Mary Shelley

The Bride! (2026): Buckley and Bale Do Their Best with This Unexciting Cinematic Enigma

Posted on by Jack Drees

Photo by Courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures – © Warner Bros. Pictures

“The Bride!” is written and directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal (The Dark Knight, White House Down) and stars Jessie Buckley (Hamnet, Women Talking), Christian Bale (Batman Begins, Thor: Love and Thunder), Peter Saarsgard (Shattered Glass, The Batman), Annette Bening (American Beauty, Nyad), Jake Gyllenhaal (Stronger, Spider-Man: Far from Home), and Penélope Cruz (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides). This film is set in 1930s Chicago, at which point Frankenstein’s monster, or Frank, asks Dr. Euphronius to create a companion. Once the companion is brought to life, the film follows both creatures as they go on a wild journey together in which they become romantically involved.

“The Bride!” was on my radar ever since I saw the trailer back in October in the best possible way… On a giant IMAX screen. Any movie that is shot in the coveted 1.43:1 format, even if it is digital, has my attention. Of course, having looked at the many shots the trailer had to offer, the film definitely would dazzle in scope widescreen if I were to see it that way too. The film had a dirty, rugged, sometimes sexy feel to it that felt unlike anything I would not recall witnessing before. Sure, in terms of vibe, this film did remind me a bit of “Joker” and its severely insulting sequel, especially considering some of the crew members on those films also work on this one. Some of the names attached to this film include cinematographer Lawrence Sher and composer Hildur Guðnadóttir. But “The Bride!” appeared to have its slight differences from “Joker.” “The Bride!” seemed to lean more towards the horror route rather than a pure drama route, though “Joker” did manage to insert an eerie moment or two.

Speaking of the “Joker” movies, if you are aware of how I scored them, you would know I did so on opposite sides of the spectrum. The first was pretty positive, while the second was highly negative. “The Bride!” falls somewhere between these two projects. Frankly, this movie is kind of a hot mess. If I had to compare “The Bride!” to any other film experience in my life, the “Joker” movies are an easy target because they do have similar tones and concepts. The movie takes familiar characters and puts an odd spin on them. As much as I do not mind odd movies, this experience felt too odd at times. It was odd to the point where I did not really feel any emotion in certain scenes. Overall, Maggie Gyllenhaal puts something together that is pleasing to the eye, but at times, it strikes a vibe that feels like “Dollar Tree Tim Burton.” That is almost unfair to say because this movie was by no means cheap. Variety reports the budget is a hefty $90 million. While the film looks nice, it does not really feel nice. It reminded me of “Jupiter Ascending,” which is one of the most beautiful looking pieces of crap that someone has the audacity to call a film. One moment after another, the movie sounded like it was trying to welcome me into its environment, but as a viewer, I was consistently hesitating on the film’s invitations.

The film is not all bad. It has a decent cast, and its two leads do a fantastic job despite the average at best material given to them.

Jessie Buckley is on a roll lately. Right alongside Timothee Chalemet in “Marty Supreme,” I think she gave the best performance captured on film in 2025 through her lead outing in “Hamnet.” While her lead role in “The Bride” is not as compelling, Buckley nevertheless manages to bring a performance that makes me think I am getting a five-star meal despite slumming it in the middle of a Buffalo Wild Wings. Buckley is diabolical as the titular character. I almost cannot imagine anyone else in her shoes.

Alongside her is Christian Bale as Frankenstein’s monster. Technically his character is credited as Frankenstein, even though he is not the scientist… Anyway… The timing of this film is interesting, as it was made around the same time as Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein,” which I thought was pretty good. Much like Jacob Elordi, who played the Creature in that movie, Bale is excellent here. Is he as strong as Elordi? Perhaps not. But I also feel that part of it is more the fault of the material given to Bale rather than his performance. Much like Buckley, Bale makes the most of what is given to him. This is not to say everything about his presence is bad. In fact, I really liked getting to see the two leads when they’re close as a couple. It brought out both of their wild sides and showed they have chemistry. That said, Bale’s performance did feel rather familiar. It almost reminded me of his portrayal of Gorr the God Butcher from “Thor: Love and Thunder.” It is a character who is mildly scary, odd-looking, but complicated beneath their wretched surface.

