 Dec 2009
86
82nd
While the story seems a little bit rushed compared to other incarnations, this is still the best. Karloff "the Uncanny" is amazing in his ability to produce such mixed feelings about the monster. Many recognizable cliches have been derived from Frankenstein's monster over the years, but this version is still able to maintain its originality.
Rated 03 Aug 2011
74
48th
One of the better original monster movies, yet still it's a bit on the light side, nothing particularly scary, and according to horror tradition isn't particularly well written. If you go a couple years afterward to the sequel, however, that's where you'll see a real classic.
Rated 29 Oct 2012
83
88th
Short and sweet. The sets are spacious and cool, the camerawork is neat and Karloff is unforgettable. The monster's motivations are vague at best, but that's just a minor complaint. I'd totally watch a spinoff about the elderly Baron Frankenstein and his pimpin' ways.
Rated 02 Nov 2015
95
84th
I believe this is the one I watched. I watched it in my Radio and Television class for school and there were five other Frankenstein films that all tied in, but I believe this is the first? I don't know, but what I do know is that this movie had some good quality film-making in it. Acting was very good and I was impressed with how everything was filmed and created, especially for it's time. I have to say I loved it. Worth a viewing for a good demonstration of Frankenstein's monster.
Rated 13 Jun 2021
84
71st
Wow, what a memorably bizarre ending. Despite modern critics saying we were meant to champion the Monster, I'm not sure that was intended. After all, weren't happy endings required back then? So wouldn't the studio assume 1931 viewers would be fine w/ giving such an ahole doc a happy ending? There are at least 2 giant plotholes (why does Frankenstein give up so quickly & how does the Monster find his creator) that drag this down, but its easy to see why this lost soul Monster became a classic.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
70
77th
Re-watching this in 2020 after more than three decades, I'm no longer sure it's really better than DRACULA. This may possess themes to do with scientific meddling and the wrath of crowds, as well as some impressive sets, but perhaps it lacks the subtler themes that help to give the vampire film a mysterious and enigmatic atmosphere. In any case, both are quite rough and yet impressive. Fritz was really a bad hire though. The father seems rather to be in a different movie, perhaps a better one.
Rated 02 Feb 2008
88
93rd
It's interesting to compare this with Browning's "Dracula" and see how much more thoughtfulness and energy James Whale gives this story. The German-inspired black-and-white photography is incredible, and the film is not afraid of asking lofty questions about creation and progress. Although the film has a lot going for it, it must all come back to Karloff's remarkable performance. He manages to make the creature menacing yet sympathetic, creating one of the great tragic figures of cinema.
Rated 24 Jul 2008
71
69th
Wonderfully compelling. It had a poetic simplicity about it that likened it more to a short.
Rated 25 Oct 2009
70
62nd
The now legendary, "It lives!" and the final act aside, this movie plods and the plot and it's message seem confused. Despite conventional wisdom this is not Whale's best work.
Rated 07 May 2010
61
69th
Sadly, the old movie effects aren't convincing enough to scare me, but it is still tragic watching the monster act out of ignorance and self-defense, causing his own doom.
Rated 03 Nov 2011
87
78th
The ragged German Expressionism is beautiful and haunting, and Whale is pure genius in every scene. One thing that I've noticed with the Universal pictures: they often staged crucial moments of action in great echoing rooms, under shadowy vaulted ceilings. By shrinking the specific figures against hulking, time-worn sets, they drew out the philosophical gravity caught up in the physical struggles; it elevates what would seem clumsy otherwise.
Rated 07 Dec 2011
78
47th
Apparently it was quite easy to make "good" movies back in the day.
Rated 09 Oct 2012
90
81st
Easily one of Universal's greatest horror movies. Boris Karloff made this character, without even saying a single word. He gave a fantastic performance, one that really makes you feel sorry for him, as the Monster. Overall a classic film about one of the most famous movie monsters ever.
Rated 02 Apr 2014
100
99th
Undoubtedly one of the greats, and a seminal work which influenced countless horror films which followed. Even taken on its 80+ year old terms, it still works terrifically well, with Karloff's sweetly touching monster, and Clive's brilliant mad scientist, heading a fine cast, complemented by Whale's inventive staging and direction.
