UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Bride of Frankenstein - Universal Classic Monsters 2 -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

There are those who find Bride a better film than the 1931 original in the series. Both were directed by James Whale, and both are incomparable horror films of their era.

Like many of the most popular films of that era, original negatives no longer exist, as they were over-printed due to the lack of quality duplicating stock.

Fortunately, a very high quality lavender was struck early on, and that element serves as the basis of this restoration - and a true restoration it is.

If I'm recalling correctly, the studio tech wizards returned to the finest surviving picture elements of the 1931 film to access more original footage as used in Bride for flashbacks. They've taken this process extremely seriously.

The film was shot on the same negative stock that had been used since c. 1930. The granular characteristics don't afford a great deal of information above 2k, but for those who love these films, and desire to see them down to the grain level (I'm in that group), the new 4k release allows that odd pleasure.

Like some other 4k black and white releases, this does not appear to have been sharpened, so the grain, while obvious, is never a problem, and readily disappears at a nominal seating distance.

Black levels are gorgeous, and while there may be a bit of diminished gray scale due to HDR, it isn't bothersome. This may come down to a personal decision whether to view the Blu-ray set, or the 4k.

For lovers of the genre, these are being practically given away on Grub, Universal's site. Pricing is $55 for the four films, or for those using the first order code for a 20% discount, $44 or $11 a film. I love deals like this.

As an aside, the aspect ratio of 1.37 is incorrectly stated on the packaging as 1.33.

Image – 4 (HDR10)

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 2.0 Monuaral)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Upgrade from Blu-ray - Yes

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 3.5

Very Highly Recommended

RAH

 

[Paul Penna]

I'd be interested in learning if the Blu-rays included in the sets make use of the newer transfers and/or restorations.

 

[yamato72]

I have the Universal Monsters 8-film BD set (I believe, region-free UK edition?) and the transfers look amazing. Are these even more recent restorations?

 

[David Weicker]

I'd be interested in learning if the Blu-rays included in the sets make use of the newer transfers and/or restorations.

From what I've read elsewhere (I don't own these sets), the blu-rays are identical to the prior blu-rays.

I have the Universal Monsters 8-film BD set (I believe, region-free UK edition?) and the transfers look amazing. Are these even more recent restorations?

I believe the Phantom Of The Opera '43 is a new restoration, with a new recombination of the Technicolor elements.

I am not sure if the others are new restorations, or just new remasters for 4K. (RAH doesn't specify)

 

[Robert Harris]

I believe they’re the only 4k restorations, ie the latest that were originally on BD.

 

[Dave H]

I need to finish the masks I started making for ~1:37:1 films on my scope screen.

I have the original Monsters BD set (UK version as it was considerably cheaper way back in the day) and plan on picking up some of these individual 4K releases. This will be one of them. Wolfman is another.

 

[madfloyd]

Finished watching this last night. I was surprised that the subject of the film was only it for a few minutes.

 

[Steven Good]

gruv.com is the site. The initial post got auto-corrected to grub. Use signup20 code for 20% off their prices. And free shipping, too. They carry Universal titles… and some Warners titles, too.

 

[B-ROLL]

Finished watching this last night. I was surprised that the subject of the film was only it for a few minutes.

I've heard some of the scenes were edited for being far too ...

racy !

 

[Mark B]

Finished watching this last night. I was surprised that the subject of the film was only it for a few minutes.

Frankenstein is the doctor, and his bride is all through the film. The creature's bride, however is only in the finale.

 

[madfloyd]

Frankenstein is the doctor, and his bride is all through the film. The creature's bride, however is only in the finale.

Ahhh, good point!

 

[dpippel]

Frankenstein is the doctor, and his bride is all through the film. The creature's bride, however is only in the finale.

Well, nobody rushed to the theater to see Valerie Hobson as Elizabeth. While "Frankenstein" certainly refers to Henry, the name has always been synonymous with the Monster, and in people's minds the "Bride" of the film's title has invariably been associated with the creature's mate.

 

[Mark B]

Well, nobody rushed to the theater to see Valerie Hobson as Elizabeth. While "Frankenstein" certainly refers to Henry, the name has always been synonymous with the Monster, and in people's minds the "Bride" of the film's title has invariably been associated with the creature's mate.

I get that. However, people have also been calling the creature "Frankenstein" for decades, which is wrong. Period. And always has bugged me.

 

[Gerani53]

Mr. Harris' point about the diminished gray scale is significant. It's a matter of how much tolerance you have for the 4K UHD equivalent of black crush, which is really what diminished gray scale is. After about twenty minutes, I switched to the Blu-ray, gave my eyes a rest, saw the silver return to the silver screen, and reveled in the less strident contrasts.

 

[David Weicker]

I get that. However, people have also been calling the creature "Frankenstein" for decades, which is wrong. Period. And always has bugged me.

Well technically, we are never told his name isn't Frankenstein. In the novel, his name is never mentioned (although he jokingly refers to himself as 'Adam').

So his name could be anything - Sam, Joe, Fred, Gertrude, Fluffy, etc. It could even be Frankenstein. We're not told specifically his name is Frankenstein, but at the same time, we are not told it isn't Frankenstein.

 

[timk1041]

Well technically, we are never told his name isn't Frankenstein. In the novel, his name is never mentioned (although he jokingly refers to himself as 'Adam').

So his name could be anything - Sam, Joe, Fred, Gertrude, Fluffy, etc. It could even be Frankenstein. We're not told specifically his name is Frankenstein, but at the same time, we are not told it isn't Frankenstein.

Gertrude? Fluffy?

 

[Mark-P]

Wait a minute, so the title of this movie is actually a misnomer, and should be “Bride of Frankenstein’s Monster?” Or was Dr. Frankenstein engaged to the female creature?

 

[jayembee]

Well technically, we are never told his name isn't Frankenstein. In the novel, his name is never mentioned (although he jokingly refers to himself as 'Adam').

So his name could be anything - Sam, Joe, Fred, Gertrude, Fluffy, etc. It could even be Frankenstein. We're not told specifically his name is Frankenstein, but at the same time, we are not told it isn't Frankenstein.

It's Fronkensteen!

 

[Gerani53]

Umm... dare I suggest that Frankenstein can be used as a figurative description, referring to what the great/mad scientist has wrought? When Dr. P ecstatically declares "The Bride of Frankenstein" just before wedding bells ring, what he's really saying is "Behold the equally amazing companion to man-created human life," rather than "Check out my bigamous partner Henry's second squeeze."

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Is it a myth or truth that the original script called for Elizabeth’s heart to be used (unbeknownst to Henry) for the female creature? Hence, she really would have been “The Bride of Frankenstein.”