The Bride! (2/5 Stars)

By Wikipedia’s count, there have been 494 movies, 248 short films, 105 TV series, and 420 TV series that have featured Frankenstein’s monster. Of those, there have been 5-10 adaptations of actual novel by Mary Shelley into feature length films, depending on how fast and loose with the source material you allow a movie to be and count it as an adaptation of the source material. Frankenstein is notable for the sheer amount of adaptations and references of the book and its monster relative to the fact that there isn’t a single good movie in all of them to actually recommend. This streak of adaptive failures is, to my knowledge, the longest running and most numerous string of clunkers in movie history. It dates all the way back to the silent era and adds several new examples of rubbish seemingly every year.

The most famous movies, those from Universal Studios in the 1930s, starring Boris Karloff are terrible. The monster in those movies can’t even talk, depriving the audience of any exploration of the book’s philosophical themes. The best thing about this version of the monster is the makeup and hairstyling. Fast-forward to Guillermo Del Toro’s adaptation just last year in 2025 and you will find a sexy monster, played by Jacob Elordi, that is oddly immortal, once again confounding the themes of the novel and entirely missing the point. Now we have The Bride! which seeks to layer-on a confusing and anachronistic #MeToo contrivance to, yet again, an underdeveloped if not completely written off exploration of the book’s themes. The best movie to feature Frankenstein’s monster is still Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein, which also doesn’t explore the book’s themes, but didn’t have to because it was a parody of all the previous movies that also didn’t utilize those themes. All it had to be was funny, and it was. (The Bride! randomly utilizes the song "Puttin' on the Ritz" at one point, which means writer/director Maggie Gyllenhaal has seen Young Frankenstein and wants us to know that she knows about it).

What is “Frankenstein” about? There has been a good adaptation of it, Director Danny Boyle and Writer Nick Dear’s play for the London’s National Theater starring Johnny Lee Miller and Benedict Cumberbatch. (During COVID, the National Theater made certain performances available for streaming for a limited time. This was one of them and I was very happy to see it on a TV screen). In that play, the whole prologue up to the creation of the monster is omitted. It starts in the point of view of the monster, as he is being “born” into a world of pain and darkness. The monster's first interaction with a human being is his creator screaming in horror and abandoning him to fend for himself. The monster, through trials and tribulations, manages to survive, even to learn language and to read books, one of them Paradise Lost by John Milton. But hostility stalks his lonely days as the people blanch from his hideous form and repeatedly try to hurt and kill him. Finally, he meets up with his creator and has an articulate discussion with him about why he was created, and who owes what, if anything, to whom. This conversation is not unlike one that we, the human species, may have with our God, that elusive deity that put us here amongst unforgiving nature for no objective rhyme or reason. From the play:

Creature: Here is my request. I wish to be part of society. But no human being will associate with me. But one of my own kind - one just as deformed and horrible - she would understand - she would -

Victor: What, I-

Creature: I want a female. Built like me.

Victor: A female?

Creature: You alone have the power to-

Victor: Create another brute - another monster? No, I will not, I -

Creature: It is my right!

Victor: You have no rights. You are a slave. You want me to make you a female so the pair of you can be wicked together? No, I will not. Torture me as much as you like, I’ll never consent!

Creature: I will not torture you. I will reason with you. Isn’t that what we do? Have a dialogue?

Victor: There is no dialogue with killers!

Creature: Yet you’d kill me if you could! Why, you have just tried! So why is your killing justified, and mine is not?

Victor: I won’t argue with you! My god, I’m halfway up a mountain, debating with a - a -

Creature: A living creature!

Victor: A nothing, a filthy mass of nothing! I am your master, you should show respect -

Creature: A master has duties — you left me to die! I am not a slave. I am free. If you deny my request I will make you my enemy, I will work at your destruction. I will dedicate myself, I won’t rest until I desolate your heart!

What a delicious and interesting subject matter this is. And, to my knowledge, no adaptation of Frankenstein in the movie format has ever used it. The Bride! is no exception. The book does not really have a take on Frankenstein’s bride. The creature is alive for about 30 seconds. In the original Universal Studios Bride of Frankenstein movie, the bride is in only one scene before also dying. Again, the best thing about the Bride of Frankenstein is her makeup and hairstyling.

Here, the Bride, played by Jessica Buckley, is not really in the same position as the monster, played by Christian Bale. It is the 1920s, (the monster is immortal which still makes no sense) and has apparently been wandering the earth for about one hundred years. His bodily condition is just as hideous. He won’t die but he also won’t heal. He asks a new scientist, Dr. Euphronius, played by Annette Bening (who is a woman, credit please) to create for him a bride. They find a recently deceased young woman, in fact she is a victim of a homicide, hook her up to some fancy equipment and shock her to life.

Unlike the relationship between Frankenstein and his monster, see above, the monster adores the Bride! and would do anything for her. But there is a problem that simply cannot be overlooked. The monster didn’t seek her permission before bringing her back to life. There was no consent. #MeToo

Here is another big difference. Whereas, the general populace reeled in horror at the sight of Frankentsein’s monster and tried to kill him, the populace here is overcome with lust for the Bride and repeatedly tries to rape her. Now, I’m not a rape expert, but it is my general understanding that most rapes are committed between people who know each other in isolated places, and when it is occurs between strangers, it also happens in isolated places. It is of course, a serious crime, even in the 1920s, and men generally don’t commit serious crimes when there are witnesses around.