Rated 15 Apr 2015
75
71st
It's only 70 minutes long so it wastes little time before introducing its monster, but he's used a little too sparingly, and it could be argued that the audience isn't given time to become invested enough in the creature's fate. Acting wise, Clive is great as the mad scientist, Frye wonderfully creepy as his disfigured assistant and Karloff unforgettable as the Monster, excelling under a mountain of fantastic make-up with only a vocabulary of grunts.
Rated 15 Feb 2007
72
32nd
Unlike it's sequel you can really feel how dated this is. It has a lot going for it in the underlying story and it's enjoyable, but it's no masterpiece.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
47
27th
Kinda blows, honestly.
Rated 06 Jan 2008
78
73rd
Slow in places, but otherwise a great start to the Universal horror legacy.
Rated 02 Dec 2008
38
33rd
good stuff, and the baron is hilarious. an entertaining watch, but it is pretty dated
Rated 11 Jun 2009
65
40th
It hasn't been good in decades but it's become bad enough to be quite funny.
Rated 27 Feb 2010
4
83rd
Shelley's tale of scientific hubris finally hits the silver screen (ignoring the odious Dawley short) in this monstrously entertaining adaptation. The set designers clearly took a page out of the German Expressionist playbook, creating a creepy atmosphere full of jagged angles and distorted perspectives. And of course, Karloff's now classic performance seals it. If you have any interest in classic horror flicks, this is a must.
Rated 09 Mar 2010
91
86th
Not as good as "Bride," but Whale's stylish direction, the sets, the make-up itself and Karloff's remarkable ability to project a powerful performance beneath all that make-up, make this definitely worth a look.
Rated 02 Nov 2010
40
10th
I hate giving such a low-score to a classic film, but it's really not very good, even by 1930's standards. There's no character development, their motivations make no sense, their actions are often irrational and perplexing, they rush through scenes, and the final scene didn't resolve anything.
Rated 05 Dec 2010
85
89th
I haven't watched it for ten years, but I still can't shake off the emotional close-ups of Karloff's tormented monster - setting the bar for every motion picture anti-hero to come.
Rated 15 Jan 2011
3
38th
Entertaining but flawed. Its brevity is refreshing, but the story feels a bit underdeveloped as a result, giving it a slap-dash feel. It's also a bit silly at times, but that kind of goes with the territory. Karloff makes a great monster, however, and it's got a nice moody atmosphere courtesy of some great sets and lighting (which owe a bit to German expressionism). I do wish they hadn't taken the route of making Frankenstein's monster evil, but that's not really a flaw. Pretty good.
Rated 04 Feb 2011
87
72nd
A classic of the Golden Age of Horror. Though he speaks no words, it is Karloff's best character. It is iconic, it is entrancing...it is nearly perfect. One cannot help but truly feel for the character of the monster, and it is thanks to Karloff that it is so.
Rated 04 Dec 2011
60
33rd
Bit of a mess - James Whale hadn't got a handle yet on how to balalnce the Ruritanian comedy vs. horror elements. But Karloff is amazing ( just his ARM is amazing in one scene), and Colin Clive's prissy performance is classic camp.
Rated 19 Aug 2013
5
70th
a much more thoughtful early horror than the black-and-white thinking of, say, nosferatu.
Rated 31 Oct 2013
10
96th
This movie was an unexpected surprise. It's all muscle and no fat, so the story moves along quickly, and the art direction is phenomenal, featuring massive set-designs, picture-book style photography, and lighting reminiscent of some of the best of German Expressionism. Beautiful movie. And of course, Boris Karloff provides humanity to Frankenstein's monster, making scenes that would otherwise appear hokey feel...alive. Sorry, I had to do it. Anyway, watch it. I favor this to Nosferatu.
Rated 15 Mar 2014
30
30th
I haven't read the book but all evidence suggests it has strong themes of procreation and raising children, creating life in your own image, if you will. The movie only acknowledges this with a few errant lines. Frankenstein the movie is clumsy and confused, not knowing whether to bash or sympathise, whether to apply misguided Christian morality or common sense. Boris Karloff is great as the monster (as defined by the opening credits), but not nearly good enough to save the movie.
Rated 02 Jan 2015
90
88th
I first saw this film when I was no older than the daisy-tossing tot, so I will always love my monster.
