The Bride! Is an Intellectual Joyride Without the Joy

by

Today, most women easily recognize that the talented female writers of the 1800s faced significant disadvantages. Jane Austen’s first four novels were published without her name attached, as writing wasn’t considered a proper occupation for women. The Brontë sisters used male pen names because they knew their work wouldn’t be respected otherwise. Even Mary Shelley, who essentially created science fiction with her 1818 novel Frankenstein – written when she was only 19 – has had her accomplishments questioned, with some arguing that her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, contributed so much to the manuscript he deserves co-authorship. These women have finally received the recognition they deserve, but it took a long time. Imagine if, back in 1936, one of them – somehow returning from the afterlife and sporting some truly awful lipstick – became so fed up with the injustices she faced that she decided to take over the life of a modern woman.

Maggie Gyllenhaal’s film, The Bride!, is very upfront about its themes – almost to a fault. From the very beginning, it feels like the movie is explicitly stating its intentions, similar to an essay’s introduction. While it’s easy to understand the anger the film explores, the way it’s presented feels uninspired and predictable. You can quickly grasp the movie’s main ideas, and after a while, it becomes draining rather than engaging. The emphatic exclamation point in the title hints at this – the film overstates its points instead of letting them resonate naturally.

Jessie Buckley delivers a captivating performance in dual roles. The film begins with Buckley as Mary Shelley, depicted in striking black and white and dressed in clothing from the early 1800s. She passionately protests the limitations placed on women and artists, declaring her need to tell another story. To do so, she intends to inhabit the life of a woman from the 20th century – an act she describes as a kind of possession, a merging of two souls. The scene shifts to the 1930s and Ida, also played by Buckley, a performer in a Chicago nightclub. She’s dressed in a cheap, bright orange dress and entertaining two unremarkable gangsters (John Magaro and Matthew Maher), who seem more interested in her appearance than her thoughts. Ida plays along, but she’s clearly holding back. Then, she unexpectedly launches into a furious, archaic-sounding rant – Mary Shelley taking control and using Ida as a vessel. Soon after, Ida’s life takes a tragic turn, leading to a shocking transformation.

A scarred and isolated man—Christian Bale, visibly wounded—travels through Chicago, hoping to find a scientist who can help him. He expects a male doctor, but is surprised to find Dr. Euphronius is a woman, played by Annette Bening. This version of Frankenstein’s monster, whom Dr. Euphronius names Frank, is deeply lonely. Can she use her advanced laboratory to create a companion for him? Dr. Euphronius initially hesitates to exhume a body, fearing it would disrupt the natural order. However, she agrees, and the recently deceased Ida becomes the subject of her experiment. When Ida is brought back to life, a chemical used in the process leaves a noticeable stain on her skin, almost like a birthmark. However, she has no memory of her past life. Unfortunately, she’s still haunted by the spirit of Mary Shelley, who frequently takes control of her body. And she’s no longer Ida; she now calls herself the Bride, a name full of irony, as she belongs to no one and is determined to defy expectations.

When the Bride first sees Frank, it’s not exactly love at first sight – that comes later. First, she needs to establish her independence, and this takes a surprisingly long time. While she’s doing that, several side stories try to hold our attention. Before she enters his life, Frank, feeling very lonely, escapes into the world of movies. He’s obsessed with a charismatic dancer, singer, and actor named Ronnie Reed (Jake Gyllenhaal), and he imagines himself as a performer. He pictures himself dressed in a tuxedo, clumsily but happily tap-dancing, reminiscent of Peter Boyle in Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein, but the reference is too obvious to be clever or enjoyable.

Initially cold and fierce, the Bride slowly begins to fall for Frank, and the pair end up as unlikely criminals on the run, much like Bonnie and Clyde. She even gains a devoted following of women who copy her bold style – they paint ink spots on their faces as a tribute. Detective Jake Wiles (Peter Sarsgaard) and his astute secretary, Myrna Mallow (Penélope Cruz), are pursuing the couple, though it’s clear Myrna is the one really in charge. As the story gets more complicated, the movie jumps between slapstick humor and lectures on women’s issues, all wrapped up in a lot of Hollywood extravagance. It’s obvious the film had a huge budget – the costumes, designed by Sandy Powell, perfectly capture the 1930s, with a touch of fantasy – but ultimately, it feels weighed down by its own grand ideas instead of soaring.

Jake Gyllenhaal’s first film as a director, 2021’s The Lost Daughter, felt fresh and exploratory, which helped its ambitious nature. While The Bride! shows more confidence, it feels less dynamic. The film is filled with nods to other movies – like Pennies from Heaven, Metropolis, Dick Tracy, and the classic James Whale films Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein – to the point where it struggles to establish its own unique identity.

Christian Bale delivers a surprisingly charming performance as Frankenstein’s monster, even delivering a cliché romantic line. However, Jennifer Buckley’s portrayal of the Bride is overly forceful and lacks humanity, making her feel more like a caricature than a resurrected person. One particularly awkward moment has the Bride simply repeating “Me too!” to express her anger—a line that feels overly directed and unnatural. Meanwhile, Mary Shelley, appearing as a ghostly figure from the past, watches her creation with a theatrical cackle, delivering lines in a voice reminiscent of Marianne Faithfull but falling flat. The film emphasizes its conceptual nature; it’s clearly more interested in presenting ideas than telling a compelling story, resulting in an intellectually stimulating but ultimately joyless experience.

Read More

2026-03-05 03:06