Technically speaking, this film is rather impressive. The cinematography is beautiful. The makeup work is stunning. The production design is off the charts. I bought into every location and set. When it comes to immersion, “The Bride!” really tries. Though I cannot say it always succeeds.

The color palette feels weirdly mute. Note my use of the word “weirdly.” I was convinced by the marketing that this film was going to be big and exciting. While it was definitely the former, I cannot say the same for the latter. The film looked oddly dry for something that simultaneously was trying to deliver something of utter extravagance. It is an enigma.

I am sure many people are familiar with the phrase “do not judge a book by its cover.” Bear with me as I go against this philosophy for a moment. If you look closely at the title for “The Bride!”, you would notice that it has an exclamation mark. “The Bride!” is not the first project to contain such a thing. You would notice this if you ever get a good look at the game show “Jeopardy!”, or the animated series “American Dad!”, or the movie “Airplane!”. In terms of punctuation, an exclamation mark is meant to signify an extreme. “Jeopardy!” is extremely fast-paced. “American Dad!” is extremely action-packed. “Airplane!” is extremely funny. Meanwhile, I find it difficult to come up with an extreme for “The Bride,” that is unless I were to resort to negatives. I could say the movie is extremely bland. I could say it is extremely wasted. On paper, “The Bride!” sounds like a project that should be a big ball of energy. But at times I am watching it and find myself surprised that I barely happen to be awake.

Chances are I am not going to remember much about “The Bride” by the end of the year. Part of it is because other than the visuals and the unique way of telling the story, there was nothing to write home about. Sure, the two leads are great, but never once did I feel captivated by anything the story had to offer. If I were presented the story in a pitch meeting, I think it would sell. If I saw the full picture, like what we got in this film, that is a different scenario. If anything, “The Bride!” does feel like a film that comes from a singular mind. I would have never have been able to come up with the vision that Maggie Gyllenhaal had intended. While I have one or two gripes about Warner Bros. Discovery since their merger three years ago, I will credit them for hiring filmmakers with unique visions, with Gyllenhaal being the latest example. I would love to see what other projects she has in mind, and sincerely hope they are better than what this one had to offer.

In the end, “The Bride!” is by no means the worst movie ever. In fact, part of me is glad I saw it because it has some great acting and setpieces. But from one moment to the next, I thought there was something missing. There was barely a sense of a wow factor. It is really sad I did not like this more. I was genuinely looking forward to “The Bride!”. I do not think Gyllenhaal should give up on her work behind the camera. I can see her knocking another project out of the park, but she struck out on this one. I am going to give “The Bride!” a 4/10.

“The Bride!” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Hoppers.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Project Hail Mary” and “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come.”

Also, feel free to check out the new promo for the second episode of Movie Requests! The next guest on my list is actor Jason Mewes, who requested a movie he has watched in the past with his collaborator Kevin Smith. Make your guesses! The movie will be revealed this Saturday, March 28th! If you want to see me review whatever movie Jason Mewes asked me to talk about, subscribe to my YouTube channel and hit the notification bell that way you know exactly when the video drops! If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Bride!”? What did you think about it? Or, what is the most disappointing movie you have seen recently? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Frankenstein (2025): Guillermo del Toro’s Take on the Classic Tale

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Frankenstein” is directed by Guillermo del Toro (The Shape of Water, Pacific Rim) and stars Oscar Isaac (Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Star Wars: The Force Awakens), Jacob Elordi (Priscilla, The Kissing Booth), Mia Goth (X, Infinity Pool), and Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained, Inglorious Basterds). This film is based on Mary Shelley’s book “Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus” and follows the titular scientist and his journey of bringing the Creature to life, as well as the consequences that ensue from his actions.

Guillermo del Toro is one of those names, kind of like Christopher Nolan or Damien Chazelle, that as soon as I see them attached to a project, my curiosity about said project doubles. That said, del Toro is not on the level of those two filmmakers for me in terms of being a priority, but it does not change the fact that he is a reputable name with a solid resume including the moving “Shape of Water,” the super fun “Pacific Rim,” and the 2022 animated gem “Pinocchio.”

As mentioned in previous posts, I am not much of a Netflix guy. But I do try to keep an open mind about some of their projects. After all, when they have the confidence to release a project in theaters, it immediately boosts my interest. So, as I was driving from Massachusetts to Connecticut for a brief stay at a casino, I stopped by a theater on the way to check out the film.

