MovieChat Forums > The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) Discussion > 7.9? Oh Please! This movie is really ba...

7.9? Oh Please! This movie is really bad!


This movie is trash. It's 7.9 rating is ridiculous! This is worth a 3/10 at best.

The half-frame story with Mary Shelley and Byron is completely pointless. And why does Byron always talk like a jackass every time he says any word with "R" in it (and why does Shelley do that too)? Who even does a half-frame story anyway? That's stupid. It should have been a full-frame story, or none. And given that the half-frame story is 100% pointless, it should have been none.

The plot for the first section of the movie does not work at all. An angry mob is out to lynch Frankenstein, which they think they have done successfully. When they find out that they were wrong and he is still alive, they then randomly & telepathically (they don't even communicate their change of plans to each other!) - and for no reason - change their minds and decide not to lynch him any more, and instead to capture him, drag him back to the same town where they all live and that they allegedly want to keep safe, and lock him in a prison cell. This makes no sense whatsoever!

Likewise, when Frankenstein breaks out into town, the very same angry mob who was just proactively hunting him down and attacking him with no fear - randomly and for no reason - turn into cowards who run away screaming! This too makes no sense whatsoever.

The "dead" Dr. Frankenstein magically waking up and being totally fine once the mob happens to have dragged him all the way back to his house is equally ludicrous. We are to believe that every single person in the town is so much of a blithering idiot that they cannot tell the difference between a dead man and an unconscious man? Absurd!

Both mad Doctor actors vastly over-act and hence their performances become extremely hammy. Their acting is terrible and unworthy of a mainstream Hollywood film. All of the same also goes for the old crone woman who never shuts up.

The Burgomaster's cartoonish fake mustache makes him look like a Keystone Cop. There is no way to take him seriously as a believable character.

The "small people in a jar" scene is even more cartoonish & asinine than is the Burgomaster's fake mustache. It seems like the filmmakers randomly decided to make the film play to preschoolers in that scene. Once again, this scene is completely unbelievable.

Frankenstein learns to speak from his blind pal, but he only spends enough time with his blind pal to learn a few words. Yet despite this, later on in the film he knows tons of words that he would not have had enough time to learn, nor the teachers available to teach him. In other words, Frankenstein's miraculously-large vocabulary (relative to the few words that he is actually shown learning in the film) is a gigantic plot hole.

Frankenstein is stated to be a reanimated dead man, yet he is hungry and thirsty and the film strongly implies that he needs to eat & drink as if he were a living human, despite the fact that he is an undead monster. Yet again, this makes no sense.

The music is cheesy & cornball. It does nothing but add to the atmosphere's silliness & cartoonishness.

The movie is titled "Bride of Frankenstein," yet she is only in it for 3 minutes...and all she does during those 3 minutes is scream like a moron. She is treated like an irrelevant & tacked-on afterthought even though the title and many dialogues represent(s) her as the main theme of the film. If this film was really about Frankenstein's "Bride," then she would have had at least half an hour of screen-time. Talk about false advertising! Talk about idiotic title writers/script writers/filmmakers!

reply

I gave the film a 7/10, but I agree with a lot of your observations. When you view the film as a horror-comedy, a lot of the goofier aspects make more sense. I prefer the dark, serious tone of the original film, though.

Regarding the monster's expanded vocabulary, he learned a few words from the blind man. Then, after meeting Pretorius, he learned more words. I don't see any plot holes with that.

I wish the Bride was in it more, too. The posters and title are all deceiving.

After the castle blew up, it really should've cut back to Mary Shelley concluding her tale. I thought it was weird how they never returned to that.

reply

You make some valid points but I do differ a little on others.

"Byron always talk like a jackass every time he says any word with "R" in it (and why does Shelley do that too"

"Both mad Doctor actors vastly over-act and hence their performances become extremely hammy."

Talking pictures were relatively new in 1934 and the audience's point of reference was certainly based on theatrical acting and its exaggerated vocal delivery. I do agree, they should have revisited the scene in the end.

"The Burgomaster's cartoonish fake mustache makes him look like a Keystone Cop. There is no way to take him seriously as a believable character." Do some research, that style of mustache was much more common back then.

"The "small people in a jar" scene is even more cartoonish & asinine than is the Burgomaster's fake mustache. It seems like the filmmakers randomly decided to make the film play to preschoolers in that scene. Once again, this scene is completely unbelievable." I think audiences in 1934 would think the scene novel and clever, special effects back then were positively primitive.

"Frankenstein learns to speak from his blind pal, but he only spends enough time with his blind pal to learn a few words. Yet despite this, later on in the film he knows tons of words that he would not have had enough time to learn, nor the teachers available to teach him. In other words, Frankenstein's miraculously-large vocabulary (relative to the few words that he is actually shown learning in the film) is a gigantic plot hole." Not really the big of a plot hole. The monster knew how to talk when his brain was in its original body and speech might have returned a bit on its own.

"Frankenstein is stated to be a reanimated dead man, yet he is hungry and thirsty and the film strongly implies that he needs to eat & drink as if he were a living human, despite the fact that he is an undead monster. Yet again, this makes no sense." A person whose life is restored today by defibrillation certainly needs to eat. I guess I think Frankenstein's technique of electrical stimulation is akin to defibrillation, in a "science fiction" sort of way.

"The music is cheesy & cornball. It does nothing but add to the atmosphere's silliness & cartoonishness." Again, consider the release date. The triva section notes: "The musical soundtrack for this film proved so popular, it was used again in the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers serials starring Buster Crabbe."

reply

Yes to all of that...almost.

Because of the success of the original, Whale was practically given carte blanche for this one. He went w-a-y over the top. However, various aspects of the production were extremely well done and fun to watch. The sets they built were incredible. The makeup, the lighting and yes, the music, were outstanding.

I didn't like the monster speaking in this, but as a minor point; it is made clear that he understands spoken words very well. In his "discussions" with the hermit you see him nodding and reacting to what is being said. He struggles to learn how to speak again. He knows the words, he just has to re-learn how to formulate them and make the proper sounds. That's totally believable.

The over acting by some of the cast is...yeah, it's awful, even for its day.

But the film is an important milestone in cinema history.

reply