The Bride (1985) User Reviews

This misfire remake of Bride of Frankenstein has some interesting parts...

[AlsExGal · 5/10 · 6 December 2019]

... but fails to add up to much. For some reason, the doctor's name is Charles this time around. Rock star Sting stars as Chuck Frankenstein, who has already created his original monster (Clancy Brown) as the film begins, and he's in the midst of creating his piecemeal bride. Assisting him are Quentin Crisp as a stand-in for the old film's Pretorius, and Timothy Spall as an Igor-type. Things go south, and Clancy goes on the run. Chuck decides to "raise" the beautiful bride (Jennifer Beals) as his ward, and introduce her into high society. Clancy meets a traveling dwarf (David Rappaport) who decides to name the creature Viktor, and they eventually start to work in a circus. Much of the film is a split narrative. Half follows Chuck Frankenstein and the bride, now named Eva, while the other half follows Viktor and his life in the circus.

Also featuring comedian Alexei Sayle, Anthony Higgins, 60's supermodel Veruschka as a Countess, Cary Elwes as a dashing young courtier, and Geraldine Page as Chuck's housekeeper and tutor to Eva. The costumes are nice, and there's an old-fashioned score by Maurice Jarre. The problems come from a lack of narrative flow, little momentum, and some underwritten characters. Frankenstein completists should see it for the variations on the theme, but most viewers will be bored when they're not rolling their eyes. This was originally touted as being a feminist take on the story, but I didn't really see that then or now.

Too bad Jennifer Beal wasn't justly compensated for "Flashdance" two years earlier - she only got 15K for her role! - or she might have had better roles to choose from than this.

Worthwhile rethinking of a classic film; absorbing and beautiful, if inert...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 28 October 2007]

The lovely young student of Baron Charles Frankenstein tires of his strict tutelage and rebels, unaware she was indeed brought to life by the mad doctor--sewn together from corpses--and that a male counterpart to whom she was intended is roaming the countryside. Director Franc Roddam and screenwriter Lloyd Fonvielle's underrated rethinking of 1935's "The Bride of Frankenstein" hasn't much intrinsic spirit, though it does have lyrical scenes and interesting performances which qualify it as a fascinating misfire. As the Baron, rock star Sting poses sufficiently and glowers moodily, though he's all on one-note; Jennifer Beals is somewhat better as the Bride--with feminist leanings--and a number of her scenes (such as her first run-in with a cat and her dialogue with a derelict traveler) are quite beguiling. Critically-lambasted film has beauty, but little mystery--it's intriguing without truly being effective. Clancy Brown plays the initial (sympathetic) creation of Frankenstein, and his friendship with happy-go-lucky dwarf David Rappaport is marvelous, though this side-story really belongs to a separate picture (it holds the central action back, and keeps it from blossoming). "The Bride" is surprisingly ambitious and has rather grand moments, but a complete success it is not. **1/2 from ****

Not a remake, a continuation

[Nozz · 6/10 · 10 October 2001]

I don't see this as a remake of _Bride of Frankenstein_ at all. In _Bride of Frankenstein_ the bride is created, rejects the idea of being the monster's mate, and is brought down together with monster, maker, and laboratory. That happens here too, but it's only the beginning and the movie mostly gives us the further adventures of the trio after they have picked themselves up and dusted themselves off.

The bride on the one hand is groomed to be a woman who can achieve anything but is unaware of her origin, though she is does find an ossuary a fascinating place to be. The monster on the other hand is all too aware of his origin but unaware of his potential as a human being. This makes an interesting contrast, but mostly the film is just more of the James Whale sort of thing, for people who like that sort of thing. It's respectful, not exploitative, but not ground-breaking either.

Eye-candy cinematography, thought-provoking story...

[Eric-1226 · 28 October 2001]

A beautiful movie! It was really quite lusciously filmed, where everything - the set designs, the costumes, outdoor locations, and luscious depiction of an early 18th century Transylvania setting – are absolutely top-notch, and give the film an almost magical sort of quality. This is "must see" film making.

The movie basically deals with the lives and fates of two living creations of Dr. Frankenstein (played by Sting): one, Viktor, (whom you might think of as "Frankenstein's Monster") is a big scary guy. The other, Eva (played by Jennifer Beals), is a beautiful young woman. Both have been created from spare body parts, and then brought to life by Dr. Frankenstein in the laboratory. There is a storm and a fire, the tower in which the laboratory is housed is destroyed, and Viktor escapes to fend for himself out in the countryside of Transylvania. Eva is taken care of by Dr. Frankenstein who, along with others in the castle, helps to educate the helpless young woman.