As for the film itself, I found myself having a pleasant time. It is not structured like a traditional film where you have one protagonist and their journey. Instead it seems to share alternate perspectives from Frankenstein as well as the Creature. The film takes its time to share both characters’ sides of the story.

As far as Guillermo del Toro films go, I do not think this has as much visual luster as “The Shape of Water.” I also do not think this film has as much engagement as I felt with “Pinocchio.” When it comes to this film’s future, I do not see it as much replay value as “Pacific Rim.” Do not get me wrong, “Frankenstein” is a good movie, but it is far from Guillermo del Toro’s best work. While this is nowhere near my favorite Guillermo del Toro outing, it is a film that feels distinctly Guillermo del Toro. There is a certain heart and soul to this film that I found right away. Guillermo del Toro’s worlds are so picturesque to the point where I want to step into them and never leave. The film’s color palette is almost like a Peter Jackson “Lord of the Rings” film had a baby with “La La Land.” When I look back at “Frankenstein,” I refuse to call it my favorite film of the year. In fact, it likely will not make my top 10, but this is a film whose use of color, special effects, costuming, and cinematography combine into something totally unique. I cannot recall the last time I sat down and watched a film that looked exactly like this one. While I cannot say that there is a shot in this film that is vividly sticking in my head, I will not deny that this film is consistent it comes to showcasing a plethora of spectacular imagery. That said, the film does teeter to a point where one could argue it has a pacing problem, but it is hard to say I found the movie boring. This is not the most engaging film of the year, but it makes the most of its two and a half hours.

The cast of “Frankenstein” is star-studded. You have Oscar Isaac… Jacob Elordi… Mia Goth… Not only does this film have a ton of big name actors, but all of them fit perfectly into their roles. The chemistry between these actors is immaculate at times. Elordi is compelling as the Creature. I cannot see anyone else but Mia Goth playing Lady Elizabeth Harlander in her respective context. And Oscar Isaac fires on all cylinders.

The more I think about Oscar Isaac, the more I love him. In my review for “Tron: Ares,” I talked about how Jared Leto has not had the best luck with geek-centric projects. Oscar Isaac is the opposite. Sure, “X-Men: Apocalypse” had some mixed reception. But between his excellent performance in “Moon Knight,” his charisma in “Star Wars,” his voiceover chops in “Spider-Verse,” and now arguably his best outing yet in “Frankenstein,” few people are owning the geek space like Isaac is at this point. Isaac is given a lot to do throughout “Frankenstein,” dominating the screen in just about every scene he is in. One of my favorite scenes of the film is set in a lecture hall where Frankenstein demonstrates his ambitions to revive the dead, to less than stellar reception. Throughout this presentation, he gave me a Gene Wilder Willy Wonka vibe, particularly the innocent, ambitious side of him that the public seems to know. That is not to say Isaac lacks range in his performance. When the movie hits its more emotional, heavier moments, Isaac gives the performance his all. It is not my favorite performance of the year, but it is up there.

If I had to name a favorite part of the film, it would probably be around the middle when we first see Victor and the Creature in the same room together. I really enjoyed getting to see the bond between the two, particularly as we see Victor trying to teach the Creature about everything he sees. It does not take long for the film to establish that the bond is not particularly the healthiest, but I thought the realization of that concept was perfect. The film clearly paints Frankenstein as something of a protagonist, but again, this film centers around both Frankenstein and the Creature to the point where we get their side of the story, so the film does a great job, especially when the perspective transitions from one character to the other, at giving the Creature material in which it is easy to sympathize with him. This is a “Frankenstein” story that goes beyond the surface level. The Creature is, well, a creature, but it humanizes the creature much more than Universal’s black and white classic.

In the end, “Frankenstein” is not my favorite Guillermo del Toro movie, but this is still a pretty good flick. It definitely lacks an oomph in certain regards, but the technical aspects stand out magnificently. The film has a great cast, fantastic use of color, and the production design is also worth writing home about. I do not know how well I am going to remember “Frankenstein” in the next five years, but in the moment I found it to be quite decent. Overall it is entertaining and well-crafted, especially for a Netflix release. I am going to give “Frankenstein” a 7/10.

“Frankenstein” is now available on Netflix for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Good Fortune!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Running Man,” “Eternity,” “Wicked: For Good,” and “Sentimental Value.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Frankenstein” story? It does not have to be a movie. It can be anything. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!