|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 82026 2:35:24 GMT
Maggie Gyllenhaal is Dr. Frankenstein and The Bride is her monster. This movie is a disjointed mess of ideas and references to other moviesand it almost works because of that. ALMOST. What stands out most about this movie is Jessie Buckleywho is compiling one heck of a resume of performancesand this just might be my favorite of her performances so far. It is definitely my favorite character of hers so fareasily a more interesting character than the character she is nominated for marvelously portraying in Hamnet. I hope Ida the Bride becomes iconicbecause the character deserves it. Not anywhere near as good as Buckley is Christian Bale as Frankenstein's original monsterbut still good. He definitely does some interesting stuff here and is his most interesting work in yearsand one of his most sympathetic roles. His characteraptly named "Frank," is lonely and horny after being alive for 100+ years and finds a scientist (played by Annette Bening) who is willing to help him dig up a corpse and bring it back to life. You seeshe has studied Dr. Frankenstein's work for years and uses that knowledge to bring Ida back from the dead. Ida died from a trip down the stairs after being pushed by a big ol' man. Damn men. Stop abusing women. That is my segway into the themes of the moviewhich are social rebellion and the rise of feminism in 1930s Chicago. I am a progressive and will applaud almost any movie that annoys conservativeswhich this movie will certainly do. After Frank and Ida kill a few peopleincluding a copthey go on the run and the movie becomes a Bonnie and Clyde tale. We are introduced then to 2 detectivesplayed by Peter Sarsgaard and Penelope Cruzwho are sympathetic to the plight of the main characters. Jake Gyllenhaal has a brief cameo as a Fred Astair type actor in what are the many references in this movie. Sneaky references to Ida Lupinoone of the first prominent female directors in Hollywood and even a Young Frankenstein reference. Frank is a fan of the movies and he credits these movies as giving him the will to live. This aspect of the movie reminded me of the last act of Interview with the Vampirewhere Louis watches his first sunset in 200 years in F.W. Murnau's Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans. Maggie Gyllenhaal is clearly giving a shout-out to the power of cinema here and at the same time sort of saying "don't meet your heroes" because she paints the Hollywood actor as kind of a douchebag when Frank meets him. I realize my review is a bit of a mess itselfbut that is okaybecause we are at the end of it. I wanted to love this moviebut it is too scatterbrained and all too familiar in the writingsometimes borrowing directly from Joker (2019) and even using the same cinematographer and composer. We also just had a far superior Frankenstein movie released just last year. Overall this movie is an interesting misfirewith some very high highs and possible cult status in the futurebut a lot of stuff that just frustrated me. It does end on a high note though and even feels like it is hinting at a sequel that will probably never be made. I'd be open to it thoughbecause Frank and Ida deserve a better movie than what they are stuck with. EDIT - It has been pointed out to me that my review makes it seem like I like the movie less than I did. Looking back through my review I sort of understand why. My review is very mechanical. I didn't emphasize how much I enjoyed the stuff about it that I did enjoysuch as the of the movie. The punk rock of the movie is awesome. The cinematographythe fictional 1930s Chicagothe art directionmake-up and costumes are all top-notch and I REALLY do like the central love story and both characters are fascinating. That is why the stuff around them that didn't work stuck out to me so much. I was never bored watching this movie though and it is certainly ambitious and creative. 6.5/10
 |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 82026 4:50:13 GMT
I'm always fascinated by other people's rating systems. I wouldn't say I liked it more than you necessarilybut reading your post I'd say I appreciated The Bride a little more than you; and I'd give it a 5/10 at bestwhich is to say I'm not sure I'd watch it againbut I'm not upset that I saw it.
Unlike the del Toro movieI give this movie points for at least trying something different. I might argue that Buckley was overactingbut that was kind of the whole point of her performanceso no real criticism on that front. Stylistically speakingsome of it worked and some of it didn't. I didn't mind some of the anachronisms (a 3D movie in in 1936 {which technically existed but I didn't think were mainstream until the 1950s}or a character talking about astronauts in 1936)because hellpeople are coming back to life in this movieso obviously this is an alternate universe with technology beyond our own.
What I did find strange was that Frankenstein exists in this movie as both the sci-fi novel written by Mary Shelleybut also as the monster whom nobody is surprised actually exists. It's a puzzling choicereally. The ghost of Mary Shelley (for lack of a better description) was a totally unnecessary addition to the storyand serves as the embodiment of the issue I'm referring to. She openly talks about this story she wrotethe characters even mention her by name-- while Frankenstein's Monster is right here in front of them in the flesh. The newspapers refer to him as Frankensteinas if he's a known entity. It's bizarre.
