Ernest Thesiger is superb in James Whale's sequel to "Frankenstein" as the scientist who has perfected the art of growing rather than harvesting tissue. When he meets up with Baron Frankenstein's original monster they set about coercing the reluctant Baron to create a wife for the lonely Boris Karloff. This is a cracking tale of science fiction, horror and even romance as the monster ends up endowed with far more "humanity" than either scientist. Una O'Connor and Elsa Lanchester are both great too, though feature sparingly. The special effects stand better scrutiny than many a sci-film being made twenty years later and the cannibalised classical musical score brings tension, joy, love and despair a-plenty to compensate for, admittedly a rather stilted script. Easily the best "Frankenstein" film ever made in my book.

**_Dr. Frankenstein and his former mentor try to create a mate for the monster_**

The monster (Karloff) survives the windmill burning of the previous film and wanders the countryside of Bavaria while Doctor Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger) approaches Baron Frankenstein (Colin Clive) with the idea of collaborating to create a mate for the monster, which presumably will domesticate him.

This Universal classic from 1935 was one of the first sequels to a mainstream film and arguably started the concept of a movie franchise or, at least, a cinematic trilogy: The 1931 movie, this sequel, and the follow-up “Son of Frankenstein” (1939) all feature Boris Karloff as the monster along with other overlapping actors and characters. It has a story arc and comes to a clear ending in the third flick.

Valerie Hobson is a highlight on the female front as Elizabeth Frankenstein (replacing Mae Clarke from the first film). Meanwhile Elsa Lanchester plays the dual role of Mary Shelley and the titular character at the end.

The prologue presents a glaring issue since Mary conveys this sequel to Lord Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley not long after the success of “Frankenstein,” which was published in 1818. Since the film obviously contains fashions & technology of the early 1930s mixed with elements of the 1800s (which the director described as an “alternate universe”), Mary would have to be predicting what it would be like in the distant future, at least 1899 (which is the tomb’s date on a recently deceased woman in the story).

This is one of those rare occasions where the sequel is better. It’s marked by increased camp (but not overkill), the monster’s memorable friendship with a blind man in the forest, and the fact that he learns to speak in a monosyllabic fashion (which Karloff objected to). It’s an iconic addition to the Frankenstein story, a Gothic horror tragedy highlighted by unforgettable renditions of the monster and his “bride.”

The B&W movie runs 1 hour, 15 minutes, and was shot entirely in the studio at Universal Studios in Greater Los Angeles.

GRADE: B+

What a great old horror movie this is! Actually, there are classic horror elements, but it plays as much more of a tragic comedy.

Karloff as the Monster is incredible. One moment he's raging and frenzied, the next he's calm and caring, even shedding a tear. The scene when a blind man befriends the Monster and invites him into his home is touching. They share food, wine and cigars and we finally get to hear the Monster speak. Karloff's facial expressions previously indicated plenty of emotion, but now that the Monster speaks it brings even more sympathy to the character.

One of the difficulties when watching the original "Frankenstein" was developing any feelings for the characters. Dr. Frankenstein seemed insane and tough to read because of his devotion to his work. The ease with which he suddenly detests this work and obsesses over his soon to be wife was a hard leap to make (hmmm...even tougher than the fact that he just created a man from dead body parts?). But, in "Bride of Frankenstein" there's a truly demented and evil character present in the form of Dr. Pretorius. His blackmail of Dr. Frankenstein is all we need to feel sympathetic towards he and Elizabeth's struggle to leave this nightmare behind and move on with their lives.

There are many scenes that I seriously enjoyed. The reintroduction of the Monster, the previously mentioned blind man befriending the Monster and the bringing to life of the Bride. And speaking of that, the laboratory set is fantastic and the editing of that scene is perfect.

A couple of items are a little perplexing. I'm not sure how Dr. Frankenstein fitted his lab with all of the new monster-making equipment so quickly. Also, why would the lab be equipped with a "self-destruct" lever?!? Those things aside, I believe that this sequel is actually superior to the original movie

What a strange departure. Where the original _Frankenstein_ was simple but direct, lean and effective and memorable for the right reasons, _Bride of Frankenstein_ is forced, meandering and overproduced.

Disregarding the ending of the initial adventure is a bad way to start, especially when that moment was such a key part of what made the story so powerful. Here, after a long dalliance in Mary Shelley's parlor(?!) and a rapid recap of the saga so far, we learn that creature and creator have each miraculously survived near-certain doom, and neither appears to have learned from their mistakes. I say this because both are almost immediately right back at it, doing the same crap that delivered them to death's doorstep in the first place. For a mindless monster, that can be forgiven (though _Bride_ quickly transforms him from a stumbling hulk of raw emotion to a speaking, stogie-smoking antithesis), but Doc Frankenstein had effectively denounced his own actions when last we saw him. And why should I buy in for the epic conclusion this time, knowing how permanent the last one turned out to be? You just erased it an hour ago!

Still, the chase to replicate the mad doctor's one-off experiment is a catchy catalyst; the potential of a mate for the lonesome creature a tempting tease. The giant's passing friendship with a blind priest is strong material, if far too fleeting and simplistic. There are several such effective flashes, glimmers of potential amidst all the oddball distractions and broken promises, but they're entirely unrefined and unrealized. Worst of these offenders is the bride herself, who exists more as an idea than a legitimate character. After so much anticipation, it's tough not to feel deflated when she springs to life for all of five minutes at the very end and then fizzles out like a wet firecracker. Efforts are made to conclude the story with profundity once again, but this time the lesson is less organic and nuanced. A blunt, strained farewell for a gaudy, pointless sequel.