Few will disagree that "Bride of Frankenstein" is in so many ways a better picture than the original. But since they both involve the same director and primary cast, I consider them as two parts of the same movie.

I have no complaints at all about "Bride". It certainly benefits from a more deeply thought-out script and an adequately bankrolled sense of delight in the macabre. The unarguable "improvements" in the sequel are often, for me, the very things that makes the original so special.

The major technical improvements during the short years between the original and sequel have made "Frankenstein" seem perhaps older than it is. The lack of a score and less showy camerawork give it almost a documentary quality, not unlike the famous Hindenberg newsreel footage. "Frankenstein" feels like this is an actual record of exactly how it looked and felt the day Dr. Frankenstein did his evil deed!

I'm not saying that "Frankenstein" seems primitive in a bad way--unlike '31's "Dracula" with it's "point the camera at the stage because we can't move the camera" lack of technique. The oldness adds to it's greatness. The graininess of the picture, the shrill sound effects and James Whale's unusual cutting style of deliberate jump-cuts (especially in the scene when the Creature makes his big entrance and, moments later, reaches longingly for the sunlight)contribute to the realness of the story and the film.

It gave me nightmares as a kid; only now, I know why.