For those of you who aren’t already aware, Frankenstein the classic Universal movie is completely unlike “Frankenstein” the novel. Not only was the plot was changed beyond any recognition, but the monster’s demeanor and physicality was the exact opposite of the book’s depiction. The filmmakers even gave him a damaged brain and a phobia of fire, for whatever reason. The original Frankenstein was a tortured soul who created a monster and pledged to destroy it at the cost of his own sanity. The movie’s Frankenstein starts out as an unapologetically mad scientist who somehow turned into a sympathetic character. The film gave Frankenstein an assistant named Fritz (known to history as “Igor,” for reasons I can’t figure out), who was completely absent in the book.

I could keep going for hours, folks. Aside from the basic premise, this movie has absolutely nothing in common with the book it’s supposedly based on. And yet this film is what defined Frankenstein in common knowledge and pop culture at large. If you listen very carefully, you can hear Mary Shelley continuing to spin in her grave 80 years later.

But let’s take a step back here. Let’s look at this movie purely on its own merit, with no prior knowledge of the book. How is it on that basis? Personally, I’d say that this movie is visibly and painfully hampered by the limitations of early cinema.

Take the creation of Frankenstein’s monster, for example. Here we are in this wonderful set, with beautifully designed costumes and props and devices in the background. All the while, there’s rain and lightning thundering overhead, none of which we actually see. In fact, the monster’s actual moment of birth takes place entirely offscreen, as he’s raised up above the ceiling and remains out of sight until the storm passes. If ever there was an example of a filmmaker’s vision compromised by budget and technology of the day, this is surely it.

The actors themselves are another example. Colin Clive is delightfully manic as the mad scientist, Mae Clark does an elegant job as his fiancee, and Boris Karloff’s work must be seen to be truly believed. Unfortunately, movies were a whole lot shorter back in the day, and this movie suffers for it greatly. Hell, the movie’s almost halfway over by the time the monster has come to life! The monster and his creator have both done terrible things, yet it’s necessary that both of them believably turn sympathetic by the end. That sort of drastic transformation can’t be done well in only 71 minutes of screen time, no matter how hard the actors clearly tried.

The pacing is generally pretty good, but it’s offset by sloppy editing. The film is almost completely devoid of score, though that does help lend tension to a few scenes. The set design is remarkable and it does a lot to create a nicely dark mood, in spite of some pitifully obvious backdrops. Additionally, the film seemed headed toward a tragic finale, only for the movie to turn around and provide a very convoluted happy ending (which marks another vital difference from the source text). I can only assume that this was due to social expectations of the time.

This all leads to a single obvious conclusion: Frankenstein is a movie that was way ahead of its time. If this movie was made with the budget, the technology, the screen time, and the social expectations granted to films made in the modern day, this movie could have been something much more spectacular, not to mention faithful to the book. It’s easy to see why the movie is a classic, and it’s painfully obvious why Boris Karloff’s performance has reached iconic status. However, I’m left with the belief that if Karloff had played Frankenstein’s monster as he was written by Shelley, the result would have been greater still.

Nothing against the movie at all, but I personally thought that the book was far scarier. What’s more, it deeply explored several timeless themes that the movie (with its insufficient 71-minute screen time) could only hint at. The book has its failings, but I definitely recommend it over the movie.