Anyway I didn't love the moviebut I didn't hate it. It took some big swingsit's the movie that was advertisedand while it wasn't exactly subtle with its messagingthe packaging of the message made it worth a watchdespite the inconsistencies I mentioned. If you 'wanted to love' this moviemaybe your expectations were too high. Heyat the very least it warranted a four paragraph review; so it made you think about what you liked and didn't likeif nothing else. I expected it to be a little out thereand it was certainly that.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 82026 5:11:47 GMT
I'm always fascinated by other people's rating systems. I wouldn't say I liked it more than you necessarilybut reading your post I'd say I appreciated The Bride a little more than you; and I'd give it a 5/10 at bestwhich is to say I'm not sure I'd watch it againbut I'm not upset that I saw it. Unlike the del Toro movieI give this movie points for at least trying something different. I might argue that Buckley was overactingbut that was kind of the whole point of her performanceso no real criticism on that front. Stylistically speakingsome of it worked and some of it didn't. I didn't mind some of the anachronisms (a 3D movie in in 1936 {which technically existed but I didn't think were mainstream until the 1950s}or a character talking about astronauts in 1936)because hellpeople are coming back to life in this movieso obviously this is an alternate universe with technology beyond our own. What I did find strange was that Frankenstein exists in this movie as both the sci-fi novel written by Mary Shelleybut also as the monster whom nobody is surprised actually exists. It's a puzzling choicereally. The ghost of Mary Shelley (for lack of a better description) was a totally unnecessary addition to the storyand serves as the embodiment of the issue I'm referring to. She openly talks about this story she wrotethe characters even mention her by name-- while Frankenstein's Monster is right here in front of them in the flesh. The newspapers refer to him as Frankensteinas if he's a known entity. It's bizarre. Anyway I didn't love the moviebut I didn't hate it. It took some big swingsit's the movie that was advertisedand while it wasn't exactly subtle with its messagingthe packaging of the message made it worth a watchdespite the inconsistencies I mentioned. If you 'wanted to love' this moviemaybe your expectations were too high. Heyat the very least it warranted a four paragraph review; so it made you think about what you liked and didn't likeif nothing else. I expected it to be a little out thereand it was certainly that. My rating system is. 10/10 One of the best movies ever made 9/10 excellent 8/10 very good 7/10 good 6/10 mixed positive 5/10 mediocre 4/10 poor 3/10 terrible 2/10 pathetic 1/10 Offensive to the senses |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 82026 5:18:06 GMT
I'm always fascinated by other people's rating systems. I wouldn't say I liked it more than you necessarilybut reading your post I'd say I appreciated The Bride a little more than you; and I'd give it a 5/10 at bestwhich is to say I'm not sure I'd watch it againbut I'm not upset that I saw it. Unlike the del Toro movieI give this movie points for at least trying something different. I might argue that Buckley was overactingbut that was kind of the whole point of her performanceso no real criticism on that front. Stylistically speakingsome of it worked and some of it didn't. I didn't mind some of the anachronisms (a 3D movie in in 1936 {which technically existed but I didn't think were mainstream until the 1950s}or a character talking about astronauts in 1936)because hellpeople are coming back to life in this movieso obviously this is an alternate universe with technology beyond our own. What I did find strange was that Frankenstein exists in this movie as both the sci-fi novel written by Mary Shelleybut also as the monster whom nobody is surprised actually exists. It's a puzzling choicereally. The ghost of Mary Shelley (for lack of a better description) was a totally unnecessary addition to the storyand serves as the embodiment of the issue I'm referring to. She openly talks about this story she wrotethe characters even mention her by name-- while Frankenstein's Monster is right here in front of them in the flesh. The newspapers refer to him as Frankensteinas if he's a known entity. It's bizarre. Anyway I didn't love the moviebut I didn't hate it. It took some big swingsit's the movie that was advertisedand while it wasn't exactly subtle with its messagingthe packaging of the message made it worth a watchdespite the inconsistencies I mentioned. If you 'wanted to love' this moviemaybe your expectations were too high. Heyat the very least it warranted a four paragraph review; so it made you think about what you liked and didn't likeif nothing else. I expected it to be a little out thereand it was certainly that. I am probably just bad at putting my thoughts and feelings into words.  I must be if you took away from my review that I had some big issue with the movie. Siskel & Ebert had the thumbs up rating. The movie is a borderline thumbs up from me. 6.5/10 is a positive leaning rating from me. I guess looking at it I could have more emphasized the stuff I really liked about itbut that would require spoilers. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 82026 5:49:59 GMT
