The Bride of Frankenstein

Frankenstein's monster (because, surprisingly, a lot of people didn't know that Frankenstein is the scientist and not the monster - the monster being left unnamed by the author) is the classic symbol of science gone wrong. The Monster is an experiment on creating artificial life, by parching together bits of pieces of dead human parts, and having the creature get struck by lightning. Since we are in the world of science fiction - it works. "IT'S ALIVE!"
However, all hell breaks loose, cause turns out, the Monster is, well, a monster. It is violent, dumb (at least in the movie) and easily provoked. Add a grotesque feature and we have the perfect recipe for a lot of blood that ends in a mob with torches and pitchforks.
The movie "Frankenstein" and its sequel, "Bride of Frankenstein" (because one monster is just too boring), deal with the science of life, and the moral issues behind it. Is it moral for a person to "create" life if possible? Certainly it is looked down upon by the Catholic church and other religions. Cloning is seen as a bastardization of God's work, and it is the closest thing that we have to making artificial life. They believe that creation should be left to God, and must be left alone by humans. Even in fiction most seem to frown upon the idea of bringing the dead back to life (except in Marvel and DC - nobody ever stays dead in comic books). It is almost a cliche, that every time someone brings someone else back to life, there are always "big consequences". There is always a price to pay - your soul, the creature comes back all messed up - starts eating your brain and stuff and becoming a killing machine, an arm and a leg if you use alchemy, etc. Life created in this manner is not life. It is "something else".
Frankenstein's was no exception. It is shown that this thing may be alive, but it is not human. It may be made of human parts. It may walk, talk, eat, smile, laugh and get high with a blind senile old monk, but it is NOT human. Or is it?
I believe that was why the monster was "dumbed down". In some ways, it is made more human. We can liken the monster to a child, simple-minded, easily frightened, and instinctual, operating on the basic flight or fight programming. Such a creature is easy to empathize with, rather than if you have a calculating, analytical but grotesque Monster who is intelligent enough to put cyanide in your peanut butter and leave the faucet open to increase your water bill.
More than the commonly believed question, "If we are able to make life, should we play God?'", I believe "Frankenstein" fans should ask a second question: "Can the life we make be considered life?"