Please don't spend money on this.

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

While this adaptation also eschews some of the complexity of the original novel, and largely truncates it for time, this film, like "Dracula" before it, has largely transcended the source material. While enthusiasts of the genre would largely recognize the disparity between the film and the novel, to a more casual viewer, this film is very much the definition of "Frankenstein," both in terms of its visual design of the creature as well as the signature (and oft-parodied) set-pieces. Even those who have never seen the film in its entirety would recognize large swatches of the story, based on nothing more than cultural osmosis. Additionally, the make-up, a creation of Jack Pierce and the glorious happenstance of Boris Karloff's distinctive visage, has become one of the most instantly recognizable icons of cinema.

Of course, one of the best monster movies of all time, and one of which we all know, it's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. What's funny is most people get confused, and think the monster is called Frankenstein. In reality, Frankenstein is the name of the scientist who created it. Being that this film is from 1931, starring the amazing Boris Karloff, it really is far ahead of its time. Beautiful effects, and a plot line that doesn't drag along and bore you like a lot of older monster films. In the age it was made, the film must have been absolutely terrifying. A humongous mash up of body parts made into a body that has the mind of a criminal. Sounds like some kind of horrific drug trip. My overall opinion of the movie though? It's wonderful. I've always been a fan of Karloff's and I could watch it again and again.

1931 Frankenstein..... I am a big fan of universal and hammer horror. When it comes to monsters, the Wolf Man and Dracula; they will always be my favorites. When it comes to film, Frankenstein; is at the top of the list. The film called on a great selection of talent. Boris Karloff, did a miraculous job playing the monster; the man's acting talent knows no bounds.The story, by Mary Shelley; was a good tale, that actually opened cross over opportunities with future classic horror ideas. Pitting the Wolf Man against Frankenstein, and Dracula; with many of the favored horror actors reprising their original roles.Classic horror films like Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Wolf Man; gave us a template, for the creation of future masterpieces of horror; that many directors and producers of modern horror look on to this day.1931 Frankenstein, is on of the best films of its time, and it will be enjoyed for many more years to follow.

Scores Overall: 3/10 Script: 4/10 Acting: 2/10 Visuals + Cinematography: 6/10 Character development: 0/10Attempting to make a classic 1931 horror? Look no further because I have the recipe. Take your source material from a classic novel, say Frankenstein, crap all over it, give the actors virtually nothing to work with in terms of dialogue, then put all the mushiness together, and voila, you've got your own 1931's Frankenstein. This movie is one of the most dreadful experience I've had the "opportunity" to sit through. The plot is weak and filled with holes unanswered by the director, the screenplay is nothing but cheese, the pacing is incoherent, and the actors' performances so wooden they could easily be compared to Kristen Stewart's. Sure, cinematography-wise, the movie is somewhat less off putting, considering the fact that it was made more than 70 years ago. Some shots must have certainly been quite revolutionary at the time, but cinematography and visuals alone can hardly help this film's lack of entertainment.The movie's source material, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, is a lesson to its audience in many ways; it anticipates a person's downfall through greediness of knowledge; warns of the devastating effects that neglect can have on people; and all around shows a humane side that can be matched by little other novels. It, however, skips over all the character development and inner thoughts necessary to recreate, or come close to, the same emotional depth that its novel counterpart possesses. I personally feel like the film was too focused on its sound effects (which compared to nowadays effects, are pretty much noises) and production design, which of course, is very important in a movie. However, since the emphasis is put too much on these aspects, the movie falls short of the profundity that its source builds towards. While watching the movie, I could not help but realize that there was virtually no development in the monster's character, as opposed to the immense amount of evolution that Mary Shelley's bestow on her monster. This was the real problem with the movie, that its characters are way too flat to convey any kind of emotions for the audience. This cannot be backed up more by its incredibly short, 70-minute, running time, which is extraordinarily condensed compared to other good movies, or just about any movie at all. The time span of just a bit more than an hour is unable to do the novel justice, which is why the movie fails for me. Technically talking, I thought the script was way too "big". Cheesy, over- dramatized, and just too "big" for its own good. The actors are given very little opportunity to show their feelings and acting because of the terrible screenplay, which explains their extremely wooden acting (notably Colin Clive's). As for the "groundbreaking" visuals, I have no problem with it, except that it takes away a lot of the director's attention from what could have been a well-made and emotionally drenching plot.