I'm always fascinated by other people's rating systems. I wouldn't say I liked it more than you necessarilybut reading your post I'd say I appreciated The Bride a little more than you; and I'd give it a 5/10 at bestwhich is to say I'm not sure I'd watch it againbut I'm not upset that I saw it. Unlike the del Toro movieI give this movie points for at least trying something different. I might argue that Buckley was overactingbut that was kind of the whole point of her performanceso no real criticism on that front. Stylistically speakingsome of it worked and some of it didn't. I didn't mind some of the anachronisms (a 3D movie in in 1936 {which technically existed but I didn't think were mainstream until the 1950s}or a character talking about astronauts in 1936)because hellpeople are coming back to life in this movieso obviously this is an alternate universe with technology beyond our own. What I did find strange was that Frankenstein exists in this movie as both the sci-fi novel written by Mary Shelleybut also as the monster whom nobody is surprised actually exists. It's a puzzling choicereally. The ghost of Mary Shelley (for lack of a better description) was a totally unnecessary addition to the storyand serves as the embodiment of the issue I'm referring to. She openly talks about this story she wrotethe characters even mention her by name-- while Frankenstein's Monster is right here in front of them in the flesh. The newspapers refer to him as Frankensteinas if he's a known entity. It's bizarre. Anyway I didn't love the moviebut I didn't hate it. It took some big swingsit's the movie that was advertisedand while it wasn't exactly subtle with its messagingthe packaging of the message made it worth a watchdespite the inconsistencies I mentioned. If you 'wanted to love' this moviemaybe your expectations were too high. Heyat the very least it warranted a four paragraph review; so it made you think about what you liked and didn't likeif nothing else. I expected it to be a little out thereand it was certainly that. I added an edit to my review at the end thanks to you. You gave some good constructive criticism of my review. I will not change my rating system though. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 82026 14:04:39 GMT
I'm always fascinated by other people's rating systems. I wouldn't say I liked it more than you necessarilybut reading your post I'd say I appreciated The Bride a little more than you; and I'd give it a 5/10 at bestwhich is to say I'm not sure I'd watch it againbut I'm not upset that I saw it. Unlike the del Toro movieI give this movie points for at least trying something different. I might argue that Buckley was overactingbut that was kind of the whole point of her performanceso no real criticism on that front. Stylistically speakingsome of it worked and some of it didn't. I didn't mind some of the anachronisms (a 3D movie in in 1936 {which technically existed but I didn't think were mainstream until the 1950s}or a character talking about astronauts in 1936)because hellpeople are coming back to life in this movieso obviously this is an alternate universe with technology beyond our own. What I did find strange was that Frankenstein exists in this movie as both the sci-fi novel written by Mary Shelleybut also as the monster whom nobody is surprised actually exists. It's a puzzling choicereally. The ghost of Mary Shelley (for lack of a better description) was a totally unnecessary addition to the storyand serves as the embodiment of the issue I'm referring to. She openly talks about this story she wrotethe characters even mention her by name-- while Frankenstein's Monster is right here in front of them in the flesh. The newspapers refer to him as Frankensteinas if he's a known entity. It's bizarre. Anyway I didn't love the moviebut I didn't hate it. It took some big swingsit's the movie that was advertisedand while it wasn't exactly subtle with its messagingthe packaging of the message made it worth a watchdespite the inconsistencies I mentioned. If you 'wanted to love' this moviemaybe your expectations were too high. Heyat the very least it warranted a four paragraph review; so it made you think about what you liked and didn't likeif nothing else. I expected it to be a little out thereand it was certainly that. I added an edit to my review at the end thanks to you. You gave some good constructive criticism of my review. I will not change my rating system though. That's coolit wasn't really meant as criticism of your review; to each their own as they say. Totally agree that I was never bored watching the movie. I'd watch a sequel as wellbut I definitely don't see that happening. I'm surprised this movie was madeit must've been a hard sell to the studio. |
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 92026 17:21:48 GMT
It seems to be a hard sell to the audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 92026 17:22:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 92026 17:23:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 92026 17:25:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 92026 17:28:10 GMT
|
|
senan90
Junior Member
@senan90
Posts: 1,580
Likes: 643
|
Post by senan90 on Mar 92026 17:32:56 GMT
I’m looking forward to it. Jessie Buckley is a very talented actor and it’s got great reviews so far. Plusa failed filmmaker turned YouTuber hates itso it must be good.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 92026 18:00:11 GMT
I’m looking forward to it. Jessie Buckley is a very talented actor and it’s got great reviews so far. Plusa failed filmmaker turned YouTuber hates itso it must be good. I'm curious where you got the idea that it got great reviews. It only has a 59% on RT and 6.1 on IMDB. I think it is more accurate to say it got mixed reviewsthough obviously some critics give it great reviews. |
|
senan90
Junior Member
@senan90
Posts: 1,580
Likes: 643
|
Post by senan90 on Mar 92026 18:09:16 GMT
