You can take my opinion with a grain of salt because I failed to pick up on the theme of homosexuality Ebert says is running rampant through the movie (I can see it now that it is pointed out to me), but I didn’t think this one was better than its predecessor. I don’t think it was worse either, about the same. I watched them back-to-back, and was amused by the changes between the two – the actress playing Elizabeth, the ambiguous time period, etc. “Bride of Frankenstein” upped the comedy and the campiness, while making the monster more likeable. But it lacked the poignancy of the first movie – there is no scene in it quite as heartbreaking as the monster drowning the little girl. Afterwards I read Ebert’s review of the film for his “The Great Movies” column and still don’t really understand why this film is hailed as one of the greats.