Customer Reviews

The Bride of Frankenstein

5 star:		(57)
4 star:		(23)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Well, I'm of two minds about The Bride Of Frankenstein. Firstly, it's certainly a more elaborate and more polished film than the 1931 original. The acting is certainly better overall. But...it feels more campy than the original. I don't get the same sense of pathos for the Monster and his situation. It's still there in some measure, but not to the same degree. The original seemed to be done with more of a straight face while the sequel veers from that into almost spoof and a feeling of camp. Ironically I had a chance to watch Young Frankenstein for the very first time a couple of weeks ago and it isn't that much of a departure from the sensibilities of The Bride Of Frankenstein, or more it pushed those sensibilities further and over the top into deliberate camp.

I get the sense that a lot of people feel the camp and humour were used deliberately to slip certain ideas past the censors. I suppose that's possible given the film was made four years after the 1931 original and the original Dracula. In 1931 films were still pretty free from the more formalized censorship that would come with the Hayes crowd within a couple of years--by 1935 the scrutiny would have been in full force. That's all very well, but I feel the camp rather dulls the effectiveness of some of the film's ideas. Of course, I'm also seeing it from the perspective of an age where you wouldn't have to veil certain ideas in spoof and camp to get them on the big screen.

For me the whole film feels lighter. I don't get any real sense of seriousness in it. Basically after the opening parlour room scene with Mary Shelley, Percy Shelley and Lord Byron I felt it just veered into varying degrees of lighter fare and without any of the atmosphere of the original.

I still kind of liked it, but here I part company from the apparent majority and have to say I think I like the 1931 original better.

Rarely is a sequel, particularly a horror sequel, better than its predecessor, but Bride of Frankenstein (1935) easily replaced the 1931 original classic as the definitive Universal Frankenstein movie. Director James Whale did not want to do another Frankenstein movie for the most admirable of reasons, and largely because of his feelings on the matter he brought to a life a sequel that sought perfection in every discernible way and provided a much deeper and more poignant look at the monster of Frankenstein's creation - the comedic exploitation of the monster did not begin on his watch. The addition of a full-scale musical score added depth and its own emotional layers to the drama, Karloff brought amazing pathos and humanity to the creature, and Elsa Lanchester, in a few short minutes, gave the world one of the truly eternal horror images and icons in the form of the Bride of Frankenstein's Monster (which is what the film should have been called).

Most of the principal cast members of the original Frankenstein movie reprise their roles here, including Colin Clive as Frankenstein and the inimitable Boris Karloff as the monster. Mae Clarke, however, was unavailable for health reasons, and a seventeen-year-old Valerie Hobson took on the role of Elizabeth, Frankenstein's fiancée. This is a noticeable change, as Hobson played Elizabeth in a strikingly different manner. As you may have guessed, Frankenstein's monster did not actually die in the big fire that ended the first motion picture. The windmill was built over a cistern (more like a great big underground pond, if you ask me), and the monster escapes the conflagration, not before killing a couple of people and scaring Minnie, this film's version of interminable comic relief, half to death. Dr. Frankenstein, for his part, also survives (although we already knew this thanks to the last-minute concluding scene of the first movie). He regrets his foolish attempts to play God, even though he still speaks with a mad zeal about the dreams he pursued so dangerously. Enter Dr. Praetorius (Ernest Thesiger), a former professor of Frankenstein's and the kind of evil genius our reformed young doctor should have become. Praetorius has been doing his own God-like experiments and now seeks to join his knowledge with that of Frankenstein to make not a man, but a woman. In the film's only borderline ridiculous moments, we see the products of Praetorius' work - the film work and special effects are brilliantly done, but the whole idea is just laughably silly. Still, you can't help liking old Praetorius because he is everything a mad scientist should be. Frankenstein has now become - well, (...) a cowardly man who seems incapable of acting on his own accord. Luckily, Dr. Praetorius knows how to deal with a man such as Frankenstein, and he eventually succeeds in getting the good doctor back in the lab for one final experiment.

