HottWwjdIam There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

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.

Hitchcoc Imagine yourself watching this in 1910. This Edison production features a terribly emotional Dr. Frankenstein who goes off to school and comes back with the idea of creating life. In a series of sequences moving forward in time, we see the monster born out of a vat as Dr. F looks through an opening in an enclosure. Unfortunately, what he thought would be a new Prometheus is a big ugly lunk with huge hands and feet and hair all deranged. He comes to know quickly that he isn't going to fit in very well. As usual, Frankenstein, the ultimate careless arrogant jerk, can only flop around in despair at what he has created. The monster runs off and everything is hunky dory for the time being. But the big guy keeps coming back. How the monster is ultimately dealt with is absurd and Frankenstein gets way more than he deserves.

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.

WakenPayne We All Know Frankenstein. This Is His First Movie. I Still Cannot Believe It! I Am Not The Guy Who Says "This Is A Silent Film So Its Bad" This Movie Is So Slow Paced That I Fast Forward The Creation Of The Monster. The Lighting Consistently Changes. Let Me Give You An Example One Minute Its Sepia The Next Its Blue & White. The Effects Of The Monster Look Like The Werewolf From The Wolfman (2010) & That Is A Huge Insult. People Will Hate Me For Saying This But Look At It. Half The Movie Is The Creation Of The Monster. This Movie Is Extremely Boring & Badly Lit. Okay This Movie Is Out Of My System. I Have Never Read The Book So Thats Mainly A Reason As To Why I Can't Stick Up For The Plot. Back Then You Also Can't Stick Up For The Acting Or Put It Down. This Movie Is Absolute Crap. If You Want To See How Movies Were Made 100 Years Ago Then By All Means Go Ahead & Watch It. Garuanteed You'll Be Disappointed.