That, essentially, is the setting for the movie, and it is told in a surprisingly effective "dual tales" sort of technique. In one story, we watch as Viktor goes out on his own, and meets up with Rinaldo, a sly but very lovable midget (played by David Rappaport). Rinaldo convinces Viktor that the two of them would make a good living by going off to join the circus, and so off they go, getting involved in a couple of amusing scrapes along the way. Eventually they do indeed end up with the circus, where both are mercilessly exploited by the circus entrepreneurs Magar and Bela (played by Alexei Sayles and Phil Daniels).

Meanwhile, back at the castle... We watch how Eva is carefully groomed and schooled in the finest European fashion, and meticulously transformed, Eliza Doolittle-style, into quite the proper upper class young lady.

The movie carefully, and with nicely-timed pacing, switches back and forth between these two stories, and these stories prove to be very enjoyable watching.

I didn't find it distracting whatsoever to see Sting playing Dr. Frankenstein. Sure, they could have found a different and arguably better actor to play the good (?) doctor, but at the time this movie was made (1985) Sting was "the Man" – you know, the dude with the star-power name who could pull in the teenagers. And probably the same could be said for Jennifer Beals, who was still riding high from her recent fame in 1983's Flashdance. They need to fill those seats in the theaters, folks! No, they aren't that bad: don't let that deter you from seeing the movie. (And if you are a Sting fan or a Jennifer Beals fan (and we know how painful THAT can be) then you will be even more delighted with this film).

Oh yes, I said in the summary bar above that this is also a thought-provoking story. Well, basically, both Viktor and Eva are subjected to varying degrees of exploitation by their "benefactors," and one can't help but feel that the movie is an allegory for how the strong exploit the weak. This was especially true back in the days of old, where man exploited man. Now, thankfully, we live in a modern and enlightened age, and it's just the opposite!

little tension

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 1 September 2016]

Baron Charles Frankenstein (Sting) and his assistants create Eva (Jennifer Beals) for his monster (Clancy Brown). Eva rejects the monster and he destroys the lab. Frankenstein escapes with Eva. Unbeknowst to him, the monster also escapes and befriends midget Rinaldo. Rinaldo teaches him humanity and gives him the name Viktor. They travel to Budapest and join the circus. Meanwhile, Frankenstein intends to civilize Eva and mold her into his love. He tells everyone that he found her in the woods with memory lost. Captain Josef Schoden (Cary Elwes) is taken with her. She encounters Viktor and the spark is reignited.

The movie has little tension. When the story splits in two, the tension fades. Sting is stiff in this and not his best role. Jennifer Beals doesn't deserve her Razzie nomination. Her role requires some odd work from her. This is a bad attempt at reworking the Frankenstein story.

A pleasant surprise

[spinman140 · 7/10 · 10 April 2006]

I love it when I find a movie in the bargain bin, watch it, and it turns out to be really good. Such is the case with The Bride. The cinematography is beautifully done, creating a rich atmosphere and setting for the story. Filmed in England and France, the locations add some real authenticity to the story; this is no Hollywood back lot. Some may criticize the acting skills of the leads or the degree of depth in the story line, but one thing is sure, the movie is consistent in story, direction, mood, and content from beginning to end, a well delivered package. I also enjoyed this spin on the Frankenstein monster; he's got personality and character. Instead of being only an object of horror as in other films, the viewer gets to know and identify with him as the movie progresses, coming to care for his success and well being. As another viewer stated previously, approach this movie as a Gothic novel instead of a horror story, and you're sure to find some enjoyment from it.

"The trouble with free women, Charles, is they're free to despise us. It's a risk I find unacceptable."

[utgard14 · 5/10 · 3 November 2014]

Reworking of Bride of Frankenstein lacks the wonderful dark humor and...well, pretty much everything good about that classic film. There are some good things here, though. The blind hermit from the original Bride is replaced by a midget, excellently played by David Rappaport. His scenes with Clancy Brown are the best in the movie. Far better than the stuff with Sting and Jennifer Beals. Once Rappaport is gone, the movie becomes far less interesting. Aside from Rappaport, Clancy Brown also does a decent job in a role that's easy to overplay. Sting is competent. Jennifer Beals is terrible in most respects. She seems out of her element throughout the film. The scene with her and the cat was enough to earn her that Razzie Award nomination she received for this movie. Aside from Rappaport and Brown, the movie's other strength is that it is well-photographed. Unfortunately its few qualities aren't enough to make it a truly good movie. It's worth a peek if you're a fan of anything Frankenstein.

