User Reviews

Cinema is no longer what it used to be. As a lover of photography and cinematography in cinema in general, the first thing that leaves me astonished and deeply impressed is its ambitious and dark visual style. The imagery is dazzling in both its settings and the way the black-and-white compositions are illuminated. Few times have I seen cinematography so magnetic in a film. The mise-en-scène is tremendously fascinating. The way the performances, dialogues, character movements, and set arrangements are constructed makes me feel as though I’m watching a theatrical play translated into cinematic language. And that theatricality is not a flaw, but rather its identity: as if cinema were still discovering itself — which, in fact, it was — while carrying the legacy of theater. A mixture of staged artificiality and visual ambition that gives the film an irreplaceable charm. Experiencing the creature for the very first time in this first cinematic adaptation feels absolutely ceremonial. It feels as though I’m witnessing the birth of an icon. And that is exactly what it is. For those of us who love classic cinema, that appearance holds enormous value: the moment an image becomes forever immortalized in film history. What would later become the reference point for countless other adaptations of the creature. The production design is also magnificent. It’s true that continuity is probably one of the least polished aspects, and at certain moments some minor technical inconsistencies become noticeable. However, I find it impossible to judge it harshly when everything visually is so powerful, especially considering the era. The film manages to build such a solid and suggestive universe that those flaws end up feeling almost irrelevant. The makeup is also worth mentioning. I must admit I was pleasantly surprised. I expected something far cheaper-looking, but the result remains convincing: the creature genuinely feels monstrous, with a disturbing physical presence that works remarkably well. Where I do find a slight personal discrepancy is in the physical performance; the creature perhaps feels too human in its movements. I understand the possible reasons, since it is composed of human remains, but I expected something far clumsier — something learning how to exist. I would have liked to see something darker and more disoriented, a creature that more strongly conveyed the feeling of being thrown into the world without understanding it. Of course, this opinion comes from my ignorance of the original novel, because unfortunately I haven’t read it. There is also one moment that perfectly summarizes the monster’s tragic humanity: when he takes the flower offered by the little girl, I cannot help but smile along with him. A brief moment of tenderness that makes the character far more complex than he initially appears. Narratively, the film feels very agile. It’s a brief, fast-paced, energetic, and entertaining experience. I wouldn’t say it completely fascinated me or became my favorite horror film, but it was certainly a tremendously enjoyable hour. It has that ability classic cinema possesses: captivating me with seemingly simple resources while keeping me entirely absorbed. The film does not delve too deeply into the philosophy of creating life after death — a theme that could have opened the door to far more disturbing reflections. However, that absence also led me toward a personal thought: seeing the creature’s fate, I find no appeal whatsoever in the idea of rebirth or eternal life. I have never been interested in living beyond my time. Perhaps because of that lack of interest in returning to life, the philosophical dimension surrounding the story does not particularly engage me enough to want it explored further. Beyond its evident limitations, there is an aesthetic power that continues to shine intensely. It does not completely overwhelm me with admiration, but I remain deeply impressed by its production potential and the dark atmosphere of a cinema that, even in its earliest steps, was already capable of creating unforgettable images.

This is really good, it still holds up today and is very engaging with great characters. There are issues with the production around the limitations of filmmaking at the time but none of that really bothered me. The film looks beautiful and the sound quality is certainly better than Dracula (1931). The story is a bit different to the book but it’s a great story nonetheless and a sad one too. This film defines so many tropes in the genre like villagers with burning torches and Frankenstein’s monster being a gentle soul even though his brain was from a deranged criminal. I think you could really dig deep and analyse so much of this film. It’s probably my favourite Universal monsters movie.

Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein is exactly what you’d expect from him — visually stunning, deeply romantic, and dripping with atmosphere. It’s a gothic fever dream full of haunting sets, lavish lighting, and moments of real emotional beauty. That said, it can be a bit too much **** thing. The theatrical tone sometimes overwhelms the story, turning scenes that should feel intimate into grand performances. Mia Goth, usually magnetic, pushes so hard here that her intensity starts to feel like overacting — fascinating to watch, but occasionally distracting. And while Jacob Elordi makes a strong impression as the Creature, I wasn’t sold on the makeup design; it’s elegant and painterly, but it lacks the raw, unsettling quality I wanted. Still, there’s no denying the craft on display. Even when it stumbles, Frankenstein is ambitious and heartfelt — a lush, tragic fable about creation and loneliness that only del Toro could make. Beautiful, flawed, and worth seeing.

Brilliant! Amazing writing and a stellar performance by Elordi! An instant classic!

I didn't expect the story to be this dark, this was my very first introduction to the Frankenstein story, and what a fascinating experience it was, even though the film runs for only about 70 minutes, it still feels like there's more to explore in the story, more layers to the themes of creation, humanity, and morality that made Mary Shelley's original tale so timeless. The acting is solid overall, with Colin Clive delivering an intense performance as Dr. Frankenstein, perfectly capturing the obsession and madness behind his character, some other performances aren't as strong, but they don’t take away from the film's power, Boris Karloff as the Monster is absolutely iconic, his presence, expressions, and movements make the creature both terrifying and sympathetic. I was completely drawn in by the film's atmosphere, legacy, and the eerie yet beautiful vibe that defines early horror cinema, it's easy to see why Frankenstein remains such an important part of film history, personally, i enjoyed this much more than Béla Lugosi's Dracula, both the story and the film itself just felt far more engaging, in my opinion.

Incredible production design and sets. Obviously a template and inspiration for a million things to come.

Фильм можно посмотреть, но чисто для ознакомления, с чего началась история монстра Франкенштейна. Слишком уж коряво и наивно всё смотрится на текущий день.

Un clásico, de eso no hay duda, pero en general no me termina de convencer la película en su totalidad. Es decir, la primera parte es bastante lenta sin demasiada gracia, pero la segunda mitad mejora mucho ya con el "monstruo" vivo. Me pasa lo mismo que con Nosferatu, la película como tal es normal sin demasiadas cosas buenas, pero la estética del ser de fantasía realmente es excelente y esta película es igual: cuando lo ves vivo y cómo se comporta es genial. Queda la duda de si con el cerebro de alguien normal, podría comportarse diferente y no hacer algunas cosas que hizo, ya que para mí no lo puedo juzgar; es decir, nunca se lo intentó tratar con paciencia, siempre se lo trató mal, por lo que matar a su creador para mí fue justicia. En conclusión, es buena película, pero hasta ahí.

This rather loose interpretation of Mary Shelley's classic novel picks the bones of the source material before spinning off into something very different. Both involve discredited scientists, experimenting while in isolation, and their successful attempts to create one new life from the broken remnants of several others. That's where the similarities end. The movie is certainly less intellectual, less challenging, with a tendency towards a kitschy, garish side. Doctor Frankenstein is more comically unhinged, recklessly dashing about the screen or pantomiming the shapes produced by his personal Tesla coil in a fit of exhilaration. The monster also differs from his printed counterpart, trading eloquence and ambition for a taste of raw, base humanity. In this case, I prefer the film's version: an articulate quarry with existential objections is less compelling than an impulsive toddler in a looming seven-foot frame. Or maybe it's just because this version is so incredible well-realized. Boris Karloff is a showstopper, and not just for the timeless, genre-defining makeup that's weighing him down. There's a sad, quiet pathos to his take on the creature, beneath the fiery temper and blunt physical presence. Even when he's at fault, he draws us in. We wish he were more present as the screen veers back to his tormentors, over and over again. But then again, maybe a larger bite would spoil the flavor. A risky take for its time, one that ran afoul of censors across the globe, Frankenstein is surprisingly well-realized, considering its age, and its morals remain both simple and profound.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Great movie! I really like the acting, the atmosphere, and every about it!

