is alive. The original relevant passage was: VICTOR: "Henry, in the name of God!" HENRY: "In the name of God? Now I know what it feels like to BE God!" Kansas requested the cutting of 32 scenes, which, if they had been removed, would have cut a literal half of the film. Jason Joy of the Studio Relations Committee sent censor representative Joseph Breen to urge them to reconsider. Eventually, an edited version was released in Kansas. As with many Pre-Code films that were reissued after strict enforcement of the Production Code in 1934, Universal made cuts from the original camera negative, and thus the cut footage is often lost. However, the footage of the girl Maria being thrown into the lake was rediscovered during the 1980s in the collection of the British National Film Archive, and it has been reincorporated into modern copies of the film. In the Irish Free State, the film was banned on February 5, 1932, for being demoralizing and unsuitable for children or "nervous people" – age-restricted certificates were not introduced in the country until 1965. The decision was overturned by the Appeal Board on March 8, and the film was passed uncut on March 9. The film was successfully banned in Northern Ireland, Quebec, Sweden, Italy, and Czechoslovakia. Reception The New York Times film critic Mordaunt Hall gave Frankenstein a very positive review. He said that the film "aroused so much excitement at the Mayfair yesterday that many in the audience laughed to cover their true feelings. [T]here is no denying that it is far and away the most effective thing of its kind. Beside it Dracula is tame and, incidentally, Dracula was produced by the same firm". Film Daily also lauded the picture, calling it a "gruesome, chill-producing and exciting drama" that was "produced intelligently and lavishly and with a grade of photography that is superb". Variety reported that it "looks like a Dracula plus, touching a new peak in horror plays", and described Karloff's performance as "a fascinating acting bit of mesmerism". Its review also singled out the look of the film as uniquely praiseworthy, calling the photography "splendid" and the lighting "the last word in ingenuity, since much of the footage calls for dim or night effect and the manipulation of shadows to intensify the ghostly atmosphere". John Mosher of The New Yorker was less enthused, calling the film only a