Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

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.

Prismark10 From Thomas Edison's production studio and directed by J Searle Dawley, this adaptation of Frankenstein is regarded as the first American horror film.It is a silent short film that is only about 13 minutes along and some of the narrative conveyed by insert cards in the film which includes passages from Mary Shelley's novel.Frankenstein creates his monster by use of a portion and the coming together of the monster is still effective and I can imagine the monster lumbering around would had scared audiences at the time.The film is grainy in places and of course it does not all make sense with some choppy editing but we are talking early cinema here which was still in an experimental phase. The film was considered lost for many years as it was in the hands of a private collector.

skybrick736 Before Boris Karlof brought Frankenstein to stardom there was this particular short silent film that got the horror genre ball rolling. I'll admit I'm a tough critic on the film with a three rating but I thought two scenes dragged on way longer than what they could have, especially the scene inside the cauldron. Also, while that was going on there was a blatant few seconds of over acting by the main lead. Besides that gripe I thought the monster looked tremendous afterwards and I really dug the music and thought it flowed really well with the script. Finally, I was intrigued about the camera work and why different colors were shot at different scenes. Pretty sure there is a meaning to the hot (orange) and cold (blue) contrast as well as the typical black and white scenes. I wasn't impressed with the old 1910 Frankenstein but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. Its a pretty neat film I suggest watching it if you are a horror buff.

Theo Robertson Today both film fans and aficionados of cinema consider the director to be the so called author of a movie . Interesting to note that when a film is promoted a star name director is heavily promoted as in " A film by Steven Spielberg / Martin Scorsese / James Cameron etc etc " . Much of this comes from the French New Wave era where the director was considered to be the artistic driving force behind a movie conveniently forgetting all about the hard work the screenwriter has in the production . Perhaps the theory of the director being the author of the film would be better applied to the birth of cinema where the likes of Georges Melies and the Lumiere brothers where the magical creativity of a director made a movie work ? Add J. Searle Dawley's 1910 version of FRANKENSTEIN to this body of work Like many movies from this period there is a very strong element of literal movie magic brought in to play . Frankenstein tries to create a perfect human and the audience see a skeletal figure gradually becoming more and more formed . It's difficult to understand how the audience would have reacted to this in 1910 but even today the creation of the monster isn't totally unimpressive though sharp eyed viewers will notice the smoke in the chamber seems to flow in to the creation which indicates the trick is done via stop frame animation and the film being played backwardsUnfortunately the screen writing rule of " Show don't tell " seems to remain undiscovered from this period . We're told via card captions that Frankenstein hasn't created a perfect human but " The evil in his mind has made a monster " which is strange because Frankenstein has done nothing evil on screen at this point , nor does he do anything evil in the remainder of the runtime . Strangely too that the monster doesn't do anything monstrous apart from turning up at his creator's wedding day uninvited . Supposedly this ties in with Mary Shelley's subtext that God's law has been broken because a mere human has created life out of death ? There's also a perplexing end where the monster effectively disappears in to thin air after seeing his reflection in the mirror You have to understand however that in 1910 we're a very long way from The Classic Hollywood period when narrative storytelling and all its beauty such as structure , characterisation and of course dialogue hadn't been considered . In the silent period directors were something along the lines of magicians and J Searle Dawley does bring magic to the cinematic table in a film that is strangely compelling despite the flaws in the narrative