As for Frankenstein's monster, we finally get to see the humanity of the character emerge. Seeking friendship, he is met only with fear, screams, and malice. He does manage to find a friend in the countryside, however - the sound of violin music takes him to the home of a blind hermit. In one of the most touching scenes in cinema history, the blind man takes the monster in, thanks God for finally sending him a friend to assuage his loneliness, and shines the full light of humanity, all too briefly, on the lonely creature. Naturally, this time of happiness does not last long, but the monster does develop the ability to speak before he is separated forever from his friend. He ends up crossing paths with Dr. Praetorius, who quickly sells him on the idea of a mate, setting the stage for another pyrotechnic creation scene that gives us the unforgettable Bride of Frankenstein.

The cinematography, musical score, and basically everything else are well-nigh perfect in this film; despite the ridiculous editing demands of the censors, Bride of Frankenstein achieves the pinnacle of monster movie success. Still, it bothers me that these films have defined Frankenstein's monster as a creature much different than the literary monster of Mary Shelley's creation. The first film completely stood Shelley's story on its head, missing the point entirely. How ironic it is for Bride of Frankenstein to feature a prologue featuring the character of Mary Shelley herself, in company with her companion Percy Bysse Shelley and the flamboyant Lord Byron, explaining the meaning of her work and then introducing yet another bastardization of the real Mary Shelley's literary masterpiece. The original monster, as envisioned by Shelley, was not the creature at all; it was Dr. Frankenstein, not so much because he played God but because he abandoned his monstrous creation and left him alone to fend for himself. Bride of Frankenstein rights some of this wrong by showing the depth of humanity in the monster, but it cannot undo the wrongs already done the character. In the context of the cinema, he will forever be a "monster," a shadow of his true literary self, forced to suffer at the hands of man while the true villain of the story fails to even attempt to redeem himself or to suffer the harsh yet noble fate that he so rightfully earned in Shelley's original story.

theres 1 thing i dont like and its the title
The Bride of Frankenstein.... but it aint hte bride of frankenstein because frankenstein is suppose to be the scientist or whatever u call him
if the title was
The Bride of Frankenstein's Monster then it'd tell the whole thing on what its about

But still its 1 of my fav horror films of all time!

From a cultural standpoint the 1931 Universal film version of "Frankenstein" that introduced Boris Karloff as the Monster is an important film because it ended up replacing Mary Shelley's novel in the popular consciousness. The great sin by the novel's Dr. Frankenstein was not the creation of the creature but abandoning it once it was alive, but in James Whales' film it is clearly the act of creation that is the abomination. This idea ends up being quite ironic given that the authoress herself appears in the prologue to the 1935 sequel, "The Bride of Frankenstein," which is actually the better film.

Mary Shelley (Elsa Lanchester), Percy Shelley (Douglas Walton), and Lord Byron (Gavin Gordon) are sitting around on a dark and stormy night and having apparently narrated the events of the first film, Mary tells her audience that the collapse of the windmill was not the end of the story and that both Dr. Frankenstein and the monster have both survived. The doctor has learned the error of his ways and wants to stop tampering with the forces of life, but his wife, Elizabeth (Valerie Hobson) is kidnapped by Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger), an even madder mad scientist if ever there was one. Alone Frankenstein created a man; together they will create a mate for the monster, a bride (also played by Lanchester in an unforgettable performance that owes much to the traditions of German expressionist film).

The sequel is a better film mainly because the production is much more polished and Colin Clive has come back from the edge in terms of both his character and his performance. However, while the film works perfectly well on its own it has been reinterpreted in light of Whale's homosexuality, which became part of the cultural landscape with the 1998 biopic "Gods and Monsters." Critics like Gary Morris are not alone in now seeing "Bride of Frankenstein" as a bold gay parable, especially given that Thesiger was also openly gay in the Hollywood of the 1930s and that his performance is pure high camp. However, you can enjoy the film perfectly without working out the idea that the monster and his bride have a pair of male parents.

