Its a very good movie overall and like its predecessor has the impressive acting. While its about humanizing the monster, it never feels like a 'Frankenstein' picture. Prefer the first.

More mature, interesting, original and cinematographic movie about the monster. Even telling a completely different story than the book, shares more soul with the original than the first Universal one, and than the supposely faithful Branagh's version.

Could this be Hollywood's first attempt at creating a sequel for a film that didn't need one? That said, once the distracting and unnecessary introduction is over, it's a serviceable sequel, albeit one with a goofier tone than its predecessor.

Misses the tragic greatness of the original, the Bride has like three minutes of screen time, and though more thoughtful than the first, it's almost pushy in that regard; annoyingly overplayed.

One of the few sequels that is better than the original. It embraces self-parody--the inevitable fate of sequels--and runs with it. The Monster is more human, Thesiger and his little people charming, and Elsa's lightning-bolt hair and her hiss stick in the memory.

This is so campy that you can't take it seriously. I see it as some kind of black comedy, instead of an average horror film.

I prefer it to the first mostly because of the original's familiarity, like the number of times I've seen Young Frankenstein for example, but it's also superior in every technical way too. The special effects, like the scene with the tiny people, holds up incredibly well, even better than a lot of stuff they were doing with mattes and rear projection 20 years later.

Old movies have an uphill battle given that what might have been pioneering may now b cliche.4 instance: was this 1st use of an off-kilter frame2 convey madness? 1st time subtext played such an important role?If so, it's easy2 understand y its a classic.Clunky at points but it suprises:both the Monster's encounter w/ the blind man and his attempt2 connect w/theBride seem like they would play out as excerpts from a goofy B-movie& instead r not only moving, but capture the primal pain of rejection

213

While it does feature the wonderfully twisted Dr. Pretorius, model for all screen mad scientists who came after, this movie just doesn't hold together as well as the original. Still very fun, though.

one of the first sequels in film history to actually be better than the first. every bit of this one is better and all the widely remembered scenes from the series are in this movie save maybe two. if you're going through the monster mash movies of the 30's and 40's, don't stop at the first one, watch this one too.

A fair amount better than the first film. Admittedly it comes off as even sillier than the first (the miniatures are definitely the low point of this film...), but the story goes more interesting places, thematically this film goes where the first film should have but didn't (looking at Frankenstein sympathetically, showing that he only lashes out as a reaction to others attacking him out at him out of ignorance) and the sets are really quite breathtaking at points.

Still amazing. "It's a perfect night for mystery and horror. The air itself is filled with monsters. "

#203

The last 25 minutes of this film can stand against the final act of any other horror film. As entertaining as it gets.

"Frankenstein" is only half-watched if you haven't seen "Bride of Frankenstein" as well. Every remake worth watching has elements of both of these films, and "Bride of Frankenstein" has some of the most important.

Now it just got silly...

This has one of the most bizarre first scenes I've ever seen. It goes nicely with Frankenstein, which had one of the most bizarre final scenes I've ever seen. Oh, and by bizarre, I mean fucking horrendous.

90.500

Beaiful