Write a comment"It's always easier to go with the flow." - Some dude
A few days ago, I was having a discussion with a close friend of mine. It was the day after the Oscar ceremony. Much of the discourse around the show was that Sinners was underrepresented when it came to Oscar wins. Some of you might have heard that Sinners broke the record for most Oscar nominations ever.
Some of you may remember that I reviewed Sinners a while back. For those of you who don't remember and possibly don't want to read it, I liked it, but I didn't love it. After all the praise and hype heaped on it, I decided to rewatch it. The issues I had with it seemed more evident.
My friend liked Sinners more than I did and, though it is increasingly uncommon, the two of us remained respectful of each other's opinions. I explained to them, "I wish I liked it more. Don't you think it would be easier if I did?"
My friend agreed. "Most likely."
This idea extends well beyond my opinion on film. In a macro sense, if I agreed with people more, my life would be a whole lot easier. It sounds so stupid, but I sincerely wish I could. My father was bull headed and stubborn as well as some other creative adjectives that may not be appropriate for print.
My mother always sought the path of least resistance. She would agree with some people just to "keep the peace". She would always bemoan my approach to conflict, saying, "A rock in a river, Adam. Just like your father."
"You're surprised?" I'd ask. "You plant corn; you get corn."
It was around here she'd lob a few creative adjectives my way.
The point I'm making is I don't expect everyone is going to share my opinion, but that's how the world should work. Shouldn't it? Are we so beyond help and hope that differing opinions divide us? Especially about art? Online film discourse has become enormously toxic.
So, deep breath...
I did not like The Bride! There were a lot of decent elements, but it was a little like looking for lira in a loo. Sure, you'll find something of value, but is it worth the trouble? In my opinion, it is not.
The Bride! (don't forget the exclamation point!) starts with the ghost of Mary Shelley played by Jessie Buckley. She speaks directly to the audience and this spirit seems to possess Ida (also played by Buckley). This "possession" (if that's indeed what it is) makes Ida begin to act out in the middle of a party with some mob henchmen. She falls (or gets pushed?) down a flight of stairs, cracking and breaking along the way. Dead.
Shortly after, Frank (Bale) visits Dr. Euphronious (Bening), seeking a bride of his own to combat his loneliness. It just so happens they dig up Ida, bring her back to life and now the story can begin. But Ida, who was previously a passive, accepting female is now more outspoken due to her possession.
The entire cast does their best. There are a lot of good nuggets of ideas throughout the film, but Gyllenhaal doesn't stop to explore basically any of them. This ultimately results in a film that gets slower as it moves forward, like a tortoise that lumbers along despite having weights placed on top of it. The pacing of the first 40 minutes is pretty good, but slogs with every subsequent plot contrivance.
For instance: how seriously are we supposed to take an adaptation of Frankenstein where the spirit of the original author possesses one of the characters? Mary Shelley, at least in the text of the film, is just in this shadowy black and white void where she decides at random to possess Ida?
And Frank likes movies. But he also fantasizes about being in them. The first couple of times we see Bale as Frankenstein's monster dancing to a tune from the 30s, it didn't bother me too much. Stupid, sure, but nothing offensively dumb.
Then it happened. If the setting and style wasn't enough to evoke thoughts of Young Frankenstein, we get a whole new dance number to Puttin' on the Ritz. It was just about here that I checked out and, just my luck, there was still around an hour left. This choice is so remarkably dumb that it almost comes off as a prank to the audience.
Gyllenhaal is a talented actress at times and her previous feature directorial job had potential, but much of this comes off like a junior in a college creative writing class trying to prove something. None of it is as potent as it wants to be, nor ever as clever. After a while, much of it ceases even being remotely coherent. Considering the $80 million price tag and the talent involved, I expected a lot more.
The main theme of the film that it seems to be trying to shove down the audience's throat is that women's voices need to be heard, trusted. This is something I can completely get behind and agree with wholeheartedly. But much of this is lost in the dreck of the rest of the film.
Towards the end, I was completely bored. I kept checking my watch (which doesn't happen all that often) and was so annoyed by the movie that I almost left (which I've never done). With all the plot threads that the film introduces throughout, I shouldn't have been surprised at the mess of an ending it had, but it was truly incompetent and sloppy.
So, should I go with the flow? Should I heap praise on The Bride! because people seem to want me to? Jury's out on that one. It's only been out for two weeks (as of today) and was an enormous box office bomb. Box office doesn't always equal quality, but it really begs the question of who this movie was for.
It's not good enough to be campy. It's not entertaining enough to be "so bad, it's good". It just occupies this weird void.
All I know for certain is that it definitely was not for me.
Yours truly,
The Rock in the River
The Bride! (2026)
Directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal
Cast: Jessie Buckley, Christian Bale, Annette Bening, Penelope Cruz, Peter Sarsgaard, Jake Gyllenhaal, John Magaro
Runtime: 126 minutes
MPAA Rating: R (for strong/bloody violent content, sexual content/nudity and language)
Rating (out of ****): *
The Bride! is currently in theaters.