In this movie, upon being created, the Bride seeks the joy of life by dancing in a speakeasy. She catches the eye of some neer-do-well-men, and as she is being escorted by the monster (She calls him Frank for some reason) out of this public venue onto a public street, these two men assault both her and Frank with the aim of (I’m pretty sure) raping her. And this isn’t the only time this occurs in this movie. Near the end, Frank and the Bride are pulled over by a traffic cop on the side of the road. Frank lies down and hides his face as if he is sleeping to try to hide the fact that he is a wanted monster. The cop decides that this would be a good time to direct the Bride to exit the vehicle and attempt to rape her.

The rapes don’t occur becuase Frank, the uber-strong monster, kills the rapists. That might be the most realistic part of these scenarios. It is a bad idea to rape a man’s woman in front of him, doubly so if he is a big strong monster. You think society would understand, but no, Frank and the Bride become wanted criminals and escape onto the local highways like Bonnie and Clyde.

A lot of this movie is needlessly contrived. For obvious reasons, Frank and the Bride’s murderous actions are justified even if the scenarios which prompt those actions are severely implausible. At other times, other equally implausible scenarios prompt behavior which is not justified at all. In one scene, The Bride draws a gun and waves it around wildly at a high society gathering (I forget exactly why). The cops show up, draw all of their guns…but don’t shoot The Bride, even though she is waving around a loaded gun in a crowded room of people. After a tense standoff, the Bride shoots a cop. Then the cops start shooting but none of them can aim straight enough to hit Bride as she makes her escape. The movie then argues that the Bride was acting in self-defense in such a scenario. That is stupid.

When implausible scenarios are met with justified actions that the world doesn’t understand, and unjustified actions that the movie insists are reasonable, then you have a movie that doesn’t work on a basic level. And these basic problems are not helped by the writer/director Maggie Gyllenhaal's ability to shoe-horn the phrase “Me Too, Me Too!” in one of the Bride’s wild speeches near the end. I don’t give out points for that.As is tradition in Frankenstein adaptations, the best thing about this movie is the makeup and hairstyling.

Hey, imagine if Andy Serkis adapted Nick Dear’s play for the movie screen and played both Frankenstein in person and also the monster utilizing motion capture. Someone should make that movie.

Vicky Christina Barcelona 09/20/08

The first thing we see is Vicky, Cristina, and Barcelona. They have just arrived and are taking a cab from the airport to where they are staying for the summer. An unknown narrator describes them in excruciating detail. Vicky is this sort of person, Cristina is that sort of person. I suppose Woody Allen didn't want to bring any subtlety to the introduction of his characters. He lays down the gauntlet right away. This is the way they are! They aren't like anything else! Rules, rules, rules, and no, audience, its not going to take a half hour to figure out what makes these people tick. It will be bluntly put forth in the first 30 seconds. I got the idea that the first voiceover (okay there's these two girls, one's uptight, the others a free spirit, they're, like, in Barcelona!) was the actual pitch Allen made to the producers. Then I remembered that Woody Allen is the producer, and he simply doesn't care what anyone thinks. If he wants to narrate the picture with such predestined rigidity as to the characters actions and feelings, well we're just going to have to go along with it. Have some faith I guess, we've entered his world as soon as we bought the ticket. I guess I asked for it. 
For the first two thirds of the movie, its worth it. Slowly we are seduced by intoxicating performances, Spanish guitar, and quasi-romantic language. There are no stunts, action sequences, or 'look at me, I'm directing' camerawork. In fact, the director seems absent, he leaves all of the work up to the actors. What a good idea. Anchoring the movie are Rebecca Hall as Vicky and Scarlett Johansson as Cristina. They become enamored with a Spanish modern artist played by Javier Bardem, coming fresh off of his Oscar winning turn as a serial killer. The girls hear that Javier ex-wife tried to kill him. Vicky is shocked, Cristina is intrigued. She makes eyes with him across the room and he walks over and very bluntly, asks them to join him for a weekend of wine, sightseeing, and making love. What Bardem says and how he says it makes this seem okay, its quite extraordinary. He convinces Cristina at least. Woody Allen has fun using Spanish to impose upon Javier a sense of innocence. If he was better at English, he wouldn't seem so honest and innocent. His phrases are always blunt and to the point. When speaking of art and love, his simple sayings sound deep. Long story short, he beds them both. He asks Cristina to live with him, not Vicki. Vicki is hurt. They have a conversation in Gaudi Park that sounds something like this: "Why don't you like me?" "You have a fiance" "But you slept with me?" "I don't get your point" "What do you mean you don't get it?" "I solly, no speaky English." There's a little more to it, but you get the idea.
Anyway, Cristina moves in and that's when the movie for a short time becomes something really special. Remember the ex-wife who tried to kill Javier. Well she's played by Penelope Cruz and just tried to kill herself. So, concerned, Javier invites her to stay with him. He doesn't ask Cristina to move out mind you, just decides to live with both of them. Did someone say awkward. The next couple of scenes are pure gold, especially the ones between Cruz and Bardem. Here we have two of the best Spanish actors in the business. Now watch them talk in and out of Spanish and English with great fluency, always mad at each other, and with great intensity. Two very impossible people madly in love with each other. Whew, you'd wish the rest of the movie would be about them and only them.
Unfortunately, at this point, the story reverts back to Vicki and cashes in on a storyline that I have seen in basically every single one of Allen's movies: Marital infidelity. Vicki is in a loveless marraige and wants out. There's even the line 'I love him, but I'm not in love with him.' Please kill me. Not only does this stoyline not add a damn thing, but it actually makes Vicki, who was a great character, into that annoying little archetype of an immature dolt that populates the worst of Allen's movies. I think this movie proves that it takes much more creativity to create characters that love each other than ones that are bored with each other. Maybe that's true in life too. Is it easier to be bored, than to be filled with passion? Which kind of relationship do you think would take more creativity and ingenuity? Which one, Woody Allen, would you rather watch in a movie?