I’m looking forward to it. Jessie Buckley is a very talented actor and it’s got great reviews so far. Plusa failed filmmaker turned YouTuber hates itso it must be good. I'm curious where you got the idea that it got great reviews. It only has a 59% on RT and 6.1 on IMDB. I think it is more accurate to say it got mixed reviewsthough obviously some critics give it great reviews. The Guardian gave it a 4 star glowing review. Kermode liked it. It’s up to 70% on RT critical score. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 92026 18:20:51 GMT
I'm curious where you got the idea that it got great reviews. It only has a 59% on RT and 6.1 on IMDB. I think it is more accurate to say it got mixed reviewsthough obviously some critics give it great reviews. The Guardian gave it a 4 star glowing review. Kermode liked it. It’s up to 70% on RT critical score. Okaygot it. When I think of "great reviews" I think overallnot just some critics. I now understand what you are sayingespecially if your taste often aligns with the critics that are giving the great reviews. It is a movie I can understand how someone could love it and how someone could hate it. It is one of those movies. I am certainly more close to love than hatebecause there is a lot to admire about it. |
|
senan90
Junior Member
@senan90
Posts: 1,580
Likes: 643
|
Post by senan90 on Mar 92026 18:24:34 GMT
The Guardian gave it a 4 star glowing review. Kermode liked it. It’s up to 70% on RT critical score. Okaygot it. When I think of "great reviews" I think overallnot just some critics. I now understand what you are sayingespecially if your taste often aligns with the critics that are giving the great reviews. It is a movie I can understand how someone could love it and how someone could hate it. It is one of those movies. I am certainly more close to love than hatebecause there is a lot to admire about it. No worriesI’ve given up on user reviews. When it comes to reviews of new mediaI stick to critics. It does look good from what I heard. |
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 92026 22:38:07 GMT
Okaygot it. When I think of "great reviews" I think overallnot just some critics. I now understand what you are sayingespecially if your taste often aligns with the critics that are giving the great reviews. It is a movie I can understand how someone could love it and how someone could hate it. It is one of those movies. I am certainly more close to love than hatebecause there is a lot to admire about it. No worriesI’ve given up on user reviews. When it comes to reviews of new mediaI stick to critics. It does look good from what I heard.
Critics? Like the same ones who couldn't find anything good to say about The Acolyte but told people they better see it anyway or they were the problem?
Maybe the critics can make up the $80 million loss the movie's currently facing on budget cost vs. box office. |
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 92026 22:59:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 92026 23:04:30 GMT
No worriesI’ve given up on user reviews. When it comes to reviews of new mediaI stick to critics. It does look good from what I heard.
Critics? Like the same ones who couldn't find anything good to say about The Acolyte but told people they better see it anyway or they were the problem?
Maybe the critics can make up the $80 million loss the movie's currently facing on budget cost vs. box office. Why are you so angry? Why do you care this much? I agree this movie really beats you over the head with the feminist angleto its own detriment. But knowing that was the point of the movie; at worst I can shrug my shouldersappreciate that they tried something new with the Frankenstein mythos and move on with my life. All the hate videos and angry comments in the world won't prove anything. Barbie (which you couldn't pay me to watch) had the same lazy message and made a billion dollars. So what exactly is your point? It would appear to me that it was the packagingnot the messagethat didn't resonate with audiences. I mean audiences beyond angry incels who take it personally when a female artist tries to tell a story from a female perspective. They were going to hate it no matter what. It's ironic that so many of your posts are complaints about how Hollywood doesn't take chances anymore; yet when they take a swing like they did with this movieit's a disaster that should never have been attempted. Believe methe studios hear you loud and clear. Just don't bitch about it when you get Terminator 23 with a CGI Arnold. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 92026 23:23:40 GMT
Critics? Like the same ones who couldn't find anything good to say about The Acolyte but told people they better see it anyway or they were the problem?
Maybe the critics can make up the $80 million loss the movie's currently facing on budget cost vs. box office. Why are you so angry? Why do you care this much? I agree this movie really beats you over the head with the feminist angleto its own detriment. But knowing that was the point of the movie; at worst I can shrug my shouldersappreciate that they tried something new with the Frankenstein mythos and move on with my life. All the hate videos and angry comments in the world won't prove anything. Barbie (which you couldn't pay me to watch) had the same lazy message and made a billion dollars. So what exactly is your point? It would appear to me that it was the packagingnot the messagethat didn't resonate with audiences. I mean audiences beyond angry incels who take it personally when a female artist tries to tell a story from a female perspective. They were going to hate it no matter what. It's ironic that so many of your posts are complaints about how Hollywood doesn't take chances anymore; yet when they take a swing like they did with this movieit's a disaster that should never have been attempted. Believe methe studios hear you loud and clear. Just don't bitch about it when you get Terminator 23 with a CGI Arnold. Don't indulge him. |
|
? Obviously not 🙄
