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.

Captain Marvel (3/5 Stars)

I guess it would be impossible to churn out great movies forever. Phase Three of the interminable Marvel continiuum of movies saw it hit peak Marvel with four great movies come out in a row: Spider-Man: Homecoming, Thor Ragnarok, Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War. (I liked Ant-Man and the Wasp too). Captain Marvel, merely a good movie, is a bit of a comedown. It is another prime example of the notion that the more powerful a superhero is, the more boring they become. Captain Marvel has something akin to Superman powers. At one point she is flying through space and shooting photon blasts from her knuckles. In a situation such as this, the other powers of the universe can only retreat, which they end up doing once they slowly realize they are outmatched. When a superhero's powers get so strong that they make all fights boring and predictable, there needs to be some human drama that will spice up the storyline and create suspense.

If you can recall, Marvel had the exact same problem with Thor. The first two Thor movies were orverwrought and boring and presently scrape the bottom of the barrel of Marvel's 20+ movies. Then Marvel realized that Chris Hemsworth was a talented comedian, and instead of taking this God of Thunder so seriously, completely reworked Thor: Ragnarok too take advantage Hemsworth ability to play the clown. Here Captain Marvel is played by Brie Larson, who is no doubt a talented dramatic actress (Oscar Winnning!), but I'm not sure she can play funny. If she could, the way this movie frames her and her character severely hampers any ability to do so. You see, Captain Marvel is a woman and Marvel really really wants you to know that they are sufficiently progressive for modern times. It's their first superhero to be played by a woman after (that is if we exclude Black Widow and Scarlett Witch or any of the female X-Men, which I think we are). This liberal guilt complex at times can be a bit too obvious. The use of the word "cockpit" comes to mind or the repeated advice that Captain Marvel needs to control her emotions.

There is a line when a movie makes choices that seems less to do with story and character than politics. One of my favorite examples occurs in a little movie from 1997 called Titanic. Rose, played by Kate Winslett, is taking a guided tour of the upper decks of the boat and she comes to this realization. Why, she says, I've counted all the life boats and it does not seem you have enough for everyone. Now, the movie needs to establish to the audience that there aren't enough lifeboats, but they have chosen to have Rose, a young woman, make this calculation off the top of her head. Not some employee, or some engineer, or some other guy who has been on the ship for longer than a couple of days. This woman brings it up without prompting. Not only that but she understands the importance of Picasso, and can drink a beer, and well, what can't she do? Meanwhile, in stark contrast, what hubris and arrogance of all the other men except, of course, the one who falls in love with her at first sight and would die for her within a week's time. (Titanic, I'm giving a pass too because at the end of the day it is not about real people. It is a utterly shameless 200% pro woman fantasy. The extent of its commitment to that fantasy and the expertise to which it is brought to pass is among its great pleasures. I do admit the movie is great.) But let's be honest. Rose wouldn't know how many fucking lifeboats the boat needed. That scene is preaching to the choir. Playing to the base as they say.

Historically, women are greatly oppressed. But again there is line when it comes to storytelling. Other great movies that feature women as action heroes don't seem to come close to it: think anything with Sigourney Weaver, Jodie Foster, or Noomi Rapace. Or this can be brought up with subtle humor to great effect: Wonder Woman did a very good job at that. The pitfall to going past that line is not a political one. It has to do with unintentionally creating a one-note character, someone whose purpose seems to be to only exist in opposition to something or somebody else. That is, an antagonist in the role of a protagonist. Captain Marvel would likely work better as an evil villain. Anyway, we shall see if Captain Marvel gets more interesting in later installments. Here she starts off cool, remains cool, recovers her memory and realizes she was always cool, and then becomes even cooler. But hey, she's a woman. Points, please!

Captain Marvel otherwise contains a leap forward in special effects. For the past twenty years, movies have been making stop-and-start progress on creating artificial humans from digital effects. Robert Zemeckis did a rather poor job of it Beowolf. David Fincher tried to bring Brad Pitt back to his most handsomeness in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. He didn't quite make it and the scene is much helped by a dimly lit room. But now we have Samuel L. Jackson's performance in Captain Marvel. Samuel L. Jackson plays agent Nicholas Fury, who you have seen in many Marvel movies in a supporting role. But Captain Marvel takes place in the 1990s and Samuel L. Jackson necessarily needs to lose about twenty five years. This cannot be done with makeup. So Marvel has done it with digital effects. The job they do is so complete that it is hardly noticeable. It's incredible really. Sam Jackson does not look exactly like he did in the 1990s. Presumably Marvel wasn't trying to make a mirror image of him, but he looks like a person. There is no uncanny valley. I'm not sure where we can go with this, except I think someone at some point is going to start bringing back old movie stars and start inserting them into movies with Andy Serkis doing the acting. Or actresses known for their hotness are going to start remaining perpetually young. We shall see.

Goose is cool. I like Goose.

Running With Scissors 04/20/07

This movie starts out like this: (Blackout) Maybe this is how I should tell the story of my life (paraphrased somewhat.) 
Bad news bears alert! Do you know what you're doing or not? You don't know where to start this movie? Maybe it should start like this? We need a little more confidence here in the tale. Why even a voiceover? just start it: This is what happened. Authoritative, direct. Don't waste my time, figuring out what you're trying to do at the beginning. 
This movie suffers from a more mild identity crisis. It tries to be a comedy, but there's nothing funny about a true story like this. Sure one can insert humor in here and there as comic relief but don't expect me to laugh at these poor poor people. They easily win my pity not my scorn. Mental illness of course can be very serious. Especially when you're mother is seeing an even crazier shrink who drugs her out of her mind in order to adopt her kid along with his monthly child support check. Throughout the movie we get the sense that author is somewhat afraid of people's reactions. So he puts up this fence to show that he himself is above the entire mess. He makes it known and clear to the audience that this movie is supposed to be funny. Which wouldn't be a problem if what really didn't make people laugh is someone telling us outright that we should. Like I said before this movie needs more confidence. Not just in themselves but also in the audience. They need to trust that we will want to find the story interesting or funny. Is that not why were here watching the movie? Paticularly in the first quarter the movie holds our hands a little too much. It gets better though.
We have good performances all around. Most notably from the adults, Cox, Bening, and Baldwin, who seems to be in every movie nowadays. The younger charachters not so much, but then again there's not much to them and its probably pretty hard to play a homosexual schizophrenic as if you know what you're doing. 
The director's ability is somewhat in flux also. Again toward the beginning. He loves doing interesting things with the camera sure and I respect the ambition but there's a reason we have an editing room. Like bad jokes in comedies, if a montage doesn't work or has no purpose than it shouldn't be in the picture. We have quite the montages in this film, slow motion, pop music, fast-forward, snow from the ceilings. About three quarters of them work. Another quarter doesn't. Where's that asshole producer when you need him.
Is this is going to turn into that review that bashes the picture the entire time but then recommends it. Unfortunately yes. Why? Because as I said, it has problems. But three fourths of the time it works, and the story is more interesting and ambitious than most of the stuff out there. So while it may not have reached its perfection as a story, the goal was set up high and a failure at this level is respectable.