A Different Version of Frankenstein Story

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 29 March 2016]

After the creation of his creature (Clancy Brown), Dr. Frankenstein (Sting) researches and creates a perfect woman, Eva (Jennifer Beals), to be the mate of the creature. However, the anxiety of the creature creates havoc in the laboratory that is burnt down and explodes, killing Frankenstein's assistants Dr. Zahlus (Quentin Crisp) and Paulus (Timothy Spall). Dr. Frankenstein believes the creature died too but he flees to the woods. Soon he meets and befriends the dwarf Rinaldo (David Rappaport), who gives a name to him, Viktor, and invites him to work in a circus in Budapest. Meanwhile Frankenstein and his house keeper Mrs. Baumann (Geraldine Page) teach Eva how to behave and to be independent. One day, Frankenstein introduces Eva to the high-society, telling that she was found amnesic in the woods and has become his protégée. But Frankenstein becomes obsessed of Eva while Viktor and she have a strange connection. What will happen to Eva?

"The Bride" is a different version of Frankenstein story by Mary Shelley. The film is actually a romance that begins slow paced but well resolved in the end. Clancy Brown has an outstanding performance in the role of the naive creature. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Prometida" ("The Promised One")

Interesting but goes nowhere!

[BakuryuuTyranno · 4/10 · 12 December 2010]

As far as characters go, "The Bride" goes into depth with its subplots about both Frankenstein's monster and of course the bride of the monster, both trying to adapt to society in general, while Dr. Frankenstein keeps the bride in the dark about her true origins. Meanwhile, the "monster", later renamed Viktor, meets a midget which starts a subplot reminiscent of "Of Mice and Men" with a freakshow/carnival setting, and to be honest, this keeps going for some time.

Too long, actually. It feels like the movie is merely treading water and next time the story gets moving is not long before it comes to an end.

It would have been better if it had been considerably shorter actually.

Tragic and moving.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 14 October 2014]

Scripted by Lloyd Fonvielle from the novel by Mary Shelley, this is a fairly interesting revisionist take on Shelley's legendary story. Rock star Sting stars as the icy cold Charles Frankenstein, who as the film opens has already created his male monster (Clancy Brown), and is now in the process of constructing the monsters' mate (Jennifer Beals), whom he names Eva. During the subsequent destruction of Frankensteins' lab, the male monster escapes, soon making the acquaintance of amiable dwarf Rinaldo (David Rappaport). Rinaldos' ambition is to eventually make it to Venice, but for now he wants to join a circus to make ends meet, and the monster - who *Rinaldo* dubs Viktor - tags along. Meanwhile, Frankenstein works hard at creating, in his eyes, the perfect woman to introduce to high society.

The lovely friendship between Rinaldo and Viktor is the true heart and soul of the film, and makes it worth seeing. Rappaport is so endearing - he's the real star of this show - and he and Brown work so well together, that they make the segments with Beals and Sting less intriguing by comparison. There is a theme here of men harbouring a fear and distrust of the empowered woman, and Frankensteins' desire to basically be in charge of Evas' life is part of his undoing. Brown is wonderful as Viktor, and while Sting and Beals do decent jobs, they're not as much fun to watch. A superb supporting cast consisting of Anthony Higgins, Geraldine Page, Alexei Sayle, Phil Daniels, Veruschka von Lehndorff, Quentin Crisp, Cary Elwes, Timothy Spall, Guy Rolfe, and Tony Haygarth lends a great deal of respectability.

"The Bride" has the absolutely perfect look in terms of classic Gothic horror, but in the end it's much more of a drama, and romance, than a horror film. Its opening scene is certainly great horror in the old tradition, and the lab set is amazing. The period recreation is impeccable, and Maurice Jarres' music is beautiful.

Overall, a good film worth a look or revisit for fans of this kind of literature.

Seven out of 10.

This thriller will fill you with dread!!!!!!!

