Movie Review: The Bride! (2026)

The Bride! (2026) co-written and directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal based on work by Mary Shelley 

In the 1930s, Frankenstein's Monster (Christian Bale) seeks out Doctor Euphronius (Annette Benning) to make him a bride. He suffers intensely from loneliness, though the doctor thinks his wants are more carnal. He finally convinces her to pursue the project, digging up a Chicago socialite (Jessie Buckley) who has both mob connections and corrupt police connections. She's also being possessed by the disembodied spirit of Mary Shelley (also Jessie Buckley), who wants to craft a new horror story, one that she couldn't write back in the early 1800s. The flipping between identities led to the socialite's death. When she's revived in the lab, she has no memory of who she is. "Frank" and the doctor convince her she is Frank's bride which she has a hard time dealing with. They go off and have lots of sordid adventures across America trying to work out their situation.

The movie starts off with a strong feminist vibe as Shelley asserts herself in the narrative. The possession is an interesting idea that is well performed by Buckley. She switches between accents and mannerisms effortlessly, so viewers know who is talking. But the gimmick contributes more to the theme than to the narrative. Much like Bruce Banner/Hulk character in the Marvel movies, the Shelley/Bride dynamic changes to fit what the story needs, it does not have a coherent through line. Other characters fit the feminist vibe, especially when the Bride inspires a social movement for women that turns out to be very violent with little questionable value. The feminism is very wobbly.

Bale also gives a good performance as Frank, exuding the loneliness of his previous life and his joy in finding a mate. Frank is also obsessed with a movie star (played by Jake Gyllenhaal), giving his character a little more rounding and providing a way for the cops and the criminals to follow the couple's somewhat unintentional crime spree. They go see the star's movies in every town they visit. Frank copies the language of the star and there is a musical number that is an odd blend of 1930s musical and modern styling. That's another moment that is interesting but doesn't fit well into the rest of the story or theme.

The movie is stuffed with these and some other ideas, too many for a proper resolution or exploration of any one, or even a handful of them. The plot meanders a lot and the tone changes from existential wrestling to romantic moments to comedy bits to shocking violence to the musical number. The various bits don't hang together well, making the film less satisfying than it could be.

Barely recommended--I'm not sure that Frankenstein fans would enjoy this, or feminists would be enthusiastic for this, or horror fans would be on board, or mystery/crime drama fans would be satisfied.

Book Review: Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

This classic horror novel needs no introduction but does need some clarification. The Universal Horror Film version of the monster has become ubiquitous in Western culture and overshadows the depiction of the creature in the novel. The mute, zombie-like Boris Karloff incarnation is physically similar to but lacks the persuasiveness, cunning, and agility of the book's monster. The monster learns to speak and is quite eloquent and self-aware, especially of his needs for a companion. The book has a different story and a much closer link between the doctor and his creation.

The parallel between Victor Frankenstein and the monster is fascinating. Frankenstein has great ambition and curiosity. He wants to be a great scientist but gets off on the wrong foot in his youth by reading Paracelsus and other (unknown to Frankenstein) scientifically discredited writers. When he goes to university, some professors mock him for reading worthless trash. One teacher takes pity on him and helps guide him to more fruitful learning. Frankenstein keeps his desire to create life hidden even from his greatest sympathizers (i.e., that professor and his family). He works alone and eventually has success, a success that horrifies him so much that he flees his own lab. He can't face what he's done now that he can see it more clearly. He goes home to recover from the stress.

The newly-awakened monster also flees the lab. He struggles to understand the world around him and receives no help at all from anyone. People who see him are revolted by his appearance and always choose the "fight" part of the primitive "fight or flight" response. The monster eventually finds an isolated cabin with a father and two adult children. He listens to their conversations, learning a language and how people normally interact. He chops wood for them at night and is an unseen benefactor, just as he benefits from them. When he finally reveals himself to the father (who is blind and so does not have an immediate negative reaction), he almost makes a human connection. Then the son and daughter return and the son beats on the monster. The monster is forced to flee again. He discovers who his true creator is and goes to the Frankenstein home in hopes of finding a sympathetic creator. The monster persuades Frankenstein to make him a female companion so that he won't be alone and won't cause problems for Frankenstein and the rest of humanity. He's killed Frankenstein's younger brother and put the blame on an innocent woman who is executed, so the monster has already demonstrated a malicious cunning that could (and does) make Frankenstein's life miserable.

Both Frankenstein and the monster are in desperate need of other people in their lives to support them. The doctor has had mixed responses from the academics; the creature has had nothing but hard treatment from anyone. The monster goes to the only person he thinks might help him; the doctor seeks out no help with his problems (either creating another monster or getting rid of the monster he has created), even though he has a loving family and an academic friend who would give the assistance he needs. If Frankenstein had shown care and support to his creation, the story would be very different. Both need genuine love and affection in their lives. The creature does not have it because everyone else cannot see past his physical deformity. Frankenstein has it but is unwilling to be completely honest with anyone, so he can't benefit from their love in any way other than superficial. Frankenstein is clearly culpable; the monster is more a victim of circumstance (though he has culpability too).

The book is an amazing look at obsession and the need for love. The central characters struggle with each other and with themselves but cannot win. Their main problem is isolation, self-imposed in Frankenstein's case. A lot of the horror was avoidable. Making bad choices spirals out of control and leads to a tragic ending.

Highly recommended.

The book was discussed a while back on A Good Story is Hard to Find Podcast #125. Check it out!