La promise

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 ****

"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.

... 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.

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.

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.