It is important to see both of Whales' "Frankenstein" films and to appreciate the important differences between the two works. To do so you only have to look at a pair of memorable scenes. In the 1931 film this would be the scene where the monster comes across little Maria (Marilyn Harris), throwing daisies in the lake and he accidentally drowns her as they play together. In the 1935 sequel the key scene is when the monster comes upon the hermit (O.P. Heggie) living alone in quiet solitude and finds a friend. Both scenes represent the apotheosis of pathos in their respective films, but they also indicate great irony of how the more human the monster becomes, the wider the gulf that is created between him and humanity.

Even as a master metaphor of current age the saga of the Frankenstein monster remains a very human story as well, and it draws its enormous narrative power from both. The performance by Karloff, who is now able to speak a few words (most notably, "I love dead"), creates a pathos for the monster that is unmatched in all the Frankenstein films made since. Much more than the original and despite the title, "The Bride of Frankenstein" is Boris Karloff's film.

James Whale returns to direct the sequal to his origional 1931 classic, Frankenstein. The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) staring Boris (Frankenstein monster) Karloff, Colin (Henry Frankenstein) Clive, Valerie (Elizabeth) Hobbson, Ernest (Dr. Preturios) Thesiger, and Elsa (monster's bride) Lanchester is a classic film, and one of the only sequals ever made to match the origional.

Frankenstein went through major character development in this film. In the origional Colin Clive states that the monster was only a few days old and his brain must be given time to develope. Well, it seems that it is developing very nicely. The monster learns to love and wants to be loved back. He is funny at times and serious (even scary) at times. He tried to befriend mankind, but gets nothing but ridicule as a result of being "different."

When the monster decides he can't have a human friend, he goes to Henry Frankenstein and demands a mate! If Henry will not grant the monster's wishes, the monster is willing to make Henry's mind for him at the price of possibly Elizabeth's life!

There is only so much one can say about this film, other then it is a classic. It is funny, sad, and scary all at the same time. The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) is truely a timeless classic film, and one of the best Universal monster movies!

Having the characters introduced by the author, Mary Shelley was an interesting idea, but, in this case it didn't work. Elsa Lanchester (also the "Bride") comes off well (if a little pretentious) as Mary Shelley but the other two don't. Douglas Walton as the poet, Shelley, is almost a non presence. As Lord Byron, Gavin Gordon, speaking lines one would have to stay awake writing and memorizing for the next day comes across as the most pompous, pretentious and annoying ass in history. The setting for this recap looks to predate the events of the original film by about a hundred years, and, even with footage from the original film it doesn't pick up the thread exactly the way it had left off.

The word for this part of the film is lame.

That said, don't let this five minute bit of stupidity detract from the enjoyment offered by an otherwise excellent film. Bride of Frankenstein has long been regarded as possibly the best of it's kind and that praise is well deserved. Boris Karloff gave the role of the savage but tragic creation depth of character and humanity that no other actor playing the part in the remainder of Universal's outings ever achieved. Karloff was the rare sort of actor with the gift for being able to "speak volumes" with a small gesture or a shift of expression. His monster is unpredictably menacing and indescribably lonely all at the same time. Ultimately, his portrayal of the creature is still the most charismatic of any of the attempts to bring the Frankenstein legend to the screen. Ernest Thesiger played the eccentric and charming but utterly ruthless Pretorius with a full measure of glee and it shows. Through their scenes together his presence matches Karloff's step for step. Any of the scenes he plays opposite the other players he just out and out steals. One of the films greatest touches is offered through O.P. Heggie as the blind hermit who reveals the monster's humanity are. The first scene between him and the monster remains one of the more moving ever filmed.

