Wordiezett So much average

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

GazerRise Fantastic!

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

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.

ofpsmith This is much like the original story. Victor Frankenstein, is a young student who attempts to create a human being, but instead creates a monster. In this one Frankenstein throws a bunch of chemicals in a pot, and poof, instant monster! The monster in question looks very deranged. It's only 10 minutes, but it gets the basics of the story down. There's a part where Frankenstein looks in a mirror and sees the monster where his reflection should be. So this film certainly isn't one to shy away from symbolism. In fact, this is probably the first film adaptation of Frankenstein ever. The Boris Karloff film is probably better because it does fit more of the story in. This is actually pretty good too though, so I recommend giving it a watch.

poe426 We're talking' HISTORY, here, folks, so keep that in mind when you weigh the pros and cons of Edison's version of MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN. It's theatrical in the extreme, but that was the tenor of the times. Like any good magician, Edison was (seemingly) conjuring Something from Nothing- and Film was the medium. The good doctor in the movie doesn't bother with all that graverobbing and experimentation on cadavers that later generations would come to expect: he simply concocts a potion that he tosses into a vat and- viola!- instant Monster. Said Monster is having a bad hair day (to be kind) and he's kinda sorta ticked off about having been conjured out of Nothingness. He hides behind a (convenient) curtain when the doctor's fiancé shows up, but, when he sees himself reflected in a mirror, he promptly vanishes. It's a neat little trick and his REFLECTION remains, left behind at film's end. What that means I can't even venture to guess, but it's a well-done bit of cinematic sleight-of-hand.

gavin6942 This short film features Frankenstein leaving for college, discovering the secret of life, and then creating what he hopes will be the perfect human being. But, of course, it goes horribly wrong and instead out of his experiment comes a monster! This film is seriously pretty great. Of course, due to technology in 1910, it is very short and some of the footage is grainy. It is also silent. But this does not in any way take away from its watchability. The acting is very good, the costumes are superb, and one must single out the special effects.The effects have Frankenstein throwing chemicals into a vat, and the vat smokes to life... half science, half magic. And then when the monster emerges, it is an effect that even today would be considered respectable. Flesh clings to bone as the flames roar from the vat... what a hideous creature comes out! The film has historical worth for a number of reasons. Obviously, it's the first Frankenstein film, but also it is a great example of early one-reel Edison filming in general. And for horror historians, it has a unique feature in the Frankenstein mythology: this version has the doctor using chemicals to create life, not spare limbs and electricity. It may be alone in that distinction.