When I first saw the movie Frankenstein, I realized that Hollywood was still changing the classic novels. In their usual fashion, they changed the names of the characters to be somewhat pleasing to the audience. I guess Henry Frankenstein was a better wholesome name than Victor Frankenstein. Instead they saved the name Victor for the supporting actor because no one would care what they named him. Next they changed Elizabeth to Margaret for some unknown reason. By movie standards today, the monster looked like a man in bad makeup and stiff acting. In Mary Shelley's original interpretation, I envision a monster with pale Caucasian skin color, misshapen limbs and with more vocabularies than Ugh or Ahh.
             I have come to the realization that the 1931 movie review of Frankenstein and I share the same opinions for the movie. Though I did find the acting and the makeup mediocre, in 1931 it was as the film critic said, "the most effective of its kind." The background and scenery impressed me. Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory was indeed impressive. The elaborate machinery and sound effects added to the sense that life was being created, though they really did go into great detail as to how life was brought back from the dead. The review says that the actor portraying Frankenstein's monster, Boris Karloff, did not portray a robot but a man sewn together with an abnormal brain. However I believed that the monster acted like a robot in the scene with the little girl. The girl presented a set of instructions (throwing flowers in the lake). The monster then copied the instructions like a program. Unfortunately, the "abnormal" brain caused a bug or glitch in his programming which caused the death of the girl. Humans are programmed, like a robot or computer, to follow instruction to perform actions such as walking, talking, driving, or doing simple math. In a sense we humans are highly advanced mechanis...