Rated 20 Apr 2015
55
40th
Another iconic classic and not as much filmed theater as I had feared. Can't really get past, though, how it basically butchers the message of the book from 'take some damn responsibility for what you do' to 'some brains are just criminal, nothing to do about it, LOL!'.
Rated 09 Nov 2015
72
78th
Some film-adaptations are unaware of what they are doing. Some elements of the book, then, are incoporated yet remain untranslated into a wider and more intense set of dialogues that the original work was facilitating. This film falls in a category for which is due this suspicion.
Rated 15 May 2016
70
71st
Hard to rate, certainly a classic and very influential for sci-fi horror but lacks a lot of the advances of modern horror (duh!), on the good side it has superb design which has become part of our culture, also nice acting, on the bad side horrible editing and sound. It has very little in common with the book and lacks the meaningful side of it but funny enough the most iconic things are not in the book, the torches, the electric animation of the monster and the monster's design.
Rated 06 Apr 2017
75
58th
Pretty good movie, but felt a little disjointed. Frankenstein's change from obsessed scientist to normal dude was abrupt. He suddenly leaves the elder doctor to finish up with the monster while he runs off to get married. Next, the monster escapes and makes an inexplicable beeline for Frankenstein's home (having a wedding to crash). But I digress; I did like the film. It should have been longer. Karloff and Clive were classic, and seeing Frye again with his wild eyes (re: Dracula) was nice.
Rated 04 Jan 2021
79
77th
Superficially narrow adaptation of the story that suffers a bit from rushing pace (especially towards the end) & egregious plot holes that are hard to ignore. Those issues aside, the presentation is pretty stunning (especially considerring the time & budget) with magnifiecnt expressionistic sets, iconic makeup design, moody cinematography, clever editing & two great lead performances. Whale's cunning & craftsmaship is on full display but still feels a bit shackled by the high concept production.
Rated 01 Nov 2021
50
45th
I was so hyped to finally watch this but it's really so-so compared to most other horror films. It pales in comparison to its contemporary Dracula. There's not the same creepiness. Rather, the Monster acts like a child instead of the angst I read in the novel, so the film leaves a lot of room for me to focus on the other characters (Frankenstein) and their dumb choices. Would have liked more pathos. Fav scene: the windmill burning looked great but spoiled by the Monster's childish shrieks.
Rated 02 Nov 2021
60
60th
Pretty much on the same level as Universal's Dracula treatise of the same year - even the cast is more or less the same. Dwigh Frye is once again giving it all he's got in a very theatric and entertaining performance, with the rest of the cast pretty solid too. Mae Clarke is sweet. The plot unfolds well and is entertaining enough as watched from a 2021 perspective, where the viewer is probably already sickeningly familiar to that particular story and its tropes. Good film.
Rated 04 Nov 2021
85
92nd
It screams iconic pre-code Hollywood in such a vile, vicious, beautiful fashion. Mad doc shouting 'now I know what's like to be God!', the creation meeting a peasant kid in what starts as a cute encounter and ends with a tragic death, her father storming into town with her body in his arms, igniting the mob, the climax at the German expressionism's mill. What a ride.
Rated 24 Mar 2022
100
94th
“Old Franky” has always been one of my favorite monsters 
I think this is widely accepted as the first true movie adaptation
 (To my understanding there were two silent movie adaptations) prior to this movie 
At any rate I feel like the Universal version is the one that made the monster famous 
It’s a good movie and still holds up well even today In large part due to Karloff’s performance 
Most disturbing moment When he is playing with the little girl and tosses her into the water
Rated 15 Feb 2007
65
61st
One of the few horror classics.
Rated 05 Mar 2007
50
35th
Classic.
Rated 22 Mar 2007
100
95th
First and best of the Universal series. Dr. F's creation is the ultimate misunderstood adolescent: he doesn't know how to deal with the world, and the world doesn't know how to deal with him. As such this is not only highly well made and spooky, but tragic as well -- an element you just don't see much in horror movies anymore
Rated 14 Aug 2007
80
60th
classic
Rated 14 Aug 2007
90
72nd
A musical score would have helped. Otherwise, it is wonderfully atmospheric and, while it sometimes verges into comedic territory (But what monster movie didn't?), contains some genuinally tense moments.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
68
71st
Boris Karloff is the man.
