Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Palaest recommended

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Bonehead-XL "The Bride" is one of the earlier attempts to sex up classic horror stories with period piece production value glitz and hot young actors, predating "Bram Stoker's Dracula" and "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" if not Frank Langella's "Dracula." The movie has a great opening hook: What if the Monster's Mate survived the explosion at the end of "Bride of Frankenstein?" From there, the movie builds itself as something of a feminist fable. Dr. Frankenstein, given the first name Charles for some reason, decides he can build the "perfect woman," a woman who thinks like a man, is, as he puts it, "equal to a man." The script nods silently at his sexist intentions. The film has quite a bit of potential with that set-up.It doesn't quite live up to it but, still, the movie that follows is definitely worth watching. The story is split in two. One follows the Frankenstein Monster, quickly named Viktor, as he befriends a traveling dwarf and tries to make a career in the circus. The other half of the film revolves around Baron Frankenstein training and teaching the Bride, dubbed Eva, in the ways of polite society, basically a horror version of "My Fair Lady." Oddly, of the two story lines, the Monster's quest is actually the more interesting. Paired with Renaldo, the late David Rappaport, the two become immediate friends. Stories of outsiders struggling to make it can be prone to smultz, but then again there has never been a more definitive outsider then the Frankenstein Monster. It's the entire appeal of his character. There are no surprises in the circus drama that follows but the performances of Rappaport and Clancy Brown make up for the potentially trite material. Rappaport makes dialogue as hokey as "Follow your heart and you'll be fine" actually effecting. Renaldo's death scene is likely to bring a tear to your eye. Brown's take on the monster, a mumbling simpleton who slowly learns his own self-worth, never rings hollow even if it's far from the actor's best work.By comparison, the Bride's journey comes off as more route. The broad comedy of her learning to eat or shrieking, much like Elsa Lanchester, at cats quickly gives way to the girl as a fully self-aware young woman, dancing at balls and gaining the attention of a young count. (Played by young, handsome Cary Elwes. Remember when Cary Elwes was young and handsome?) The most potentially interesting material, the stuff in-between, is glossed over.The relationship with the doctor isn't delved deeply into. Sting, who has always been fairly adapt at playing villains, gives a decent enough performance but his growing feelings for the girl and his sudden turn to teeth-gnashing villainy at the end are more script problems then actor problems. The inherent sexism in his desire to "build the perfect woman" boils down to him being fine with teaching her but, as soon as she shows any romantic desire for another man, he gets all possessive and rape-y. That a male ends up rescuing her at the end rather undermines the point of the story.The potentially complex material is simplified a bit. It's no fault of Jennifer Beals, who gives a rather understated, thoughtful performance as the titular woman. The psychic connection between the two creations is never explained and comes off as a plot contrivance.Even if the movie never lives up to its potential, it does have some striking moments. The nude Bride slinking out of the darkness, clinging to the Baron's side like a frightened animal. Or, later on, her standing in the rain in an open tomb, questioning her own origins. The opening sequence, with its disembodied body parts twitching in shattered tubes of liquid, suggests a more conventional, just as effective horror film could have been made from this material. The movie wasn't successful upon release, which is probably why it's underseen and somewhat underrated today. Frankenstein fans should seek it out, if just to wonder about the excellent film that it could have been, instead of the merely satisfying one it is.

CountVladDracula This is my second favorite version of Frankenstein. It's not very true to the book but it is still a great film. Don't confuse this with the original Bride of Frankenstein, this is more like what would have happened after The Bride of Frankenstein or if Dr. Frankenstein had followed through on making a mate for his creature. It can act as a quasi-sequel to any version of the Frankenstein story.It's a very sympathetic story toward the monster as well as towards the rights of women. It has a kind of hammer horror quality to it and Sting makes for a very alluring, attractive and somewhat sinister version of Dr. Frankenstein.Special note: if you want a good faithful version of the Frankenstein story seek out the version starring Luke Goss as the creature from 2004 and made by Hallmark and released to DVD through Lion's Gate. That is the most faithful version to the novel.

