How others will see it. This strange combination of satire, horror, and nonsense has long been a cult favorite, preferred by many horror fans and critics over the more stately 1931 original. There's certainly enough activity and oddity to satisfy 'modern' viewers, accustomed to comedy and horror blends from such characters as Chucky the killer doll.
How I felt about it. Unlike Frankenstein (1931), Bride of Frankenstein is not a great film. It is, however, good, and close to very good. The film's weakness is that it is scattershot. Characters, scenes, and even consecutive lines lack continuity (Fans of the director would blame this on unamused studio editing). For example, one scene features gypsies by a fire in the woods, aware of the Monster but unaware that he is loose. A snippet of dialogue follows:
Wife: I'm frightened. The monster.
Husband: Aw, there's no danger. He's safe in jail, and they'll keep him there.
Mother: Where's the pepper and salt? We've got no pepper and
salt!
Husband: All right, Mother, I'll get it. Don't worry, you shall
have your meat.
To a certain extent, it all makes sense. Frankenstein may spoil the dinner yet, and if not, it will be a filling meal with or without spices. This does not really make the dialogue any less curious and disjointed. Especially since the entire scene, played for laughs, is completely irrelevant to the remainder of the story.
The relatively short film has many unstable characters. Henry is a dutiful husband, a remorseful doctor, and a mad scientist. Elizabeth (Valerie Hobson) is alternatively hysterical, calm, and courageous, but always uncommonly loyal. The Monster is a murderous beast, yet often able to have a good time. Director Whale even manages to get in digs about British royalty and clergy, although the ballerina in a jar must be strictly an inside joke. These all too random events and characters are balanced by only two constants, mischievous and unscrupulous Pretorius, and screechy, pop-eyed comic actress Una O'Connor.
Eventually, the disparate elements do manage to partly gell together. And, certainly, this is an early Universal horror film unlike any other. The story goes that James Whale, director of the 1931 original, was given complete control of the sequel, a prerequisite of his participation. The result is simply a parody of his prior masterpiece, an unusual turn that probably partly explains why Whale's career hit the skids not long thereafter.