Film Name: 暗黑新娘！ / The Bride!
Yesterday, due to the film’s poor initial reception after its release, I procrastinated for several days before finally seeing the new movie “The Bride!” (The Bride!).
This film, written and directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal, left me feeling somewhat uncomfortable. It’s not that it’s particularly bad, but there’s one aspect that’s genuinely hard to stomach: how can you cram so many thematic elements into a single two-hour movie?
Set in 1930s Chicago, a lonely Frankenstein begs the “mad” scientist Dr. Eufronis to create him a companion. Together, they resurrect a murdered young woman named Ada, giving birth to the undead “Bride.” The pair then embark on a dark and chaotic journey of escape.
The complexity of “The Bride!” is evident from the outset, as Mary Shelley’s ghostly whisper questions, “Is this a horror story or a love story?” The sheer breadth of themes in the main narrative reaches a point where you’re left wondering, “What exactly am I watching?”
Fundamentally, the film undeniably draws from Frankenstein and The Bride of Frankenstein, possessing a gothic, dark atmosphere alongside existentialist musings reminiscent of early sci-fi works.
Yet at its core, the film carries a strikingly contemporary feminist lens, relentlessly showcasing centuries of male oppression against women—slogans, resistance, feminist revolutions—clattering like beads on an abacus.
In terms of presentation, the film brims with quintessential Hollywood cinephile elements, particularly its extensive parody and subversion of 1930s musicals—a cultural signature impossible to overlook…
As for secondary themes, source material, and homages, they abound even more.
The “Bonnie and Clyde”-esque journey of Frankenstein and the Bride echoes the outlaw duo’s trajectory; the not-so-subtle manhunt subplot brims with gangster and shootout movie tropes; the fleeting visual spectacles carry a polyamorous attitude; and the Bride’s choice to flee love only to return to it mirrors the film’s overarching “have it all” ethos.
Honestly, I never considered “formulaic thinking” inherently negative—especially since generations have benefited from it. But seeing Maggie apply this approach to craft “The Bride!” finally revealed the flaw: it simply doesn’t fit.
If filmmaking were likened to essay writing, a good piece should flow naturally and be substantive. The ideal state is spontaneous expression that comes effortlessly, while the most awkward scenario involves forcing together trendy elements and flowery language—resulting in something that appears voluminous and vivid but is actually bloated and excessive.
Clearly, “The Bride!” is precisely such a film—overreaching for high marks while its execution falls short of its ambition. Calling it “all bark and no bite” is no exaggeration.
That said, Maggie does possess a knack for assembling talent. she enlisted her brother, husband, and longtime friends for the film, and crucially, she made them all look quite compelling on screen. This includes Jack with his brooding, intense aura; Peter, whose charm deepens with age; and Bale, whose handsomeness shines through even in the role of Frankenstein. Add to that Jessie Buckley’s gothic makeup and Penélope Cruz’s smoky allure… From this perspective, it’s not entirely disappointing.
“The Bride!” inevitably reminded me of “The Deuce,” an American TV series I adored years ago. Maggie Gyllenhaal played Irene (aka Candy), a street prostitute turned porn director who ultimately made “Pawns in Their Game”—a film that felt more like an art house piece than pornography. Unsurprisingly, it flopped. “Hardly anyone watched it.”
Yet decades later, that arthouse film gained worldwide recognition for its groundbreaking, ahead-of-its-time vision.
I wonder if Maggie reflected on this acting experience while filming her own movie? Though “The Bride!” probably won’t receive the same “overlooked gem” treatment as the fictional film in the series.