{"id":18758,"date":"2026-03-12T18:27:24","date_gmt":"2026-03-12T18:27:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cinemacocoa.com\/?p=18758"},"modified":"2026-03-12T18:36:01","modified_gmt":"2026-03-12T18:36:01","slug":"review-the-bride","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cinemacocoa.com\/?p=18758","title":{"rendered":"Review: The Bride!"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Like the creature; this lurching film is filled with interesting parts, but is a bit of a mess.

In an alternate 1930s, the monster created by Victor Frankenstein seeks a mate. When a doctor obliges and resurrects Ina into The Bride, she isn’t quite what anyone expected.

Actor-turn-director Maggie Gyllenhaal has one feature besides The Bride!<\/em> to her name, 2021’s The Lost Daughter<\/em>. Which also starred Jessie Buckley. Joining them here is Christian Bale, Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, and Pen\u00e9lope Cruz.
The screenplay is also written by Maggie Gyllenhaal, and is a reinterpretation of the James Whale original 1935 movie, The Bride of Frankenstein<\/em>. Which was an original screenplay written as a sequel to 1931’s Frankenstein<\/em>, which in turn is an adaptation of Mary Shelley’s classic novel. We are almost at Wicked <\/em>levels of interconnectivity, but not quite yet.

So, what does this film do differently? The pros and cons are multiple.

Following the events of Frankenstein <\/em>(presumably the 1931 movie) Frankenstein’s monster (Bale) is alive and well in 1930’s America. Going by the name Frankenstein, he seeks a doctor who knows how to revive corpses from death, as his creator did. The corpse they choose is one of Ina (Buckley) who was killed under suspicious circumstances.
But Ina isn’t alone… Before she died a strange voice had awoken in her mind, driving her to outbursts and threats. This led to her demise, but upon being revived, this voice remains with her.

<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Here comes the… Yeah, you know that one<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

I feel like there’s a parallel universe in where this movie is as good as any Guillermo Del Toro movie. There’s such a great idea here. But this theme’s buried under a lot of unnecessary distractions and an unfocussed narrative. We will be getting into<\/strong> mild spoilers<\/strong> in this review.

The Bride!<\/em> is an unhinged, violent, punk-ish affair, and Maggie Gyllenhaal is on to something here. The Bride of Frankenstein is a relatively untouched monster, owing in part to the good reception the movie has unto this day. So a modernising of the tale is welcome. We have a terrific setting for a female empowerment story. About an individual bucking trends and roles that she is expected to be born into. A rebellion and a fightback against prejudice and abuse. It worked in its trappings too, as author Mary Shelley was an advocate for these things in life.

This is the glowing heart of the movie. As our two monsters are running havoc, two detectives (Cruz and Sarsgaard) are having the same themes playing out within their world. The juxtaposition is excellent. The movie has good production value, make-up, and a storming performance from Buckley (she’s always giving her all in her performances). This all sounds like a rip-roaring time. So why does it feel so… off?
<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Pen\u00e9lope Cruz and Peter Sarsgaard are trying to stop the madness<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

This film is spinning a lot of plates, and not all of them are necessary at all. It jeopardizes the important theming covered so far. What are we here for? The titular Bride<\/em>. So why are we so invested in Frankenstein’s (ugh, I hate it when the monster <\/em>is called Frankenstein) love of movies? Why are we having elaborate musical numbers with Bale and Jake Gyllenhaal?? Is it because Jake is the director’s brother? Probably. But that is far and away the least relevant thing to distract from what matters… The Bride!<\/em> There’s a narrative dissonance between the plight the film’s women are dealing with, and the fact there are needless periods of time when men take the limelight away from them.

Easily, Bale and Jake Gyllenhaal are the film’s weak points. Remove or strip back these scenes, and we get a much cleaner movie with a direct theme. Frankenstein’s monster is hard to read. Bale’s depiction is centuries old, yet he is quite bumbling. If we are following Shelley’s story, this isn’t accurate. But perhaps the 1931 movie is the template? Well, spoilers<\/strong>…

Turns out the voice in Ina’s head… is Mary Shelley. Also played by Jessie Buckley. In this world of monsters derived from her own book exists Shelley herself? The movie depicts her in a shadowy realm, herself wracked by psychosis and demented prattling. Her involvement doesn’t appear to be metaphorical exactly, but strangely of the moment.
Does painting Shelley as a maniacal lost soul do any credit for the author? It seems to be a riff on Bride of Frankenstein<\/em>, where Elsa Lanchester played both The Bride and Mary Shelley. But it doesn’t seem implemented well here?

I feel some sympathy for this movie. It is trying something, and it is unique, weird, and unorthodox. Audiences and critics appear to be wrecking the movie, which is unfair to it.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"3<\/figure>\n\n\n\n


Additional Marshmallows: With Christian Bale playing the monster, and Aaron Eckhart playing the monster in 2014’s I, Frankenstein<\/em>… when are we getting Morgan Freeman or Michael Caine? To continue the Dark Knight<\/em> to Frankenstein<\/em> conversions??
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n