My reactions to the work from the rest of the cast are little more mixed. Colin Clive returned as the driven but creator and still turned in a decent performance, but this time with slightly less zest. Clive was only two years from death when the film was shot, already suffering from acute alcoholism and probably afflicted with tuberculosis as well. (That was listed as part of the cause of his death). Whatever the reason, his energy level is less consistent than in the first film and it shows. Una O' Connor as the Frankenstein's maid gives the film it's balance with hilarious moments of comic relief; you can't watch her and not laugh, which is what (Director James) Whale intended. Valerie Hobson fares slightly less well. She's a radiantly beautiful Elizabeth but, like Mae Clark in the original film, struggles with some of her dialogue (though in her defense any rational reasoning human being would have struggled with those lines). Her character is one dimensional and ends up being little more than a babbling foil for the film's much stronger male characters. As well, her personality and presence is distinctly English where Clark was so obviously American. These factors, as much as the alterations in the prelude, hurt both the film and the continuity between the two films.

When taken against the film as whole however, those complaints are minor ones. This film succeeds because of the depth of it's story line and the multi-faceted nature of it's principal characters. There is Frankenstein, a man torn between revulsion for their deeds and his drive to seek truth, Pretorius, the brilliant loner with his self-effacing humour and fascination with death which borders on necromancy and the blind hermit, the one man who accepts the monster simply because he feels but can't see and as a result becomes the only one able to really "see" the creature. Then, there's the creature, savage and misunderstood, angry but tender, a being as human as any but rejected by even the one created to be with him. Under Laemmle and Whale writer William Hurlbut allowed the monster to evolve, to grow as a character. In this film his movements are less stiff, his thinking more sophisticated and he gains the power to speak and articulate his thoughts, feelings and desires. It was a masterstroke, and sadly, the last time that would be allowed in the series. Visually, like the first one, this film is a treat. The lighting, brilliantly conceived is moody, atmospheric, subtle where needed and and enhances characters, scenes and action. As always, with Whale's films cinematography is superb. Whale had a touch for composing the way scenes were staged and how they would flow. One example is the how Valerie Hobson's dress trails behind her as she walks during the scene where her character is first introduced. Whale has it set so as to flow into the character behind her, something which visually enhances the feel of motion within the scene. It was a device he used in the first film and one he uses again here. Another remarkable moment is the moment where the creature rampages through the graveyard just prior to his first encounter with Pretorius. This is a masterpiece of lighting and composition and one which was imitated countless times in the decades that followed; it has only seldom been equalled. The score, by Franz Waxman, underscores, enhances, and at times, drives, the content of the film beautifully. His work was connected with many noteworthy films through his life. A few familiar ones are Mr. Roberts, Rear Window, Objective Burma and The Philadelphia Story. With this film producer Carl Laemmle, director James Whale and the rest of the ensemble set the standard which, almost seventy years later, is not just the text book on how it's done, but also, how to do it with style and flair.

I am a great fan of the Karloff Frankenstein movies, and I own
all three (Frankenstein, Bride, and Son) on VHS and DVD. But, I
am a little disappointed with the audio quality in the DVD version of The Bride of Frankenstein. In some quiet scenes, you
can hear an annoying buzzing in the background, something you
will not hear on the VHS version. Of course, the movie itself deserves a five star rating. But, because of the audio problems
on the DVD version, I have subtracted a star. Bride is the best
of the three Karloff Frankenstein movies.

