Frankenstein (1910)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

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.

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.

This short adaptation of Frankenstein is not what you would call an exceptional film. It's more of a condensed version of the book with a new ending and no real resolution on hard to see grainy film. The only novelty this film really has going for it, is it's age, and it's connection to Thomas Edison, whose production company made the film. A stage play would have served the story justice better than this.Dr. Frankenstein wants to make a perfect human, but his heart is too full of hate to truly make the creature pure. He ends up making an evil creature who runs off, and causes chaos on the day of Dr. Frankenstein's marriage.It's understandable that this film was made a hundred years ago and the special effects are going to be virtually nonexistent, but there actually is a cool effect here. When Frankenstein's monster is cooling off and being created, we get to see inside the "furnace", where a burning lump is transformed into a skeleton. Looking back on how old this was, it's a pretty neat effect. But with the good comes the bad. Once the Monster is created, it looks horrible. It looks like a less threatening deformed Cowardly Lion with bad makeup. Again, obviously movies back then were essentially filmed stage plays, but knowing this was going on camera, they should have spruced up the monster a bit.The story itself is rather bland here, and much less interesting than it's source novel, but it isn't horrible. It's just a simplified version of a much better book told with very little pizazz. The ending doesn't make sense, and doesn't resolve things, but it's interesting, especially for it's time.Not much of a movie, but more a small piece of history. Worth a look for film enthusiasts. My rating: ** out of ****. 16 mins.

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.