[chineseboundfeetshoes · 1/10 · 13 October 2019]

Because it is DREAD-FULL!!!!!!!! they tell me this is to little to post... so let me continue....... Sting is as bad an actor, as he is a musician. His foray into classical music is even beyond this low, fueled by his conceit and arrogance.

A Great Gothic Romance-Not a Horror Film

[aimless-46 · 8/10 · 18 April 2005]

"The Bride" is more Thomas Hardy than Mary Shelley, and more Gothic romance than horror. Director Franc Roddam points out (on his DVD commentary) that he wanted to make a very different version of the old story by eliminating almost all elements of horror; so only the first ten minutes qualify as authentic horror.

Roddam does not discuss the illogic of making a film devoid of the very elements its "target audience" was interested in seeing, but we already know that "The Bride" had a very poor showing at the box office. This target audience disconnect was most likely the cause. Nor does he comment on the failure to market the film to another audience segment; those interested in Gothic period pieces.

It is especially cool that 20 years later the film is finally being discovered by this other audience and they are finding it a beautifully photographed example of their genre that emphasizes story-line and atmosphere over blood and gore.

Even the much criticized casting of inexperienced leads Jennifer Beals and Sting (although both look great in period costume) takes on a different dimension when the film is re-classified into the Gothic genre. Suddenly you see that it was the director who was responsible for the apparent lack of chemistry between the two stars, particularly Beals lack of passion in the scenes they share. Roddam wanted these performances from his actors to advance his story; they are not not a reflection of inexperience or talent limitation. Which is not to say that Sting will ever be mistaken for a great acting talent but Beals has been unjustly criticized for a shallow performance when she simply gave Roddam what he wanted from her character Eva. Eva is only learning how to feel as the film progresses and when the events have all played out you realize that her emotionless attitude was meant to convey the indifference she felt toward her creator.

I highly recommend this movie as Roddam is an excellent stylistic director and has made a very good and very original Gothic romance. The fantastic production design unifies what are two stories as Roddam cuts back and forth between the Baron (Sting) teaching his creation Eva (Beals) while David Rappaport as Rinaldo teaches his other creation Victor, played by Clancy Brown. There is a psychic link between the two creations which will result in a interesting plot twist.

Roddam has created a visually gorgeous film that has held up much better than the 1980's mainstream features that outperformed it at the box office. Don't be scared away by the negative comments, if you know what to expect (gothic romance not horror) almost any fan of films will enjoy "The Bride". I recommend the DVD, it was made from a flawless print and the widescreen presentation really showcases both the top-notch photography and the terrific work of the production designer.

Somewhat Underrated

[LanceBrave · 7/10 · 1 December 2013]

"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.

Slightly underwhelming and drawn-out Gothic effort

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 5/10 · 28 October 2014]

After bringing a woman to life, Baron Frankenstein goes back on his decision to give her to his monster and decides to keep her for himself while he roams the world and eventually comes back to claim what is rightfully his.

This turned out to be quite a middling effort that doesn't really offer up a whole lot of interesting values. The opening shots of the creation of the bride are pure Gothic splendor and some of the most exciting in the film with the storm going out of control before finally making its endgame a reality and her creation is assured, only for the rejection and dismissal to cause a huge fire that burns the whole place to the ground. It really makes for a grand opening that sets the stage here quite well overall, and is nicely echoed by the finale which does similar good in the final retribution of the monster. Their brawl is quite thrilling and violent and really seems quite one-sided which is what it should be with this one taking on a really enjoyable outcome. That's mainly due to the sympathy gained for him throughout the movie which comes into play here, but otherwise this one doesn't seem to do a whole lot that really makes for an entertaining effort. The main thing with this one is the fact that there's just nothing really interesting throughout here with the film abandoning the horror for the most part to concentrate instead on two utterly irritating story lines that have nothing to do to make them all that interesting. The first storyline involves his training her for Victorian society under the guise of an amnesia victim he's treating but unable to hide her monstrous past which keeps coming to the forefront at the most unexpected moments is bland period drama that resorts to a few snarls and rabid screaming to help sell that she's actually a monster, yet none of this is all that original or pleasing at all and tends to come off as way too overwrought with hardly anything of value happening during this time. The second storyline involving the monster's quest through the countryside in the circus just doesn't ring any sort of familiar tropes and just tries to build sympathy for him in the most arbitrary matter by showing the cruelty of others toward him but doesn't do anything special with this rather bland and expected method. It's all quite lame and really doesn't make this much of a horror effort at all, which really holds this down.

