ironhorse_iv Mary Shelley's 1818 novel, 'Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus' has influenced popular culture for at least over 100 years. Reading a horror novel gives an opening into that scary world, into an outlet for the essence of fear itself, without actually being in danger. Weird as it sounds, there's a very real thrill and fun factor in being scared or watching disturbing, horrific images. However, this 16 minute short movie based on that book, wasn't that scary, nor barely watchable. Since its original release, the film footage had been severe damage, with a lot of dirt grain and scratches on the film frames. There are also a few burns and tears, here with some color fading or wrong choice of film tinting. I'm not 100% certain, but I believe this movie is also missing a few scenes. It's sad that this movie was neglected for so long. It got so bad, that it was somewhat listed as missing, as many thought, no copies of the film still existed. It wasn't until the mid-1970s, that an original nitrate print finally turned up in Wisconsin, allowing this film to be seen, again in years. While the film is semi-deteriorated, I do have to say, film restoration since then, help, but it doesn't help that the film, as well as all other motion pictures released before 1923, is now in the public domain in the United States. This means that virtually anyone could duplicate and sell a DVD copy of this. Therefore, many of the versions of this film available on the market are either severely or badly edited. Since many of them, come from extremely poor quality, having been duped from second- or third-generation copies. Even with that, I do have to credit to Edison Studios for making one of the first horror genre films. Despite, being the first motion picture adaptation of 'Frankenstein', this movie was not the most influence film version of the source material. That acclaim goes to the 1931 Universal Studios version directed by James Whales, that help shape what audience see, who and what Frankenstein's monster is, today. Nevertheless, this silent movie directed by J. Searle Dawley is a lot more accuracy to the book, than director James Whale's 1931 version. So you can give, this Edison Studios produce film, that credited. Still, this movie is missing a lot from the original story. It doesn't have the Captain Walton's Artic Journey introductory & concluding frame narrative. Nor does the movie show, any of the Cottage scenes, where Victor's Frankenstein's creature (Charles Ogle) learn to speak, read and write. Another big scene from the book, missing in this version, is the death of Henry Clerval, whom character is absence is film, as well, as the scene where the monster commands Baron Victor Frankenstein (Augustus Phillips) to build it, a wife to love. Don't get me wrong, while, this film still tells a semi-accuracy story of a mad-scientist bringing a corpse back to life. The biggest letdown of this film is the fact, that all these events, might being played in Baron Victor Frankenstein's head. I really didn't like any of the mirror scenes, at all. The idea of Victor Frankenstein going mad is a little odd for me. It felt more like a production of author Robert Louis Stevenson's, 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde', than 'Frankenstein'. Another thing that bug me, about the creature look and act, is how much, it remind me of Quasimodo from author Victor Hugo's 'The Hunchback of Notre-Dame'. When you think deep hard about it, I have to say, Lon Cheney's performance in 1923's 'The Hunchback of Notre-Dame' seem very similar to the work that Charles Ogle put out here. Maybe, this was the movie that help Cheney find his inner muse for that character. Nevertheless, I thought, the creature might look was a little more realistic to the source material than the uber-famous boxy forehead and neck electrodes, Boris Karloff one, but the acting in this film is a lot more cheesy than the 1930s version. Yes, I get that, there was no synchronized recorded sound, especially with no spoken dialogue, back in the day, and actors had to emphasized body language and facial expression so that the audience could better understand what an actor was feeling and portraying on screen, but the way, Augustus Phillips and Charles Ogle move in the small set is a bit laughable. As a modern viewer, I can't help it. Still, there were some cool moments. A good example is the creature was created by a cauldron of chemicals rather than by a bolt of lightning. It's very gruesome for a silent film era to see a skeleton reform itself. Great special effects. Still, I would love for this movie to have some sort use of electricity in its sequence, since it's the one thing that Mary Shelley talks a good deal amount. I also didn't get the sense of concerns of religion and the general public regarding the morality of tampering with God's work, like the other film adaptations. This film feels a bit lacking, because of that. Overall: While, the 1931's "Frankenstein' remains one of the most recognized icons in horror fiction. This version of the story will probably pass away, quicker than that version. In the end, Frankenstein 1910 is deader than dead. It's just not that memorable.

jacobjohntaylor1 They could have come up with something more like book when made this. They did not have do something so confusing and hard to follow. One good thing I can say about this movie. If it had not been made. And been the s.u.k.s.e.s that it was the 1931 remake would never have been made. But when I think about. This movie is pooh pooh. Don't see it. Pooh pooh. pooh pooh, pooh pooh. pooh pooh. Don't see it don't see it don't see it don't see it. The book was easy to follow so the movie should have been easy to follow. But it was not. Pooh pooh pooh pooh pooh pooh. Don't see it. It is not scary. It is pooh. The Book is scary and the 1931 remake is scary.

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.

sddavis63 Compared to either Mary Shelley's novel or the later talkie version of "Frankenstein" with Boris Karloff as the monster, this would certainly have to be described as a bare bones effort - to be expected, I suppose, from this era and in a 12 and a half minute short.The basics are there. Frankenstein discovers the secret of life and death (how, we're not told) and he uses that secret to create what he believes will be the perfect human being (the method of creation isn't explained) but that instead turns out to be only grotesquely human-like, rather than the perfect human. The monster (played by an actor named Charles Ogle) isn't as non-human as Karloff's version was, and there seems to be a certain sense of comedy about him. Eventually, this short becomes a story of jealousy. Frankenstein returns home to marry his sweetheart, but his monster haunts him and is overcome by jealousy against Elizabeth, Frankenstein's fiancé. The monster's demise wasn't sufficiently explained. Standing in front of a mirror, suddenly the monster disappears, leaving only its image, which also disappears after Frankenstein enters the room. The final scene shows the love between Frankenstein and Elizabeth, and I was left wondering if there really was a monster, or if this was all just a figment of Frankenstein's imagination, overcome finally by love.This short (perhaps inevitably) left a lot of questions.