Rated 23 Oct 2007
82
69th
The overarching theme of humanity's arrogance is rife with possibility, and the film does well to bring a sense of melancholy to everything involving the monster. But the real standout here is Whale's expressionistic direction, which gives the film an off-kilter feel that truly suits the material. Karloff's monster is also eerily effective in what ends up being a pretty limited role.
Rated 29 Oct 2007
49
24th
Classic and iconic. Still watchable!
Rated 03 Jan 2008
51
46th
Sure, it's an inspiration to a whole bunch of movies. But it's boring. I had to fast forward through 1/3 of the movie. And I love classic movies from this period. This one just didn't have a lot for me.
Rated 01 Mar 2008
83
72nd
# 340
Rated 17 Mar 2008
98
92nd
A classic! Great performances and sets, and a classic story.
Rated 24 May 2008
81
69th
Classic
Rated 26 Sep 2008
51
75th
Klassiker, men ikke god i moderne forstand
Rated 14 Oct 2008
94
86th
f'n sweet
Rated 28 Nov 2008
96
95th
A cult that survived century's...and the great one with an awesome Karloff.
Rated 19 Dec 2008
82
64th
365
Rated 21 Jan 2009
85
91st
Apparently the sets were reused in "young frankenstein" the 1974 spoof
Rated 13 Mar 2009
70
22nd
Its Alive!! Its Alive!!!
Rated 22 Mar 2009
100
97th
Kenneth Branagh's megabudgeted remake sent me scurrying back to Whale's original, and truth be told, I'd forgotten just what an over-the-top rock-'n'-roll rendition of the story Whale's version really is. Unlike Branagh's extravagant edition and other semifaithful modern adaptations, Whale's pic, by making the originally motormouthed Monster mute, stripped Shelley's tale of most of its philosophical discourse, gleefully emphasizing the story's exploitation elements instead.
Rated 10 Apr 2009
100
93rd
Whole books have been written about this film and its sequels. Apart from being a fascinating if primitive cinematic work in its own right, it set its director and star on interesting paths and established a Hollywood attitude towards horror (mostly borrowed from German silents like _The Golem_). A seminal film indeed, which at each repeated viewing belies its age.
Rated 10 Apr 2009
90
72nd
pretty good sci-fi horror, slightly dated but way ahead of its time.....
Rated 01 May 2009
85
92nd
classic!
Rated 19 May 2009
50
33rd
I thought the acting was good - except for Dr. Frankenstein's fiance, who is just annoying. Boris Karloff (as the monster) was particularly good. But again, there wasn't really much to it... seemed like there was very little closure to the story - although, I guess there are plenty of sequels to the provide it instead. Still, though, it was a fun watch.
Rated 10 Jun 2009
60
45th
It's so bad that it's actually pretty funny.
Rated 16 Jun 2009
8
78th
Watching this after 'Airplane' might lower one's score. Need a rewatch.
Rated 13 Oct 2009
75
77th
More confident than the one year older Dracula, nicely paced and clearly drawing from German expressionism stylistically.
Rated 15 Oct 2009
87
75th
Thks movie is how early horror is done. Karloff is somewhat over the top at times but he plays his part exceptionally well. The sets are extremely well designed and the movie is paced excellently so that it never loses your attention. The story itself is wonderful and it still shines through today. Only a few things weren't explained as well as they should've been but it's easy to overlook them (unlike Dracula) since the film is so wonderfully done.
Rated 26 Nov 2009
83
65th
Historic.
Rated 14 Jan 2010
80
60th
401
Rated 04 Mar 2010
85
93rd
this is what it feels to BE god!
Rated 27 Mar 2010
65
30th
Watching Frankenstein for the first time is an odd experience for most because the character and film have permeated pop culture to such an extent that you will already know much about the film sight unseen. It's an interesting and fairly engaging film, but it hasn't quite aged as well as the perpetual interest in the Universal Monsters would lead you to believe. It's worth seeing for horror buffs but decided non-fans of genre pictures can probably give it a miss.
Rated 18 May 2010
50
38th
The sympathetic freak is a romanticist trope. Victor Hugo took the torch from Mary Shelley, and the trend carried on into the cinema of the silent era (such as Lon Cheney vehicles). So this early talkie is a bit of a latecomer in that respect, and besides its epigonism it's just not a very good movie. The plot is very contrived, and much of the acting is terrible, except the Baron's and memorably iconic Karloff's. The best scene is the one involving the little girl and the pond.