Rated PG-13: Violence, some Language and Brief Nudity.

Half good, half not so good

[mord39 · 10 October 2000]

MORD39 RATING: ** out of ****

This movie is too wrongly maligned. It's at least enjoyable half of the time, since it functions as two different stories which merge together later on.

The best part of the movie regards the adventures of the Frankenstein Monster (well-played by Clancy Brown) and his friendly dwarf companion (the excellent David Rappaport) as they roam the exquisite countryside trying to discover their dreams. When this half of the movie is playing, you can't help but be moved.

Unfortunately, the other half consists of rock star Sting (it hurts me to say this, but I think he makes a good Frankenstein) and the gorgeous Jennifer Beals as his latest creation. They don't add anything to the whole mix, though,, and only get in the way and slow things down. This film could have been quite good indeed had these parts been removed, and the exploits of the monster and his pal been fleshed out.

I think my opinion is a popular one among critics and fans, but one thing is clear: this film is not as bad as some think, and it's in no way intended to be a re-make of 1935's BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

Pretty. But pretty bad, also...

[TheSmutPeddler · 1/10 · 28 October 2002]

This film has attractive production values, and Sting does OK as

the mad doctor. Jennifer Beals, while beautiful, just doesn't have a

sense of the period and seems very awkward in her role. I've yet to

see her in anything I like, but I she's easy on the eye. That,

unfortunately isn't enough here. A less attractive actress with better

acting skill would have made the film a lot better. How did the great

Geraldine Page get stuck in this mess??? Well, it's always nice to

see her, but she deserves a better vehicle. As for the monster and

his dwarf companion, I could barf at the cloying, saccharine

"message" (Follow Your Dream). The ending of this film is even

more dissatisfying than the rest of it. Definitely one to be avoided.

1985 was a bad year for films. There was this, and there was Red

Sonja. Watch Red Sonja. It's bad enough to be funny. This is just

bad.

Here comes the bride, stitched up and electrified.

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 12 June 2020]

The Bride totally misjudged what movie-goers wanted at the time of its release: while Freddy Krueger and Jason Vorhees were making millions by gorily hacking up teenagers, this reimagining of James Whale's Bride Of Frankenstein, from director Franc Roddam (Quadrophenia), gave us a classic creature, gothic romanticism, lavish sets, and sumptuous cinematography. Not scary or gory enough for the mainstream horror crowd, yet too fantastical for Merchant-Ivory fans who might have appreciated the period setting, largely British cast and romantic drama, the film inevitably suffered at the box office.

While no means a great film - Sting and Jennifer Beals see to that - neither is it the total disaster that its commercial failure suggests. The 'Of Mice and Men' inspired plot is actually pretty good, as Baron Frankenstein's creature (Clancy Brown), having escaped his master's flaming laboratory, teams up with a midget called Rinaldo (played by David Rappaport, who looks like a mini Woody Harrelson to me) on his journey to Budapest, where he intends to join a circus. The two unlikely friends face prejudice and derision, even after they arrive at their destination, which eventually leads to tragedy. Meanwhile, Frankenstein (Sting) educates his second creation Eva (Beals), the beautiful woman originally intended as a mate for his first experiment, in the ways of the world. Connected by a psychic link, the paths of the film's two stitched-together characters eventually cross, with the creature saving Eva from the baron, who has decided to keep his hot D.I.Y. woman for himself.

The best scenes in the film definitely belong to Brown and Rappaport, whose touching performances help to make up for Sting and Beals' less than stellar acting. Fortunately, the 'little and large' friendship comprises the bulk of the film, meaning that, for most of the time, it's a lot of fun. The circus bound action is made even more enjoyable by the presence of Alexei Sayle as the horrible owner of the show and Phil Daniels as his murderous right-hand man.

Unsurprisingly, The Police frontman and the Flashdance star (who was nominated for a Razzie for her performance) tend to drag the film down whenever they are on screen, but their parts are necessary to facilitate a satisfying conclusion, in which the monster (who looks and acts more and more 'human' as the film progresses) rescues his mate (throwing his creator to his death from the top of the castle tower) and finds happiness at last. An adorable couple, I'm sure you'll agree.

