Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Film Review: Bride of Frankenstein

"Bride of Frankenstein"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

Sometimes I'm afraid to review older films which I don't like. To movie fans such a thing is almost sacrilegious. These movies have stood the test of time who am I to discredit their worth? In many ways I understand that way of thinking but sometimes certain older movies need to be looked at again without being viewed as "classics".

"Bride of Frankenstein" is a movie most filmbuffs will tell you is better than the original. I couldn't disagree more.

Roger Ebert even included this film as part of his "Great Movies" series and said it was the best of the classic horror films. He is not alone in that thought. I realize I'm in the minority. But if you read Ebert's review I don't think he makes a convincing case. Most of the reasons he recommends it, I actually dislike the film for.

Ebert reviewed the movie shortly after a bio on Whale's life was released entitled "Gods & Monsters", a very good film by the way. Ebert seems fascinated by undertones of homosexuality within the script. I personally don't really find that interesting though it is noticeable.

Lets try to put ourself in the mindset of audiences viewing the film for the first time back in 1935, four years after the original. The movie starts off with an epilogue explaining everything that has happened in the first film which Mary Shelley (Elsa Lanchester) tells her guest and her husband that her novel was never meant to end where the film ends. There was much more to the story.

If you remember the original, the Monster (Boris Karloff) is stuck in the burning castle but we find out he survived. He was stuck inside of a well which protected him. Now once again he roams around the village reeking havoc among the townspeople.

Another associate of Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive reprising his role) enters the film, Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger). Somehow he has become aware of Dr. Frankenstein's experiment. It is never revealed how he knows. "Brides of Frankenstein" starts off on the same day as the first one ends. There is no time lapse. Regardless Dr. Pretorius knows of his work and wants to make Dr. Frankenstein an offer. He too has tried to bring back the dead but never achieved the same results as Frankenstein. This time however he would like to make a woman.

Dr. Pretorius' experiments have results in a collection of little people which he keeps in jars. He complains he has not been able to achieve the same size as Frankenstein's Monster. Unlike Frankenstein though he did not collect bodies from graves but instead says he grew them by seed.

This leads to one problem I have with "Bride of Frankenstein". This scene is played humorous. Dr. Pretorius had made a king, who resembles King Henry VIII, a Queen, a Priest and the Devil himself!

So much of "Bride of Frankenstein" has a satirical tone. This lessens the movie in my opinion. The original was viewed as a horror film. Its intention was to scare audiences. Frankenstein's Monster was suppose to inspire fear. He was a misunderstood creature. Here though you get the sense Whale and his screenwriter William Hurlbut are going after laughs. It feels largely inappropriate. This makes "Bride of Frankenstein" feel like an unnecessary sequel.

With the first "Frankenstein" the question arose if such an experiment were possible. Would Dr. Frankenstein actually be able to bring life to the dead? When he succeeds there is no longer any suspense. Knowing this, what would stop us from believing that Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Pretorius would not be able to create a woman? We know they have the capability to succeed. So there is no longer any suspense. There is no chance they will fail.

Another new character is introduced, Minnie (Una O' Connor) a chambermaid. She provides even more comedy to a film which didn't need it to begin with (she was the inspiration for the Cloris Leachman character in "Young Frankenstein").

It feels like James Whale is making two different films at once. He is making a sequel and a parody of his own movie. It doesn't seem to blend. I found much of it off putting.

In this film the Monster speaks. He becomes more human. He shows kindness to other. A scene where he meets a blindman comes to mind. They sit down and have a meal together. The blindman teaches the Monster to speak. I don't like this decision and neither did Karloff at the time of release. While this does make the Monster more human you have to ask yourself is that a good idea? Again I must go back to the point the Monster is suppose to be scary. By having him talk the audience is no longer afraid of him. Try to think back to the original film and when we first see the Monster. Their is anticipation. There is suspense. We are suppose to be afraid. Now we don't fear him. His appearance no longer inspires chills.

But I'm sure many will want to disregard any point I may have made. I am not being fair to the movie. It is after all a "classic". I am taking the film to literally. I don't think that's true. I'm trying to accept the film on the basis of the rules it had created and started in the first film. I do not question whether such a Monster could be made. I do not question how he survived the fire. Or how the woman was created. But this movie takes things in such a bizarre, different direction it breaks away from everything that was established in the first film.

Some interesting notes about this film is Boris Karloff this time is given credit. But he is credited as "Karloff". His name goes above the title. But, it is the Monster's Mate which is credited with a question mark. However, I'm going to reveal a big secret (?). Don't read the next sentence if you really don't want to know who played the bride. Elsa Lanchester plays dual roles as Mary Shelley and the Bride. Also a new actress is brought into the role of Elizabeth, Valerie Hobson. With this film and the original, Elizabeth seems to be the weakest character. Though her presence in this movie serves more of a purpose.

"Bride of Frankenstein" does not make for a good horror movie experience. The original was the best of the series. That is the influential film not this.