Bride of Frankenstein is definitely one of the more memorable sequels of all time. The first Frankenstein film was a truly memorable exploration of horror and was extremely advanced for its time; dealing with issues of modernity when the doctor starts talking of space travel and also pushing censorship to levels it hadn't been pushed to before; having characters exclaim they 'knew what God felt like' and also including images of dead bodies and murder. With Bride of Frankenstein, certain elements of surprise have been lost but the film delves deeper into its characters and explores different things to make it more of an 'entertaining' film.

The film doesn't hang around and cleverly introduces the story through the original author Mary Shelley (Elsa Lanchester) dictating what it is that happens next. For a film in 1935 to use such a technique and manage to include elements of heartbreak when we assume Dr. Frankenstein is dead, horror when The Monster re-emerges AND murder when someone mistakenly crosses him all in the first ten minutes or so, is extremely impressive and is only the result of fantastic direction through great, inventive ideas.

Then, the film uses the character of The Monster as a sort of MacGuffin. It is reduced to a wondering, babbling, hulking thing getting into mischief as it makes its way through the forests nearby but this isn't a bad thing. What we see is the first example of the characters in this, so far, series of two films develop. The Monster starts to develop emotions of pity when it sees someone in the forest in trouble and attempts to rescue them as well as intelligence because it manages to get itself out of trouble when danger threatens it – there is no excuse for this development of ideas and intelligence but it's interesting to see anyway.

What's more, this wondering and random character is a great excuse for it to cause havoc and/or get into adventures of its own and this it does to a basic level. Apart from stumbling across a picnic of some description when everyone assumes its safe since when last they heard, he'd been captured; The Monster gets involved with a seemingly lonely man who lives in a log cabin in the woods. The curse here to me is that I'd seen Kenneth Branagh's 1994 Frankenstein before this so I knew what was up and how things would develop.

As a result, it was predictable to me but to fresh eyes what follows between The Monster and this man is an education and a friendship that truly supports evidence that this film really is all about developing characters such as The Monster further away from the 'dead' tag and closer to the 'human' tag. Not only this but Dr. Frankenstein himself is leaning more and more towards a 'normal' life away from insane experiments; tempted back only by blackmail. About half way through, Frankenstein's creation manages to get himself into a bit of trouble and is caught but escapes so soon afterwards, the sequence passes off without too much suspense or interest which was disappointing; also, the character of Minnie is so obviously an attempt at comic relief that she becomes annoying quite quickly although I suppose they had to include this character to stop the film appearing too dark.

If Frankenstein from 1931 was an out and out horror shock–fest for the time, Bride of Frankenstein remains a character piece full of 'what would happen if.....' a mindless, homicidal lab creation was loose in rural Europe. Some of the later scenes still made me squirm a little when the 'mate' is being created and if you can look past the rushed ending; you'll see a sequel to a film miles ahead of its time, ahead of its time.

The sequel to the iconic horror classic Frankenstein is an oddball one. That's part of its charm. The Bride of Frankenstein sounds like a piece of parody rather than a sincere followup, and in a way it's awareness of its sometimes satirical nature makes it stronger than its straighter predecessor. However, its finest facets are its ahead-of-its-time technical aspects. The stark cinematography is astonishing and the precision of its sharp editing is unprecedented, let alone the reliably impressive production design. It's a much more entertaining and enduring experience than other films of the 30s. James Whale got much better conviction out of his actors this time around and it deals with the moral consequences of their actions rather than leaving it to loud anguish. While the film is a bit of retread of the first film as Frankenstein's monster is chased from place to place, it adds development and essential sensitivity to his character leading its tragic end to be much more meaningful in its destruction. This was a very pleasant surprise, ominously horrific and slyly comic, without the two clashing.

8/10

One problem with film criticism is to over analysis a film and read things in to its subtext which just aren't there . THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is a very good example of this . Once someone points out the fact that director James Whale was a homosexual it opens the floodgates for people reading the film in a way no one originally envisaged . We're shown an opening scene where Lord Byron describes himself as " England's greatest sinner " and as the film progresses we're introduced to nods and winks to a sin of that dare not be explicitly referred to . Instead we see Doctor Pretoruis , a sort of precursor to Quintan Crisp who is described as " queer looking " drinks gin , makes a queen and suggests that he becomes a partner of Baron Frankenstein . Oh purleese . Do you honestly think Whale made this film as a type of gay manifesto ? I'll say one thing about movie directors and that is they have kept a lot of pretentious pseudo intellectuals in a job

As a form of entertainment ( Yes films are produced as a form of entertainment and to make money for studio investments ) THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is very impressive . There is an irony showing the character of Mary Shelley because our thoughts of FRANKENSTEIN owe more to James Whale and Universal studios than they do to Shelley . I doubt if very many people have read the original text but we're all aware of the image of Boris Karloff staggering around a studio interior forest growling . The studio forest depicted in this film are obviously stage sets but are very impressive

What Whale has done is to mix pathos with a grotesque sense of humour . I thought after seeing YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN I could never take the scene of the monster turning up at the blind hermit's cottage seriously ever again but after seen the movie it remains a touching , poignant segment of the film and Karloff elicits great sympathy from the audience . There's also a surreal image of Doctor Pretorious feasting in a crypt and while there's absolutely no logic for this scene ( Unless he is clairvoyant and knew the monster was going to turn up ) it remains a striking and morbid image

James Whale directs at a very good and brisk pace and with his " midget people " he brings a sense of wonder that would have had audiences gasping " How did he do that ? " but I don't think it's his masterwork , that would almost certainly THE INVISIBLE MAN from two years earlier , a film slightly more enjoyable due to its insane , dark humour along with jaw dropping special effects . The narrative itself is rather episodic and plot less and the mix of different accents grate slightly with Una O' Connor playing an irritating comic character but it's still an impressive film though over the year's has become over analyzed by people who should know better