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.

Wuthering Heights (4/5 Stars)

I “read” Wuthering Heights in high school, and I make sure to put that in quotations because my lasting impression of the book was incomprehensibility. I have an idea of what made it so. I vaguely remember my teacher (forget which one) remarking that there was an original Welsh version (or something like that, maybe English still but a lot of Welsh words) and it was easier to read the translation to modern English version. But I never got around to reading the newer version, and indeed never got all the way through the incomprehensible version I had started reading. Not many books in my life have defeated me, but I was young, and this one did.

I wonder if I would have more luck giving it a try today. I also recall trying to read “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen in high school and not getting past five pages, the dense and high falutin language intimidating my pubescent mind. But ten years later (more or less), after much practice in reading, I was able to manage with pleasure what had frustrated me before.

So, could I read “Wuthering Heights” now? Maybe. It isn’t high on my list though. And having seen this movie, I’m not more inclined to read it than before. You see, I know this movie is way different than the book, it has to be given the way it has been approached. And part of me, well, I kind of like the idea of thinking that the book is more or less like the movie I just watched. Because that would be kind of awesome.

We can make a list of what is different from the book and by the end of this list, we will have to conclude that it is not fair to judge the movie by its faithfulness. The writer/director Emerald Fennel has clearly committed to her own vision, drawing inspiration from the novel, and nothing further.

We can first posit on our basic understanding of romantic literature of the 19th century that the book contained depictions of the English moors as they were and the people who inhabited them at the time. That these people acted within the typical bounds of typical people and when they acted eccentrically, they acted within what was deemed eccentric for eccentric people. That they had at their disposal those materials, costumes, and furnishings that one could purchase around that time. In other words, the book confined itself to the bounds of realism.

Where to start with the movie. Let’s start with the casting. In the role of Nelly, a female companion to the daughter of the Lord of Wuthering Heights, is Hong Chau, who is Chinese. The character is Nelly is not Chinese in the book. This movie uses color blind casting in two main roles (The other role is Edgar, one of the lesser angles in the Love Square, is the Actor Shazad Latif, who is mixed race English/Pakistani). These choices continue to prove the rule of color-blind casting, which is, in a story where race/ethnicity does not matter to the plot (usually because in the world of the story, everyone is of the same race, Wuthering Heights being no exception) it doesn’t matter what what race/ethnicity the actors are. Hong Chau, the actress, is well cast as Nelly. So is Shazad Latif.

Then there is Margot Robbie who would be the ideal choice for Cathy (one of the greater angles in the Love Square) fifteen years ago. She, at 36, is I believe playing a 20-year-old or something like that. It is a bit like Audrey Hepburn, at 32, playing Holly-Go–Lightly in Breakfast at Tiffany’s who was 18 or something like that. Then there is Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff (another of the greater angles in the Love Square), who does not look like he belongs in the 19th Century at all. He is a male model from the 21st century. If you don't know what he looks like, take my word that he was perfectly cast as Elvis in Sofia Coppola's Priscilla.

I mentioned a Love Square. My basic understanding of the plot in both the book and movie is that Heathcliff and Cathy fell in love as children, but since Heathcliff was poor, Cathy married the rich guy next door, Edgar, but then Heathcliff leaves and comes back rich, and to torment Cathy and/or make her jealous, he becomes engaged with Edgar’s ward Isabella, played here excitedly by Allison Oliver, who is nearer to the correct age, race, and level of beauty than anyone else. Because these people are gorgeous, and adaptations can do what they want, Emerald Fennel has them engage in the very act of adultery (dare I say, the sex itself), which I’m pretty sure wasn’t in the book because I think I would have noticed that in high school. So the brooding, yearning, and unrequited love of the book is now brooding, yearning, and very requited, though still tragic. I bet that this is a more entertaining way to tell the story.

Then there is the cinematography, makeup, costumes, and the production value. It would seem that at every possible opportunity, Emerald Fennel told her team to just go for it and give her the most indulgent, sumptuous, and opulent option available. I mean, this movie is scrumptious. Look at Heathcliff riding his horse over the moors at golden hour. See Cathy’s RED DRESS make its way through a thick moorish fog. Edgar has a room in his house that has a fireplace made out of plaster hands. There are several scenes where the characters just happen to be doing and saying dramatic things while getting drenched in pouring rain. And on and on.

Forget accuracy. What I want from a writer/director is an idea that is committed too. You can say what you want about this movie being anachronistic or unfaithful, but it is clear that the deviations from realism are features, not bugs, as they say. Emerald Fennel had a vision that was over the top and she has delivered on that vision. To enjoy this movie, you must meet her on her terms. And enjoy this movie I did. As with any good B-movie or guilty pleasure (I could compare this with Road House, sure), the movie cannot be deemed “good” in the standard sense. You can’t be drawn into it like a “good” dramatic movie because so many of the choices that have been made are not serious. But it is Not Boring. And, if you are in the mood to curl up on the couch with a pint of Super-Fudge Chocolate Ice Cream and a full-bodied glass of Cabernet Sauvignon to observe the hot acts of gorgeous people on cold moor nights for a couple of hours, well, I recommend it.