THE STORY – In 1930s Chicago, Frankenstein’s monster asks Dr. Euphronius to create a companion for him. Together, they give life to a murdered woman known as “the Bride”, sparking romance, police interest and radical social change.
THE CAST – Jessie Buckley, Christian Bale, Peter Sarsgaard, Annette Bening, Jake Gyllenhaal & Penélope Cruz
THE TEAM – Maggie Gyllenhaal (Director/Writer)
THE RUNNING TIME – 126 Minutes
It’s funny to think about the cyclical nature of Hollywood’s output. There’s a continual treasure trove of properties to mine, and most seem all too eager to continue funding them. A story told once is a story worth telling as many times as possible, apparently. However, it’s also somewhat amusing that there is another repetition that finds itself occurring. The dueling projects on similar subject matter were released mere months apart. The battle between “A Bug’s Life“ and “Antz,” “Volcano“ and “Dante’s Peak,“ or “Deep Impact“ and “Armageddon.“ The most famous examples of these contests might have been decades ago. Still, studios have not been discouraged from competing against themselves with films that tackle recognizable stories between two major releases. Last year, Guillermo del Toro finally delivered his long-awaited passion project inspired by Mary Shelley’s horror classic “Frankenstein.“ Now, a new spin on this familiar tale has come before us with so little time in between. However, director Maggie Gyllenhaal offers a bold take on this material in “The Bride!“ that strays far away from what many would expect. This adaptation certainly gets points for creativity, but it also struggles to be impactful due to its lackluster storytelling.
For this interpretation, we are no longer placed within the gothic landscapes of early 18th-century Europe. Instead, the setting has jumped nearly a century and centers on 1930s America. The gangster scene in Chicago is where Ida (Jessie Buckley), which is not her real name but one given to her by an omniscient narrator, finds herself embedded with a cast of crooks, with a notorious mob boss with a proclivity for harming the disposable women in his care. Following a public altercation, Ida falls down a flight of stairs and is killed. However, there are uses still for her freshly made corpse. Frankenstein’s creature (Christian Bale) has survived all these years and made his way to the States. He’s seeking the help of Dr. Euphornious (Annette Bening) in an effort to create a mare and cure his loneliness. With that, Ida is revived, with no memory of her former self but with a new appetite for chaos. The two find themselves on a crime spree that captures the nation’s attention as their twisted love story blossoms into a fiendish spectacle. Each is on a journey of self-discovery, but this newly minted bride will unearth a more electrifying version of herself.
Maggie Gyllenhaal may not have a long list of directorial credits under her belt, but she made an impressive debut with “The Lost Daughter.“ That small, introspective character study is a far cry from the flamboyant spectacle she puts on display here. The period setting boldly showcases the art deco aesthetics of the time and recreates it with artistic flair. The colorful lighting in Lawrence Sher’s cinematography provides vibrant, kinetic imagery that makes every frame pop. Gyllenhaal has an appreciation for wild anachronisms, like a nightclub that employs strobe lighting and an electro-pop band, and it’s part of the tapestry meant to intentionally underline the strange, peculiar crafting of this unique environment. However, it’s quite apparent that most of these choices are purely aesthetic, and finding a justification for them, whether narratively or emotionally, is not satisfactory. It may seem like an intriguing decision to suddenly create an impromptu musical number with “Putting on the Ritz“ diegetically playing as the choreography becomes more akin to Michael Jackson’s “Thriller.” Still, it’s one of many frantic elements that come with little set-up and is tonally inconsistent with the long stretches of dull drama. So many sequences are awkwardly edited, as if they were condensed and hastily cut together, which makes the narrative feel rushed and cluttered.
The real killer of this film is its grueling pacing, and a major contributing factor is the story’s utter lack of investment in this central romance. Yes, Frankenstein and his bride are meant to be an odd match at first, who slowly come together through the carnage that follows them. Yet, their passion never burns off the screen. The Bonnie and Clyde antics are supposed to capture people’s attention, sending them into their own heightened revolution against the status quo. But the most we get of that is an embarrassingly cringy montage of women emulating the Bride’s makeup aesthetic in the most broadly defined “girlboss“ handwave imaginable, not to mention just a lazy reminder of a similar phenomenon brought up in “Joker.“ The supporting characters aren’t compelling either, whether it’s the mobsters trying to hunt Ida down or a pair of detectives whose banter is painful and whose appearance lacks justification. The beating heart of this story should be the relationship between these two lost souls, but their venture is not at all engrossing, and the story surrounding them is completely flaccid.
There is something commendable about the way Buckley throws herself into every role, no matter what level of histrionics is called for. This character is given an intentionally vague backstory, and her rebirth is meant to serve as a track for gradual emotional catharsis. On top of that, the aforementioned narrator is actually Mary Shelly, also played by Buckley, and is often intercut within scenes as black-and-white close-ups, taking possession of Ida like a split personality. It may add a few more quirks to the performance, but it’s hard to see beyond it being a gimmick. Buckley is an accomplished enough performer that such exuberance is not necessary, but perhaps for some the thinness of the role ultimately necessitates it. She will always be commanding, and there are moments when her fiery energy is totally captivating, but it’s not the best demonstration of her talents. Bale actually manages to be more successful in his portrayal, embodying an ungainly physicality under the impressive makeup that can still mine an emotional vulnerability, even with a furrowed brow during a public confrontation. He has always been an incredible actor, and he continues to be enthralling here as well. It’s a shame the chemistry the two share isn’t particularly noteworthy. They are both alluring as individual figures, but lack a more inviting aura when sharing the screen.
Still, that’s a lot more one can say for the rest of the ensemble. Bening exists in an odd no man’s land of wanting to play the bombastic mad scientist, but her eccentricities are not played up enough to sell a wild vision that would have been more enjoyable to witness. John Magaro is an old acquaintance of Ida who’s forced to make a moral decision about her disposal. Still, such a wonderfully empathetic actor is put to utter waste in a role with barely any screentime and wooden motivations. The same is true for a pair of detectives following this criminal couple, but good luck being entertained by whatever antics Peter Sarsgaard and Penelope Cruz are given. They simply meander through this story, with terrible dialogue in an uninteresting sideplot. There’s a suggestion of some history between Sarsgaard’s character and the Bride in a former life. Still, it’s not explored nearly enough to justify either of these characters being here, and it only drags out the runtime even more. Jake Gyllenhaal is also featured, but it’s basically an extended cameo and feels more like an indulgence from his sister, giving him a small part to play.
There are a handful of intriguing concepts in “The Bride“ that could be viewed in a fascinating light. The decision to have Shelley introduce the film already feels like a nod to the 1935 film “The Bride of Frankenstein,“ which also imagined the author spinning a continuation of her previous story (also played by the film’s Bride). It’s an appealing idea that, unfortunately, isn’t mined too deeply and instead contributes more to an annoying trait of one of the characters. This film may be more memorable because of its filmmaking, but it’s all sound and fury, amounting to very little. The momentum is lethargic, the characters shallow, and the narrative lacking any sense of intrigue from the romance that is supposed to anchor it. One will always appreciate a new spin on a story that people are overly familiar with. That’s necessary to keep such material fresh. However, such attempts need changes that go beyond the cosmetic, and that’s unfortunately most of what is presented here.
