Alright! It goes without saying that the fact we have differing opinions on things is a good thing. So this is not a bash on anyone at all. In fact, I like both of these movies. What am I talking about? I’m talking Karloff’s “Frankenstein” and “Bride of Frankenstien”. These have been in rotation in my player lately. The Frankenstein is tape – Bride is the DVD. On the Bride DVD a bunch of people, Clive Barker among them, fall over themselves saying how great “Bride” is, and how much better it was than the original. It’s actually a bit much as they heap praise on this one (more facts please!) Anyway, since I have watched each of these three times in less than a week, it was time to settle back and evaluate. Which I have done. Now as I have said, both of these are good movies, so the question is not whether they’re worth watching or not. This is just referring to comparing the two. When I do that – there is simply no question: Frankenstein is so far and away a better movie. It’s gothic, while Bride seems to make jokes about itself the whole time. Bride comes across as more of an “Action Frankenstein” movie. He’s running around the forest, killer left and right, including gypsies for no reason (and yes, I saw the documentary and know why that scene was put in.) And then we have the awful speaking Frankenstein (I guess I fall into the same category as Karloff himself who felt Frankenstein should not speak – a minority view for sure). The original at least took itself seriously. The point of this post is – I saw the documentary on the DVD release, but I never heard WHY Bride is supposed to be a better movie. So – does anyone have an opinion about why they think it’s better? From where I sit – when the bride is brought to life, that’s pretty good. However, she’s in the movie for all of five minutes, the other 70 minutes is this weird faced scientist making jokes. Put simply, there are no scares in Bride.