After watching the original 1931 Frankenstein and then watching the Bride of Frankenstein a few days later, I don't know how anyone can say that "Bride" was a better film than the first release. The original 1931 movie worked so much better than this well known sequel (obviously these are just my subjective opinions; many other reviewers would seem to disagree judging by the many four star reviews). Where do I start? 1)First of all the soundtrack. As any Frankenstein buff knows, the original 1931 release had no music during the movie; the only music on the first release was during the beginning and end credits. "Bride" was one of the first movies to make use of a scored soundtrack that played throughout the movie. This, in my opinion, ruined the potential mood of the movie and the entire haunting feel that was present when the monster appeared in the original film. Who can forget the haunting effect that silence helped to create when the creature makes his first full appearance as he comes in backwards through the doorway in the 1931 original movie. The silence added a lot to the overall effect of the scene. Not only did much of the music throughout "Bride" detract from the mood of the movie, but it also makes "Bride" sound very dated. 2)Although Karloff's performance as the monster was well done in both the original and "Bride", the monster just seemed plain scarier in the 1931 movie (these are supposed to be horror movies). Karloff's make-up effect was much better done in the original movie, and his appearance was much more that of a once dead creature, especially in that first backwards through the doorway entrance scene; he looked so lifeless. In "Bride" the monster appeared as a creature who could be reasoned with. In the original 1931 movie the monster was not so, and this made the character more frightening. The scene with the little girl by the lake in the first movie is a classic scene showing the monster's naive and
unpredictable emotions and actions; Karloff did a fantastic job of playing out the monster's emotions and reactions as he runs away from the lake bewildered and confused by what happened to the little girl. The monster was just a better and more interesting character in the first movie. 3)Another problem with the "Bride" sequel was simply the annoying acting. The old semi-loopy house servant of doctor Frankenstein was just too annoying, and over-acted. Also, the actress who played doctor Frankenstein's fiance Elizabeth (a different actress than in the original 1931 movie) over-acted and was way too emotional when delivering her lines (this technique seems to be somewhat common in these old movies). Colin Clive as Dr. Frankenstein and the guy who played the evil Dr. Pratoreus also had some lines that seemed a bit overdone. 4)The story of the 1931 original film was better. I know that many "Bride" fans will heartily disagree with my assessment of the Bride of Frankenstein. However, all the way around "Bride" is subpar when compared to the classic 1931 original. Watch these two movies in succession as a double feature and you two will liekly come to the same conclusions.

Most sequels of movies aren't as good as the original. But this movie breaks that rule. This movie has a swifter pace than some other classic horror movies. It's funny because my favorite part is the blind man even though part of it made me cry. Its also has also has some other great parts. So I actually think this is my favorite horror movie. It's alot better than one star gory horror movies. So get the popcorn it is about to start.

Almost seventy years old now, this sequel to the classic "Frankenstein" proves that some films are timeless, even when looking at them for the first time.

Elsa Lanchester is Mary Shelley, recounting what happened after the events of the first film, on a dark and stormy night with her famous husband and Lord Byron. The film makers wisely recap the highlights of the first film, reminding the audience of the basic plot.

.

While better than the original "Frankenstein," this film is still not technically perfect. There are quite a few editing gaffes, where someone is doing something in one shot, but not another. Whale's direction really does not come alive until the last creation scene, which has wonderful off-center and shadowed shots. Even Karloff's monster makeup appears softened compared to the first film.

On the positives, however, the black and white atmosphere works well here. Sets or not, the high ceilings and creepy Euro look are chilling. The special effects also rival modern films, they are excellent and not cheesy in the slightest.

While Karloff is good, Lanchester is excellent in her too brief role as the bride. Una O'Connor is a scream (literally) as the cowardly housekeeper who always seems to meet up with the Monster at the wrong time. Dwight Frye is underused as a lab assistant. Colin Clive is kept in the background as Frankenstein. He seems ill at ease, and the actor died a few years later as a result of alcoholism. By the way, the book and film "Gods and Monsters" got their title from this film, and a toast made by Pretorious.

While this film has garnered a nearly flawless reputation in the last seven decades, it does deserve accolades. This may not terrify you like it did audiences of the past, but it is interesting to see the inspiration behind almost every monster movie made afterward. Not perfect, but recommended.

This is unrated, and contains physical violence, some gun violence, and mild gore.