jacobjohntaylor1 This is a sequel to Frankenstein. It is pretty good. It is scary. It has a great story line. It also great acting. It also has great special effects. This one of the best horror movies from the 80's. If it does not scary you no movie will. 5.3 is underrating it. This is a true horror classic. It is kind of a love story. But still it is a very good movie. It is a great monster movie. Doctor Frankenstein his a bad guy. And the monster is a good guy. So it is not quit the traditional Frankenstein movie. Frankenstein (1931) is better. But still this is a good movie. The Bride of Frankenstein is better. This is better then Frankenstein (1910). It a great film.

GL84 After bringing a woman to life, Baron Frankenstein goes back on his decision to give her to his monster and decides to keep her for himself while he roams the world and eventually comes back to claim what is rightfully his.This turned out to be quite a middling effort that doesn't really offer up a whole lot of interesting values. The opening shots of the creation of the bride are pure Gothic splendor and some of the most exciting in the film with the storm going out of control before finally making its endgame a reality and her creation is assured, only for the rejection and dismissal to cause a huge fire that burns the whole place to the ground. It really makes for a grand opening that sets the stage here quite well overall, and is nicely echoed by the finale which does similar good in the final retribution of the monster. Their brawl is quite thrilling and violent and really seems quite one-sided which is what it should be with this one taking on a really enjoyable outcome. That's mainly due to the sympathy gained for him throughout the movie which comes into play here, but otherwise this one doesn't seem to do a whole lot that really makes for an entertaining effort. The main thing with this one is the fact that there's just nothing really interesting throughout here with the film abandoning the horror for the most part to concentrate instead on two utterly irritating story lines that have nothing to do to make them all that interesting. The first storyline involves his training her for Victorian society under the guise of an amnesia victim he's treating but unable to hide her monstrous past which keeps coming to the forefront at the most unexpected moments is bland period drama that resorts to a few snarls and rabid screaming to help sell that she's actually a monster, yet none of this is all that original or pleasing at all and tends to come off as way too overwrought with hardly anything of value happening during this time. The second storyline involving the monster's quest through the countryside in the circus just doesn't ring any sort of familiar tropes and just tries to build sympathy for him in the most arbitrary matter by showing the cruelty of others toward him but doesn't do anything special with this rather bland and expected method. It's all quite lame and really doesn't make this much of a horror effort at all, which really holds this down.Rated PG-13: Violence, some Language and Brief Nudity.

moonspinner55 The beautiful young ward of Baron Charles Frankenstein tires of being his student and rebels against his strict tutelage, unaware that she was indeed brought to life by the mad doctor--sewn together from corpses--and that a male counterpart to whom she was intended is roaming the countryside. Director Franc Roddam and screenwriter Lloyd Fonvielle's underrated, well-paced rethinking of 1935's "The Bride of Frankenstein" hasn't much intrinsic spirit, though it does have lyrical scenes and an absorbing narrative which qualify it as a fascinating misfire. As the Baron, rock star Sting poses sufficiently and glowers moodily, though he's all on one-note; Jennifer Beals is somewhat better as his charge--with feminist leanings--and a number of her scenes (such as her first run-in with a cat, and her dialogue with a derelict traveler) are quite beguiling; Beals however can't escape her ineffectual delivery (a non-musical sing-song), and though Roddam's close-ups of her are very pretty, she doesn't have much going on underneath (it's beauty without mystery). Clancy Brown is the sympathetic star here playing Frankenstein's initial creation, and his relationship with happy-go-lucky dwarf David Rappaport is marvelous. A better film than many critics gave it credit for being, "The Bride" is surprisingly ambitious and yet it isn't paced like a tableaux "epic". Roddam is careful but also spry, and once the plot takes hold, coupled with the handsome settings, it makes for a rather grand experience. **1/2 from ****

michellemurmurs6244 This version of Mary Shelley's famous story has often been heavily criticized surprisingly. Actually I find it a refreshing and imaginative effort. It concerns the efforts of Baron Charles Frankenstein (Sting) to create, control and ultimately to conquer the perfect woman. After an electrifying creation scene the baron's first male creation comes to claim his counterpart but disaster results and he runs off into the night. After rescuing the raven haired beauty from the flames engulfing his laboratory the baron decides to tell people she was brought to him after being discovered unconscious in the woods. He gives her the name Eva and begins educating her. In the meantime the male creature befriends a dwarf after rescuing him from a group of tormenting schoolboys. The dwarf looks beyond the creature's unusual appearance and sees a man simply longing for friendship and acceptance. He gives him the name Viktor teaches him about life on the road. The two stories intertwine until circumstances bring Viktor back to the Baron's castle to try to win back his "bride". The Baron's creations are played by Jennifer Beals and Clancy Brown. The late Dasvid Rappaport plays the dwarf Rinaldo. If I have any criticisms it's that Sting in his portrayal of the Baron has a constant irritated look on his face and final confrontation between Eva and the Baron could have been better written. Other than that I really enjoyed it.