Bride of Frankenstein : WHY is this widely considered better than the original?

WHY is this widely considered better than the original?

According to Wikipedia: "It is considered one of the few sequels to a great film which is even better than the original film on which it is based."

I love the first film, and I finally got around to watching Bride for the first time.... It was good (7/10), but the first is a 10/10 for me.

I think the main issue for me was the comedy. The original is great because it's actually scary and serious in tone, but the sequel kind of turns the monster into a joke (Smoking cigars?!). In the original, the monster was a more tragic and sympathetic character. Not so much in the sequel.

Also, the scene with the miniature people felt out of place. And I was disappointed that the bride (who of course, had to be pretty) had only 3 minutes of screen time.

I'm just gonna pretend that the story ended with the monster burning in the windmill.

Welcome to Fright Night....for real.

Re: WHY is this widely considered better than the original?

This was one of the first movie sequels, so it had a lot to prove. It had to make people see that a sequel could be a good thing, and as such this was a good movie.
It did exactly what a sequel should do, but also exactly what a good Frankenstein movie should do.
It expanded on the original, evolving the characters and story from the first movie to a new place through new experiences and characters, but also did, as said before, what a good 'Frankenstein' movie should do, by telling a dark story, positively dripping with gothic atmosphere, giving us moral quandries and ethical questions we can debate eternally.
Not only all that, but this movie still works as an adaptation, taking Mary Shelley's original novel (hell, Mary Shelley is even kinda in the movie) and showing us things we hadn't seen in the first film, like the scene with the blind man, which is one of the most famous parts of the book but was ignored for the first film. Now they had the time to do it in the second, and they did it great.
The whole movie works a lot like that. The first film was laying the ground-work and the second film was evolving it.
And to cap it the movie still works as just a dopey horror flick, with a scary monster causing havoc in a village, but if you want to pay attention to it you'll see the deeper messages and meanings behind all the garish makeup and fire special-effects.