1931
.jpg/220px-Frankenstein's_monster_(Boris_Karloff).jpg)
This is another horror movie based on a classic book. I have read this one as well (last year I had a horror themed October) but I didn't like it as well as Dracula. It was a lot shorter and has a lot less character depth. I still enjoyed it though, it makes you think about what life really is. But this isn't my book blog! Onto the movie!
For some reason I had this prejudice that both Dracula and Frankenstein would be really corny. That is not to say this movie is even remotely frightening, but it wasn't a joke. This movie starts with a warning not to watch it if because it is so horrifying. It then follows a scientist named Frankenstein who has actually figured out how to give life to things (besides using his johnson). Of course, all hell breaks loose but it is quite poetic at the beginning if you think about it.
I thought this movie was worse than Dracula. The acting was just mediocre. The monster looks a bit silly. I have found that horror films don't really age well if the director actually shows the monster. For instance, I think Jaws, The Blair Witch Project, and Psycho will be scary in another hundred years because people will always be able to imagine their worst fear. In Dracula, the monster was just a man, so it was still a little frightening. Still enjoyable even though it is a bit cheesy.
RATING: ***--
Interesting Facts:
In the book, the monster was well-spoken and refined. He knew that he had been created by a man and wasn't strictly human. The book made it seem scarier to be the monster than to be his victim.
Originally there was a line where Frankenstein said he knew what it was like to be god but it was removed by censors.
Names author has Percy Shelley instead of Mary Shelley.
Available on YouTube but for some reason it will not let me put it up. You must fly from the nest, reader!
I had the inverse experience of you. I much preferred Frankenstein to Dracula. There is a goth feel to it that works today while Dracula feels cheesy. Of course the acting is lame but the cinematography totally works. Every time somebody exclaims "Its alive!" you know where it is coming from.
ReplyDeleteCaught a bit between the two of you here ..
ReplyDeleteFrankenstein, I feel is the deeper movie .. certainly the deeper fear. You make the comment ' The book made it seem scarier to be the monster than to be his victim.' .. well, to me I think that, to some extent, stayed with us.
Visually .. well, I have to say Dracula wins hands down, but I wouldn't go as afar as 'silly'
I think it is also because I enjoyed the novel Dracula a lot more than Frankenstein so just story wise, I will always prefer Dracula.
ReplyDeleteI've just read the book and am struck by how very different it was to this film. Normally I would pedantically disapprove of such wholesale inaccuracies, but does that mean that this film is single-handedly responsible for the entire idea of Frankenstein that we hold in our minds for most of the past century? The lightening, the bold in the neck, the centrepiece of the coming alive moment, the zombie character?
ReplyDelete