Going into this film I honestly didn't expect much considering that most sequels tend to be made for the sole purpose of the dollar bill. Yet I've heard on numerous occasions that this film was a classic, so to be honest I couldn't help but be a little excited to watch it. Unfortunately I was let down.
The film starts off with a recap of what previously happened in the original Frankenstein as if you hadn't seen it, followed by the original book's author played by Elsa Lanchester commenting that "it wasn't the end of the story", yet by the end of the film you wish it would have been.
After the recap it starts exactly where the first one ended. We find out that the monster (played by Boris Karloff who's acting abilities were wasted in this one) didn't die and that Dr. Frankenstein (the always great Colin Clive) isn't dead either. After settling in the story Dr. Pretorius shows up and throws out the option of creating another of the undead. This happens only hours after the first town wreckage, so the doctor thinks creating a new one couldn't happen soon enough. Pretorius kidnaps Dr. Frankenstein's love (Valerie Hobson) and soon the doctor has no choice yet to help Pretorius do the unthinkable .
We go through the entire film without seeing this Bride until the last ten minutes which makes it a little more epic (although I was kind of expecting to see more of her) and a little more sad when we see the outcome.
The film is directed by James Whale who does a great job of what he has to work with. The sets look outstanding and there are plenty of nice shots. What really needed to be worked on here was the unsatisfying script that tried to have the impact of the first, yet came off weak. When we watch the first one the pace is perfect and everything we see is shocking or exciting because we're intrigued. There was nothing in this film's plot that stuck out to me saying "I need to see this". Perhaps if the pace was picked up and something besides making the same mistake again was changed in the script, it might of picked up a few more fans including myself. To me it came off if anything like one of the endless yet entertaining Friday the Thirteenth films.
Overall it wasn't the best film I've ever seen and it wasn't the worst. While it was entertaining I wish they would have let this one go and concentrated on a little more on other Universal Monsters. Frankenstein was a classic stand alone film and in no way did it need a continuation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs I put in my Blog, I am no rabid "100% Fresh" Rotten Tomatoes Stepford reviewer, but I seem to have enjoyed the movie more than you, but I think you have many valid points.
ReplyDeleteThere were things I liked better about the original and things that I loved about "Bride." Your review seems to have a bit of over-hyped blues or buyers remorse, which seems to partially stem from the she-monster being more of a cameo than a real character.
I understand your dissatisfaction, but the movie can be viewed on a different plane than the one you are focused on. Although, the she-monster was, for all intents and purposes, the literal bride; but there were figurative brides too. One could validly argue that the bride could have been any of Mary, Elizabeth, the monster, or the blind man. Actually, in movie review circles the blind man is the favorite bride candidate, because Whale was homosexual.
Would it change your view of the film had its original name been kept? I believe it was slated to be released as "The Return of Frankenstein." Had the original title been kept and the Logline been something about the monster returning and not his bride, would that have made the whole Bride thing icing and it a movie with a great twist?
I think the name change was a bad decision, but what can you do. You had said nothing about the plot hooked you and that you wish the story had ended with the original. Again, I can see your point, but "Bride" has so much the original did not with the addition of humor, satire and actually keeping the monster and Frankenstein characters truer to their book beginnings.
Although, I don't agree with all your points, and liked the film. I can appreciate the fact that you went against the current, and called what you think is campy crap and entertainment fodder... campy crap and entertainment fodder.
Good job.
I like this reveiw. Although, some of your strong opinions may be veiwed as harsh, it was good to see that you had your own voice and were not affraid of what others might think. I think to make this better you could take on a larger audience. Not everyone has seen the first movie, so next time you could try to attract a broader audience by making them want to read your reveiw by hooking them in, and then slam on the more harsh comments.
ReplyDeleteOverall.. great review!
i agree with your assumption about how the film seemed like just another Friday the 13th film. it reminds me most of number six with the Gothic overtones and the obvious resurrection of the monster. overall i like your review and really respected your views on it. i also like how you set in stone how you feel about the movie instead of holding anything back.
ReplyDeleteThis review was a refreshing take on the film. I loved how honest and blunt you were. I absolutely agree with many of your points, I seemed to like the first one better also. In regards to previous comments I don’t think an analytical look at the film is necessary. That really is not the focus of the review. This review seemed to be designed for the movie viewer who is simply there for entertainment. An analysis of the homosexual themes definitely is not necessary in this review. Your individual voice stands out in this review. I really can’t think of any to change.
ReplyDelete