Recent Film/Literary Titles, 1970-Present

The reason why the parodic version remains far funnier and popular is because, it really wasn’t made as a parody of the Frankenstein story, and it was made as a homage that was comedic in the style of absurd and theatre. While every scene is used from the 1930’s and is presented in the film with true spirit. Basically, the movie was rushed as I researched and there was very little money offered and time for the movie to be made, so you have to look at it this way. It takes money to make a really good movie and without money, you have to add a little comedy to keep the audience glued to the movie, where they will understand and want to actually see the movie in full. With this being said, the movie was really crafted to be used or humor and satire, and still being completely honest about what was going on. I watched the movie and it looked as if he was acting to make us laugh and still understand what he wanted, and that was not to be like his grandfather.

The movie sense were all funny, but still represented the truth about the creature and how he was made. Mel Brooks, in this movie acted as the script said he would but in a funny way to make us laugh, and it focused on one story in specific state and that was Dr. Frankenstein, and the creature that he made. This is why it was so famous. They had very hilarious scenes with the hunchback named Igor that acted very funny to many, he was a favorite character to many and this movie is one of Mel brooks best and still is the best movie that he ever made. Madeleine Khan, was also a funny character in the movie especially when she was to help catch the creature, and they jumped out on to him and she was left lying on top of the creature. Her scenes were very funny and also hilarious, because what women would jump on a creature that big, and help to capture him. Now with the Mary Shelly’s version of the movie tells a story about Frankenstein and wasn’t meant to be funny.

The words used in this movie portrayed a story version of Frankenstein and wasn’t about him directly. The movie focuses very little on science when in the older version that Mel Gibson made focused on science clearly. Her version was made to tell the secrets and to get into depth of what Frankenstein was really made for, and how the movie portrayed the actors. The book is known to be a hard time reading. This is why the first movie is funnier, and way more famous than the newer version it was funnier the characters were funny, and also the actor Mel Gibson, had nothing but hilarious scenes. In the newer version, the scenes were more modern and took the setting of the 1900’s and did not catch to many people attention because of the way that people acted. If you wanted the story version of Frankenstein then watch Mary Shelly’s version and if you want the comedic version the watch Mel Gibson’s.

In the new version people would think that the movie would have horror, and it did not, it was more story based, and sociable in many ways. It told secrets of Frankenstein and the scenes were very interesting, but not to catchy to the audience. If the movie would have had her in it, it would have been better, this is why; Mel Gibson’s is so much better 5 stars for Mel Gibson.

References

Review: "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley. (2011). Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://girlebooks.com/blog/free-ebooks/frankenstein-review/

Young Frankenstein. (n.d.). Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/young-frankenstein.php

APA formatting by BibMe.org.

Created on January 27, 2016 by Lionel Sharpe (student) || Professor Bonnie Ronson at 6:28 PM