Rated 28 May 2010
8
80th
Classic horror. Only 67 minutes long but gets a lot done in that time. Colin Clive and Boris Karloff are both great.
Rated 27 Jul 2010
59
14th
Despite the great cinematography and spooky atmosphere, I don't think there's much to say about this one. Apart from the monster of the moment, none of the characters are interesting, pacing is off even for it's very short length, it isn't scary at all, and by the end, the film feels confused as to why it was even made.
Rated 31 Jul 2010
70
71st
I assumed it would be sort of campy and silly, but it's actually pretty frightening. Karloff screaming while the townspeople set the windmill on fire was a genuinely horrific moment.
Rated 01 Aug 2010
92
96th
Fantastic classic movie. Great directing and the camera work is excellent for that time. It's alive!!!
Rated 19 Oct 2010
89
97th
By far my favorite of the classic horror films. Karloff and Clive both do a miraculous job compared to other films in the period, particularly a horror film.
Rated 24 Oct 2010
80
81st
watched: 2010, 2017
Rated 11 Dec 2010
8
79th
Overrated, anyone? Best thing about it is probably how it makes you feel for the monster. Sequel is the real classic.
Rated 13 Dec 2010
75
74th
The sound mix was quite unbearable in the noisier scenes, and a lot of the depth present in the book is abandoned here (which isn't surprising given the film's length). The first act is utterly spectacular, though, as is the scene with the little girl (though unintentionally hilarious also) and the final torch mob scenes. The Fritz character and the slapstick he brought with him was a bizarre addition, but it worked. Excellent performances all around.
Rated 25 Dec 2010
90
92nd
90.250
Rated 27 Feb 2011
90
97th
Despite it being a product of it's time this film stands as one of the most iconic and greatest horror films of all-time.
Rated 18 Mar 2011
60
36th
This movie is so short, something like 70 minutes, but it could have been even shorter. Just get rid of the Baron Frankenstein, he was a waste. Oh, and the ending!! That's the weakest, most jarring ending of all time. He takes some wine and offers a toast to Frankenstein's health. What!!? Actually, the beginning is fucked up too. What 4th wall? So weird. You know that thing, a good movie needs 3 great scenes and no bad ones? Well this has like 2 great scenes and 2 terrible ones.
Rated 17 Sep 2011
56
35th
The common flaws of the era are more noticeable than in other classic 30s UMM's and the scenes without Karloff tend to be more cringeworthy than unsettling. Thankfully, the scenes with him make up for the lack of atmsophere and chills.
Rated 23 Nov 2011
60
72nd
The original classic horror picture. Sadly, I'm not old enough to have watched this from under a seat at the theater, but the big screen at home is almost as good.
Rated 30 Nov 2011
81
62nd
#371
Rated 19 Apr 2012
80
70th
I appreciate a film that is stripped of all unnecessary pieces and chugs along with one great scene after another. And I think this film is the perfect balance between fun and horrifying, unlike it's sequel.
Rated 19 Apr 2012
90
81st
It holds up surprisingly well considering that most pre-colour horror has aged worse than an 80's haircut. That's probably due to the surprisingly bleak and down to earth script and the terrific performance by Boris Karloff as the Monster. A good cast is worth repeating indeed.
Rated 14 Jul 2012
64
30th
Dracula > Frankenstein
Rated 04 Aug 2012
50
8th
Only Karloff is somewhat convincing, the rest is unfortunately very bad even for 1930s standards.
Rated 22 Oct 2012
73
47th
Difficult to fully enjoy when you adore the book.
Rated 24 Oct 2012
80
37th
Really good, mostly because of Boris Karloff's brilliant performance as the monster. Admittedly, I tuned out most of the scenes that didn't involve him, but whatever.
Rated 26 Oct 2012
72
63rd
* Casting, Acting : 7 * Script : 7 * Directing, Aura : 7 * Ease of Viewing : 8 * Naked Eye : 7
Rated 04 Nov 2012
91
56th
91.000

Collections

(100)
Compact view
Showing 1 - 24 of 100 results

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...