Though it differs considerably from Mary Shelley's original novel, Universal's 1931 monster movie 'Frankenstein' is an absolute classic whose cultural importance can't be overstated. To my embarrassment it took me a long time to get around to watching it; I've certainly never seen any of its sequels, including 'The bride of Frankenstein,' but I recognize how paramount this is, too, in cinema history. I love the concept, borrowing slightly again from Shelley, and further smaller moments beyond the central idea that of course carried greater weight in the author's tome. It's also pleasing that Boris Karloff and especially Colin Clive return. Like its predecessor, the production design and art direction are terrific, altogether impeccable; all contributions from those behind the scenes, emphatically including costume design and hair and makeup work, are vibrant and memorable. In my opinion 'Bride' falls well short compared to the first movie, but it's still solid enough, and I can understand why it, too, is broadly held in such high esteem.
I admit I have a harder time with this sequel just on the basis of the major tonal shift. The characterization of the monster has notably changed from just a few years prior, not least as it is ham-handedly incorporated into the comedic edge that doesn't comport with the straightforward sci-fi/horror vibes of the prior picture. More than that, the tone distinctly varies from one scene to the next - even within the few minutes of the climactic sequence! - to the point of feeling confused about itself. In fairness, maybe I wouldn't take quite as harsh a view if I could separate the two titles more in my mind. But one is made to take the monster less seriously; the shrill character of Minnie is unnecessary, and though portrayed well by Una O'Connor, I'd rather they weren't here at all. Dr. Pretorius' collection is a fine demonstration of capable visual effects, but are gauche in excess of what I can bear. Even the deliberate injection of religious symbolism into the feature feels downright extraneous, and forced.
That 'Bride' jukes to the right, diverging from the feel of 'Frankenstein,' is unfortunate, for if there were more consistency then the revisiting of other notions from Shelley would have surely come off better, too. Yet this arguably isn't even the worst issue here, as the central plot is sidelined for a significant portion of the length without enough substance to claim its place. The character after whom the film is named doesn't even appear on-screen until the very last minutes; this would be more forgivable if the rest of the movie were up to the task, but I don't think that it is. Why, Clive is given decidedly less to do here; Ernest Thesiger takes more prominence as Dr. Pretorius and outshines the returning star. When all is said and done - where 'Frankenstein' is an earnest classic of the genre, this feels more like an easily distracted cheesy 50s B-movie, only with better production values.
I hate to even say it, but I feel a bit disappointed. It's regrettable that so iconic a character as the Bride is relegated to so little time in so modest a feature. Elsa Lanchester at least does a fine job of making an impression with the few minutes she has; would that she had more. Even with other flaws on hand, all that would have been necessary for 'The bride of Frankenstein' to come off better would have been for it to maintain the same approach to storytelling as the producers had achieved for its antecedent. That it goes a different way is subjectively disagreeable; that it can't find a singular voice in and of itself is outright tawdry. I'd love to say that I like this more than I do, but I just don't think the storytelling is very strong, and in my mind there's nothing more important. For the place it holds in cinematic and cultural history 'The bride of Frankenstein' is still very much worth checking out, with the caveat that it's a sorry few steps down from what it could have been. Come for the bride, stay for the bride - but mind the interval.
I admit I have a harder time with this sequel just on the basis of the major tonal shift. The characterization of the monster has notably changed from just a few years prior, not least as it is ham-handedly incorporated into the comedic edge that doesn't comport with the straightforward sci-fi/horror vibes of the prior picture. More than that, the tone distinctly varies from one scene to the next - even within the few minutes of the climactic sequence! - to the point of feeling confused about itself. In fairness, maybe I wouldn't take quite as harsh a view if I could separate the two titles more in my mind. But one is made to take the monster less seriously; the shrill character of Minnie is unnecessary, and though portrayed well by Una O'Connor, I'd rather they weren't here at all. Dr. Pretorius' collection is a fine demonstration of capable visual effects, but are gauche in excess of what I can bear. Even the deliberate injection of religious symbolism into the feature feels downright extraneous, and forced.
That 'Bride' jukes to the right, diverging from the feel of 'Frankenstein,' is unfortunate, for if there were more consistency then the revisiting of other notions from Shelley would have surely come off better, too. Yet this arguably isn't even the worst issue here, as the central plot is sidelined for a significant portion of the length without enough substance to claim its place. The character after whom the film is named doesn't even appear on-screen until the very last minutes; this would be more forgivable if the rest of the movie were up to the task, but I don't think that it is. Why, Clive is given decidedly less to do here; Ernest Thesiger takes more prominence as Dr. Pretorius and outshines the returning star. When all is said and done - where 'Frankenstein' is an earnest classic of the genre, this feels more like an easily distracted cheesy 50s B-movie, only with better production values.
I hate to even say it, but I feel a bit disappointed. It's regrettable that so iconic a character as the Bride is relegated to so little time in so modest a feature. Elsa Lanchester at least does a fine job of making an impression with the few minutes she has; would that she had more. Even with other flaws on hand, all that would have been necessary for 'The bride of Frankenstein' to come off better would have been for it to maintain the same approach to storytelling as the producers had achieved for its antecedent. That it goes a different way is subjectively disagreeable; that it can't find a singular voice in and of itself is outright tawdry. I'd love to say that I like this more than I do, but I just don't think the storytelling is very strong, and in my mind there's nothing more important. For the place it holds in cinematic and cultural history 'The bride of Frankenstein' is still very much worth checking out, with the caveat that it's a sorry few steps down from what it could have been. Come for the bride, stay for the bride - but mind the interval.