Sting got stung

[hornbys-60213 · 2/10 · 21 January 2020]

This is a risible remake of an almost prefect film. It tries to offer what it claims is a feminist re-centring of the original, but just ends up destroying the queer charm of the original for the sake of some laboured 'I will not do what you tell me' speeches from the Bride. Even the grace of Quentin Crisp can not save this terrible piece from grave.

Wait, Sting can act?

[chelano · 7/10 · 17 October 2019]

To be clear, Sting can't act. But it is Sting. I mean. Sting. So you have to like it right? Plus it is Sting from the 1980's.

Ah yes the 80's. Where you can make a movie about controlling a woman who is naked at parts, and no one gets mad. But the story isn't really like that. It is basically a cooler take on the Bride of Frankenstein.

The cast is very fun and the film has a cool fantasy feel as well. Sting is Dr. Frankenstein. Jennifer Beals is the Bride. Clancy Brown is the monster and does a great job of it. Then you have David Rappaport who was in many fun 80's films and is the monsters best friend in the film.

You basically see two stories here. The Bride and the Monster.......and Sting being Sting....ok three-ish. He is no Bowie as the Goblin King, but he is alright.

"There's a lesson to be learnt here & I hope I never learn it." Average at best.

[poolandrews · 5/10 · 13 May 2007]

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.

One of the better Frankenstein remakes

[jacobjohntaylor1 · 7/10 · 22 April 2016]

This is a sequel to Frankenstein. It is pretty good. It is scary. It has a great story line. It also great acting. It also has great special effects. This one of the best horror movies from the 80's. If it does not scary you no movie will. 5.3 is underrating it. This is a true horror classic. It is kind of a love story. But still it is a very good movie. It is a great monster movie. Doctor Frankenstein his a bad guy. And the monster is a good guy. So it is not quit the traditional Frankenstein movie. Frankenstein (1931) is better. But still this is a good movie. The Bride of Frankenstein is better. This is better then Frankenstein (1910). It a great film.

A Duller Ending for Bride of Frankenstein

[Cineanalyst · 3/10 · 25 August 2018]

If you think the ending of "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935) was too succinct, had too much action, quality acting and James Whale's characteristic combination of horror, camp and originality than you're in luck because "The Bride" does away with all of that--providing nearly two hours of tedium, simplism, lousy acting and a new ending that's so unoriginal that, at least as far back as the beginning of the 20th Century, silent-film director D.W. Griffith employed it for dozens of films.

"The Bride" begins where "Bride of Frankenstein" ended, with the creation of the mate for Frankenstein's monster. The scene is generally based on those of the 1930s Universal films, with a laboratory in a tower full of bubbling beakers, spinning gizmos, flashing doodads, archaic levers and pulleys and the lightning. There's also an electric globe that looks like one of those Van de Graaff generators you see in science museums for children. Dr. Frankenstein has his assistants, too, one of which may be the usual hunchback, except the hunched back isn't prominently displayed if it's there, and another who is a white-haired fellow doctor with a passing resemblance to Dr. Pretorius from the 1935 film without an ounce of the charm. There's the typical violent conclusion, and the monster runs away, his path diverging for most of the film from those of Dr. Frankenstein and the bride. But, of course, we know their paths will converge again by the end, because that's how these movies work and because the monster and his bride inexplicably have a psychic connection. It must be love... or lightning. Ooh, tagline idea: Born of lightning (and mutilated corpses). Their love was electric.

Jennifer Beals as the bride, christened here as "Eva" after Genesis, heads the cast with her Razzie-nominated performance, her snarling and initially painfully-slow delivery grabbing its due attention, but the musician Sting is equal to the part of Frankenstein, as well. Content to speak softly about the "new woman" and do next to nothing for most of the film, he occasionally has bursts of chauvinistic and jealous yelling and violence. Frankenstein's original creature, christened here "Viktor," the name of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and his midget friend, unfortunately for those interested in rubbish, are more interesting to follow, as they have a journey plot that takes them to Budapest and employment with a circus. Viktor also finds himself chased by a mob, a hallmark of the Universal monster movies, and he has an encounter with a blind man much different than the ones he had in either the 1935 film or Mary Shelley's novel.

I'm afraid there are two other bits about "The Bride" that I liked, but I promise they're brief. One is the reference to Percy Shelley's book "Prometheus Unbound," "Prometheus" also being part of the subtitle of his wife, Mary Shelley's novel "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus." The other bit is the secret passageway behind a mirror that reveals the truth of her origins to Eva. I like a good mirror shot, and it stands out in a film otherwise framed barely better than a TV movie with some cinematic low-key lighting.