Paul Andrews The Bride starts somewhere in 19th century Europe as mad scientist Baron Charles Frankenstein (Sting) brings to life his latest creation, a perfectly formed woman made from bits of corpses & re-animated using the power of lightening. The bride (Jennifer Beals) was made as a mate for Frankenstein's earlier male creation, unfortunately one look at his deformed mug & the bride understandably wants nothing to do with him. In a fit of rage the monster starts a fire & escapes into the nearby woods while Frankenstein's plans for the bride have changed. The monster runs into a dwarf named Rinaldo (David Rappaport) who calls him Viktor (Clancy Brown) as they head off to Budapest to join the circus & make their fortune. Meanwhile Baron Frankenstein has called his new creation Eva & has begun teaching her the ways of polite society in an attempt to not only create a psychical body by an actual mind & soul but he hadn't counted on human emotions such as love, fear, anger & hatred...This British American co-production was directed by Franc Roddam & probably isn't what you expect, it certainly wasn't what I expected. The script by Lloyd Fonvielle discards just about every interesting element storyline wise from Mary Shelley's classic Frankenstein novel & it ends up being some sort of dull hybrid of various genres & ideas including the buddy buddy film, there's some romance here, there's a light hearted comedic touch on occasion although strangely & disappointingly there's very little in the way of horror. When the film originally came out I think it's horror elements were played up but don't be fooled as this is as much as drama as anything else. There are two distinct story lines, the friendship between Rinaldo & Viktor along with Sting trying to educate Eva & for the most part they run separately from each other which is actually quite annoying as neither story is particularly interesting or entertaining. Then there's the many clichés, at times it does decide to be a proper Frankenstein film complete with torch wielding villagers & an opening lab scene. The ending feels very rushed & is a forgettable way to round things off, at almost 2 hours in length The Bride is also far too long & runs out of steam pretty much after the opening sequence set in Frankenstein's lab. Those looking for something along the lines of James Whale's classic The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) which this was supposedly a remake will be very disappointed, such as myself.Director Roddam does OK, the film has sumptuous period production design, it has lovely cinematography & is visually pretty impressive so it's a shame the actual film itself is a bit of a waste of time. There's basically no horror here at all so forget about any scares, suspense, tension or gore as there isn't any. I have a couple of questions still though, Frankenstein admits to Eva that he made her from body parts but she has no scars at all (she gets a nude scene early on which confirms this) even though the male monster has lots, why? And speaking of the monsters scars why does he heal as the film progresses, by the end he looks like a normal guy despite starting the film as a green faced scar ridden man made monster, again why? It's almost as if they wanted to leave the Frankenstein stories original origins, themes & ideas behind & just develop some horrible feel good romantic drama, sometimes I despair I really do.Technically the film is top notch & it's obvious this had some money behind it, it's shame they didn't use it better but there you go. Shot on & in some beautiful locations in France this looks very nice throughout. The acting isn't great, Sting under acts, Beals is wooden & the midget Rappaport irritated me.The Bride is a strange adaptation of a Frankenstein story & a Bride of Frankenstein remake that didn't do much for me personally, it looks nice enough & tells a story that people with sensitive hearts might enjoy but it's not really for me.

paoguy Frankly, this movie is worth watching if, for no other reason, to see Jennifer Beals' nude scene. Sorry to be a pig here, but it's true.This is the thing I remember most from an otherwise forgettable film. I've always liked Jennifer Beals. I don't care for "The L Word" much, but she even makes that horrid gay propaganda series worth watching. She's not only beautiful, but she's also an incredible actress. I'm glad she's finally getting her due.Sting sucks! His acting is sorry and his solo musical performances are boring. He's never been the same since The Police broke up. He needs to stage a reunion, go out on tour, make a lot of money and go retire in an old English castle somewhere.