When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

This, the last time Karloff would play the monster, is the best of the post Bride sequels. Featuring Bela Lugosi in his best role since Dracula, as the embittered Ygor, it has the best, most well thought out story and the best ending.

The interesting thing about this is how they still manage to be faithful to the original novel. I really have no idea if Mary Shelley made any actual sequels to the book, but these films represent the source material quite well. Don't let the title fool you. Or rather, do let the title fool you. Frankenstein was the name of the scientist, not the monster. The monster has no son in this film, but the scientist does. I believe there's even a scene where they talk about how the monster has been referred to as "Frankenstein" in universe. The plot is that Frankenstein's son is moving into his old residence, but his family's past catches up with him.It's great to see Bela Lugosi as Igor. Most people recognize him as Dracula, but he only did that role twice. He was simply in many of these old monster movies. I especially love the guy with the metal arm. The action scenes are quite well done and it's hard to tell who's side the monster is on. There's even a scene where the monster is destroying stuff and then notices a book of fairy tales, which causes him to stop. Wait, wasn't that same scene later used in "Citizen Kane"? Did "Citizen Kane" actually rip this movie off?! While not as good as the first two, still worth your time. The monster appears to die again, but I doubt he's gone for good. ***

Due to unexpected popularity (which caused round-the-block queues) of the original 'Dracula' and 'Frankenstein' re-screenings, Universal at last lifted their curfew on horror pictures with this hugely budgeted, star-studded sequel to the mighty 'Bride of Frankenstein.' Alongside Basil Rathbone's ambitious Baron Wolf Von Frankenstein, the viewer is literally transported from the real world into a vast, rain-lashed and unforgiving removed reality of horror via a train journey that really does traverse from one to the other very effectively. The town (now also called 'Frankenstein') is populated by those who want nothing to do with the new Baron, his wife, or his mop-headed, curiously Texan-sounding son Peter (played by future voice artist for Bambi, Donnie Dunagan). Understandably, they remember well the chaos brought about by Henry Frankenstein's creation, or more accurately, their own townsfolk's brutal treatment of him.Rathbone is brilliant in this, transforming from impetuous family man to hysterical 'mad doctor' with great skill. Bela Lugosi plays Ygor in one of his greatest performances, a part that was strengthened in order to give Lugosi a greater share of the action. Lionel Atwill, enjoyable in any part, gets probably his best role – that of Inspector Krogh, the wooden armed Police Inspector determined to protect both Wolf's family and the townsfolk.The sets are huge and expressionist, casting great shadows and rising imperiously above the tremendous cast, and the music used here would crop up again and again in future, less well-funded Universal horrors and mysteries.So why does this film seem slightly disappointing to me? Even after all this time, I still cannot answer that. Could it be that Peter, such an integral part, is entrusted to a four year old? Dunagan is a terrific performer for his age, but perhaps if the role was given to someone slightly older, they could invest it with just a hint of gravitas. Could it be that a thicker, jowlier Boris Karloff is given a strange sheepskin vest (presumably by friend Ygor, who upstages him regularly) and given no scenes of sympathy as he was so effectively in earlier films? Could it be that the film is just slightly overlong, and suffered from an unfinished script at the time of filming, which as a result, means that it plods – rather like the monster – in places? I don't know why I'm less than satisfied by this. Maybe it is because it follows what I consider the greatest film of all time? There's no doubt that so many elements are excellent here, and this clearly is one of the last Universal horrors to benefit from a generous budget (indeed it was their final 'A' production for a Frankenstein film).

This is a sequel to The bride of Frankenstein. It is a great movie. The son of Victor Frankenstein. Who is also a scientist reanimates the monster. This is a very scary movie. It as a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. It is one of the scariest movies ever made. If this movie does not scary you then no movie will. It is true horror classic. It is very intense. This one of ever few movies that is scary then Frankenstein (1931). It is also one of very few movies that is scarier then The bride of Frankenstein. This movie is a must see. I need more lines and I am running out of things to say.