I've been reviewing a bunch of Frankenstein movies since reading the novel, which is something I also recently did with "Dracula." More so than Dracula, most Frankenstein films manage to avoid reducing the Gothic horror story to a romance, but not here. Although Frankenstein may've lasted more than a decade longer than Dracula without it, where films such as "Blacula" (1972) and Dan Curtis's TV-movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1974) introduced the reincarnation romance, ripped off most famously by Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 "Bram Stoker's Dracula."

Oh, and the ending of "The Bride" takes a page from D.W. Griffith's playbook by resorting to a damsel-in-distress scenario, with Eva in the part frequently played by Lillian Gish where she runs away from her would-be rapist, only to be saved in a last-minute rescue by the hero. A perfect ending for anyone comforted by the hackneyed, and if one thought that Boris Karloff's speech about life and death to conclude the 1935 film was too pithy and poignant, lacking the copious amounts of sap required for an old-fashioned mawkish finale, fear not. Unless boredom or generally low quality frightens you, there is nothing to fear in "The Bride."

A Dark Fantasy of a Movie

[moon110581 · 8/10 · 19 October 2006]

In this wonderful movie, Sting plays Dr. Frankenstein, who after already creating his first monster and finding him disappointing and annoying has decided to create the perfect woman. He's successful in his pursuit, but the first monster, Clancy Brown in a heartwarming role, is chased away after becoming a little to possessive of his new bride.

The monster runs off into the woods and befriends a little person, Rinaldo the Midget, played wonderfully by David Rappaport, on his way to join the circus. He invites the monster along, and gives him the name of Victor. It is from Rinaldo, who's patient and understanding in a way Dr. Frankenstein never was, that Victor learns how to get by in life, how to behave, how to share, and to go after your dreams.

Meanwhile, back at the castle, Dr. Frankenstein is trying to educate and enlighten his newest creation Eva, a lovely and talented Jennifer Beals. He aspires to create the perfect woman, as intelligent and independent as a man. He does not, however, consider the full implications of his aspirations.

As Eva grows and learns, she begins to ask questions. She has been lied to about who she is and where she comes from. Much to Dr. Frankenstein's annoyance, she has become strong-willed and independent, just like a man, but obviously not quite what he had considered. He had also not considered how arousing he would find her.

Victor and Rinaldo successfully join the circus after much persuading, but Rinaldo longs for his dream to visit Venice, and Victor discovers he longs for his dream of Eva, his intended.

As the movie progresses, there is an obvious connection between the two characters which they are aware of, but aren't in contact with each other.

As Dr. Frankenstein introduces Eva into society with a few little mishaps, Eva discovers a handsome young soldier played by a very young Cary Elwes. He pursues her as he would any woman he would like to bed, much to agitation of Dr. Frankenstein.

The movie moves towards its climax, bringing with it an intensity and a heartfelt conclusion that makes it overall a remarkable movie.

Sting manages to convey Dr. Frankenstein's increasing frustration with his independent, disobedient, yet lovely creation, a dark character who also enjoys his opium from time to time. The scenes with Victor and Rinaldo are wonderful. Jennifer Beals is perfectly bewitching, at first unknowing and naive, then becoming strong and intelligent as the movie progresses, yet still revealing an innocence to her character.

I think anyone would be charmed and entertained by this wonderful movie, and I highly recommend it to all.

The best in romantic horror.

[whiteraven-4 · 7/10 · 18 April 2002]

"The Bride" is another of those slash-bang thrillers which does not simply present the merit of its intrinsic entertainment value. Instead it dares you to draw out the psychological fun. On the surface, it retells the classic story about Frankenstein's monster. Underneath, it is an intense drama about love, forgiveness, and - if you will excuse the expression - explosions and mad scientists. (Or perhaps I should say exploding mad scientists. You just have to see it.) Watchers beware if you are not prepared with an open mind.

Why, Sting? Why?!

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 5/10 · 16 January 2004]

I love Sting so much. He's one of my favorite artists, and I saw this movie on HBO, and I saw his name. So, I'm thinking "It's gotta be good". It was kind of stupid. But you do see a young Sting and Cary Elwis. They save the movie. The love story between the monster and the bride is kind of low. I'm not sure if I'd want to watch it again.

5/10