This movie is the classic game changing horror film. Compelling and well performed throughout. I liked the Expressionistic set design, the iconic monster makeup, and the now iconic creation sequence, and the fiery windmill scene.

I watched it this Halloween season (**** it's still a good movie. Short, beautiful black and white glory, a classic. Better than Dracula in my opinion

There have been complaints that Frankenstein is dated. Personally I don't find that, it isn't the most sumptuous of all films, but it is still a wonderful film, that is still shocking and enthralling to me. The Gothic set design is very imaginative, helped by the beautiful cinematography with suitably bizarre camera angles, and the music score is haunting, melancholy and atmospheric. James Whale's direction is also very impressive, it is very focused and innovative. The story is without a doubt a classic, tense, moody and melancholic, and the Monster itself is just a masterful creation. The cast are superb, Colin Clive is very good as the eccentric Henry Frankenstein, while Mae Clarke is an alluring and sympathetic Elizabeth. There is no doubt in my mind though that Boris Karloff gave the best performance, not only that but the definitive portrayal of the monster. He is almost unrecognisable and scary with his make up, and while he was scary with the towering presence and the frightening look in his eyes, his monster is also somewhat touching, particularly when he reaches up to grasp a ray of sunlight. Overall, shocking, enthralling and just wonderful. "It's Alive!" 10/10 Bethany Cox

Some films are more valuable for the inheritance they leave. This film, one of the most classic among the classics of horror cinema, is one such case. I don't know if it's really worth summarizing the script because almost everyone, even those who haven't read the novel, knows the story of Victor Frankenstein, a notable doctor and scientist who lets himself be obsessed with the idea of creating life by his own hands and using electricity to give life to a being made up of pieces of several human bodies. The film fails to recreate the controversial and morally challenging story, written by Mary Shelley in the midst of a snowstorm in Switzerland, and makes very little use of the original material. But it has the merit of bringing to life one of the most popular and revisited creatures in horror cinema for cinema, and of giving us the impeccable work of one of the actors who most competently brought her to the screen: Boris Karloff. Karloff was an anonymous actor before this film and I doubt if he was aware of the impact and the strength he was going to have. After all, Bela Lugosi himself, who was the great horror actor at the time thanks to the way he had given life to Count Dracula (another monstrous character with whom the Frankenstein Monster will meet many times, in several films), had ended to refuse the role of the monster! Karloff does the work of a lifetime in this film, and jumps into immortality. He is so striking that the following actors who brought the Monster to life basically limited themselves to copying the actor's work, manners and physical appearance. And all of this, be amazed, without saying virtually a syllable! The entire remaining cast was overshadowed, including Colin Clive, who played Dr. Frankenstein. The film is also a pearl when it comes to technical aspects, although it is not brilliant or particularly well done. The landscapes are outlined, all the scenarios are summed up to the essential, occasionally covered with artificial dust, visibly false spider webs and other resources that are basic to us, but were good at the time. Black-and-white cinematography works well and looks elegant, and the work of make-up (of the Monster, of course) and costume fulfills its role with pride and distinction.

Es un buen clásico, de eso no hay duda, pero en mi opinión está lejos de ser tan espectacular como muchos la consideran.

I don't necessarily think it's a bad movie, I just had a hard time getting into it. I thought the pacing was slow. It felt like there were parts of the movie just skipped over due to the odd fade to black moments throughout. It doesn't age as well as you would hope it would, at least in comparison to other universal monster movies.

At side of Nosferatu and Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, a pioneer of terror genre. The screenplay isn't quite faithful to Mary Shelley book, but you can forgive due the detail of who is the monster: the creature or the creator. Despite it's 90 years old, still is ghastly due the presence of Boris Karloff.

This is a classic movie that you never gets old. This made Boris Karloff horror icon! This is a movie that the whole family can watch. It might be too intense for younger children.