Truck Reviews Beauty Best Books of the Month Men's slip on sneakers nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Unlimited Music. Always ad-free. Learn more. PCB for select Bang & Olufsen Fire TV Stick Grocery Handmade Personalized Jewelry Shop by look Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon $0.99 rentals for Prime members $0.99 rentals for Prime members $0.99 rentals for Prime members  Echo Fire tablets: Designed for entertainment Kindle Paperwhite Find a new favorite show Find a new favorite show Find a new favorite show Shop now STL18_GNO



VINE VOICEon April 19, 2005
Thankfully this is out on DVD and a new audience can appreciate how well it was made and can learn from the Director's Commentary what makes it so special.

"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 (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 the director was the one most responsible for the apparent lack of chemistry between the two stars, particularly Beals lack of passion in the scenes they share. These were the performances the Roddam wanted and not a reflection of inexperience or talent limitations. 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 it was simply everything Roddam wanted it to be. Her character is only learning how to feel as the film progresses and as events play out we learn that her emotionless attitude simply conveys her indifferent feelings toward her creator.

I highly recommend this movie as Roddam is an excellent stylistic director and has made a very good Gothic romance. The fantastic production design works to unify 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 better showcases both the top-notch photography and the terrific work of the production designer.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
23 people found this helpful
|22 comments|Report abuse
on May 28, 2005
First and last, this has got to be the ultimate love story, complete with conflict and great supporting characters, etc. Though the characters of Mary Shelley are suggested, this is in no way a horror film. The lush, gorgeous music of Maurice Jarre lets you know this right from the start. I'll not blab away the plot, except to say that the separate adventures of the bride and the "monster" are paralleled cleverly by director Franc Roddam. Sting was good, as was Jennifer Beals. Clancy Brown as Viktor (the monster) had wonderfully realized sense of moral character, suspicious of kindness; grateful for friendship. His friendship is found in the person of Rinaldo, wonderfully played by David Rappaport. There's adventure, loss, renewal and a darn good story to go along with it. As in Mary Slelley's tale, there is goodness and evil. Here, it's approached in a refreshing new way. This has a more satisfying ending. I only bought this film because I love Geraldine Page. Her natural brilliance isn't given much of a challenge. "The Bride" came out in 1985, the same year Ms. Page gave her Oscar winning performance in "The Trip to Bountiful".Any moment of Page is worth it. A pity she left this world in 1986. Aside from that, "The Bride" is worth consideration. This really is a great date movie...
7 people found this helpful
|33 comments|Report abuse
on September 5, 2014
I was intrigued by this storyline -- a takeoff of the original movie "Frankenstein's Bride". Loved everything about this movie except for the nude scene. If that was eliminated, the story would be much better (and I'm no prude...the nude scene just didn't make any sense at all within this storyline). Sting was a bit stiff in his acting but, all in all, the entire movie was pretty darn good and I recommend you watching it at least once.
|0Comment|Report abuse
on September 9, 2011
Sting and Jennifer Beals give fine performances in this film. However, I bought it for Clancy Brown's performance. He is such an underrated actor. But everything I've ever seen him in, he gives his all. In this atmospheric and compelling film he gives such a wonderful performance as Viktor, the creature that Frankenstein (Sting's character) brought to life in a laboratory. Even when he's not speaking, the expression in his eyes can be heartbreaking. Also the friendship that he and David Rappaport shared in the film was quite touching.
One person found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on August 21, 2007
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, which I always feel gives a movie a Gothic charm, rather like Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow. Also Sting makes for a very alluring, attractive and somewhat similar version of Dr. Frankenstein.

A pet peeve of mine is when people say this is not horror. I loathe when people say something is not horror just because it has romance or well developed characters. Horror is not always mindless killing. Traditional horror never was. This is GOOD horror. It IS Horror and to say it's not horror is an insult to the genre. It has death, it has suspense, it has the characters you care about in peril, it has danger, it has intrigue, it has man made monsters. It's horror. It's good Gothic horror but it's horror. People forget what true, traditional Gothic horror entails.

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.
|0Comment|Report abuse
on July 13, 2003
First of all, this isn't at all close to anything from the original novel by Mary Shelley. In the book, work begins on a bride for the creature, and is then abandoned, which leads to all sorts of unpleasantness.This film is sort of a exploration of how the story might have developed if work on the creatures mate had continued. Sting, of the Police, plays the Doctor, and Jennifer Beals plays his second creation. Obviously, his skills have improved from his first effort, however an accident in the lab leads to a fire, and the loss of the first creature, or so he believes. He then sets out to educate her as a continuing experiment. Meanwhile, the first creature is being educated by different experiences as he wanders the countryside, eventually befriending a dwarf who helps him find employment. Eventually, the creature and his intended bride cross paths again...with results which are perhaps unexpected, given their different backgrounds. This is perhaps the only Frankenstein film with an positive ending, attempting to show that even artificially created humans might have a soul, or a spirit, which seeks to rise above the limitations of the flesh. The set design of the film was good, especially 'the masoleum'. Jennifer Beals is gorgeous as 'The Bride', and the performance by Clancy Brown as the 'creature' is also good, as is David Rappaport as the dwarf. I enjoyed it.Ron
5 people found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on April 4, 2016
This take on the "Frankenstein" story was okay...for many of you out there that recognize Sting from back in his heyday as a singer-songwriter (remember Synchronicity? Ring any bells? Okay, some people will really get a kick out of this bizarre adaptation of the Frankenstein story...Um, unless you are really sensitive about feminism. If Sting was trying to portray his character as a tyrannical, arrogant, giant @$$) well, he NAILED it! Long story short. Dr Stingenstein creates the monster. Then the Dr. promises his monster a wife. So he, creates a monster-mate... But Stingenstien really out does him self. She turns out to be a real knockout-gorgeous-woman that is totally innocent. A blank slate. She is the perfect woman. So, Dr. Stingenstien, welches on his promise and keeps Babestien for himself and kicks Ol' Bolthead out on his ear! This timeless classic is...different, not great, but okay. Honestly I watched this one because I am trying to find another particular version from the late seventies? But I can't seem to find it. For the life of me I can't remember the actors name that played the "monster" in the one I'm looking for. Here is one thing I do remember: the actor that plays the handsome monster in this forgotten vid: I'm trying to find played in another weird old movie: The Reincarnation of Peter Proud? Ring any bells? Anyone? Please leave me a comment. I'd appreciate it.
2 people found this helpful
|33 comments|Report abuse
on October 30, 2014
Cheesy? Maybe but I love it. I found Sting to be a wonderful Count and the making of the Bride incredible. It was true Sci-fi form. When he makes a bride for Frankenstein, she is so lovely that he decides to keep her for himself. What a great concept and what a great movie. I had so much fun watching it. Yes love it.
|0Comment|Report abuse
on August 7, 2017
hardly a riveting plot, even the god looking actors can save this. rent it for a rainy Saturday afternoon!
|0Comment|Report abuse
VINE VOICEon December 12, 2006
I have always ADORED Sting, so I saw this when I was a little girl and Police fan and LOVED it. However, I recently saw it again and noticed that it didn't hold up too well. A little slow in parts. I still adore Sting, so it is worth watching just to see him have a great time swishing around in an 80's goth redux of "The Bride of Frankenstein." If you liked him pissed of and yelly in the Hi-tech diaper in "DUNE," you'll like him here too.
One person found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse