- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: ‘The Bride!’ Is the Latest Example of a New Wave of Feminist Horror
Posted on 3/8/26 at 2:37 pm to Roaad
Posted on 3/8/26 at 2:37 pm to Roaad
quote:
It was a complete rejection by moviegoers around the world this weekend as Maggie Gyllenhaal’s $80M bride of Frankenstein monster movie, The Bride!, opened to $13.6M.
Of that, domestic was $7.3M, not only breaking Warner Bros’ No. 1 nine-picture opening streak at the B.O., but repping a bow that was lower than some recent lows for the Burbank, CA lot, read last year’s disasters Mickey 17 ($19M) and Companion ($9.3M).
Industry sources, not Warners, believe the loss on The Bride! could approach $90M in its first cycle after home entertainment downstream. Note, it will be a while before the ultimate red is realized. Warner Bros had no comment about the movie’s P&L which includes $65M in worldwide P&A. Bad timing for a loss as WBD CEO David Zaslav just cashed in $114M+ in stocks due to a trading window opening for executives involved in any deal negotiations.
Word was out for quite some time that The Bride! was doomed, that Gyllenhaal was having an uphill battle during production, this her first massive big-budget movie after the $5M costing (before P&A), 3x Oscar nominated Lost Daughter. Hence the push of the pic’s release date from last fall to this weekend.
quote:
A few things to consider in regards to The Bride!‘s exorbitant production cost. Gyllenhaal received top shelf with her cast, as well as below the line talent in Oscar-nominated Elvis production designer Karen Murphy, Joker’s Oscar-nominated DP Lawrence Sher, and 3x Oscar-winning costume designer Sandy Powell. The movie was shot in New York, and even though it received tax credits, I’m told that creative decision alone is what made the project too expensive for Netflix. In the same breath, the movie was shot in the United States. Isn’t that what the motion picture industry wants? If that’s the case, then there’s a very good case for money spent. There were $60M in production wages on The Bride! with over 2,500 local hires. The production worked with 500 businesses. Amen.
At the same time, the domestic box office is fragile, and the industry needs movies like Bride! to win. Lower production cost should be married to originality, and may the two never be separated. I understand that there was never a $20M reshoot on The Bride! That’s misinformation, and Buckley only shot one day of reshoots. De Luca and Abdy’s plan is to have a diversified slate so that the potential hits pay for any shortfalls for the big swings.
LINK
3
Posted on 3/8/26 at 3:48 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
I am obviously talking about those promoting this as some great vision or piece of art to be admired
The only people doing that are the literal promotion team of the movie. The Gyllenhaals and Bale doing press. The trailers and social media bits produced by Warners.
You're preemptively annoyed with a scenario and group of people that don't appear to exist.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 4:02 pm to RLDSC FAN
I think it is crazy how Hollywood can't AT LEAST figure out what movies people DON'T want to see.
Wouldn't have them hitting the bullseye by default, but would reduce the "complete miss" area by a lot
"Feminist {insert whatever here}" will always be an extremely niche market
Wouldn't have them hitting the bullseye by default, but would reduce the "complete miss" area by a lot
"Feminist {insert whatever here}" will always be an extremely niche market
This post was edited on 3/8/26 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 3/8/26 at 4:08 pm to Jay Are
quote:
The only people doing that are the literal promotion team of the movie. The Gyllenhaals and Bale doing press. The trailers and social media bits produced by Warners.
You're preemptively annoyed with a scenario and group of people that don't appear to exist.
Correct. The movie failed because it was bad
This has to keep being repeated for some reason
Posted on 3/8/26 at 4:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
It having a higher popcorn score than critic score is a pretty damning indictment of the effect the "verification" process has had on audience scoring
This post was edited on 3/8/26 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 3/8/26 at 4:16 pm to RLDSC FAN
Not surprising, people go to a movie to be entertained not to be lectured to about "bodily autonomy" or how some women bristle at the idea of how the majority of the two genders naturally gravitate to "gender roles".
Posted on 3/8/26 at 4:39 pm to Jay Are
quote:
I am obviously talking about those promoting this as some great vision or piece of art to be admired
The only people doing that are the literal promotion team of the movie. The Gyllenhaals and Bale doing pr
Is the Landman guy (quoted on the previous page) part of their promotion team? Asking because I have not been paying attention to who is paid by whom to say what.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 4:57 pm to RLDSC FAN
Saw it yesterday. Yeah, can’t recommend anyone see it. Buckley and Bale are really good. It’s not a musical at all. But there are some musical, singing and dancing type scenes which are actually really good.
***SPOILERS***
It’s very feminist driven. All the men are bad or incompetent or weak. All the women are smart and empowered. Even my wife said, ‘I could have done with a little less sexual assault scenes’. The whole “I’d rather not” and “me too” were a bit on the nose.
Penelope Cruz’s character and the simp detective guy? Terrible!
And the film noir aspect was odd. It’s 1920s, and there’s transvestite orgies raves going on? Why couldn’t it just be a speakeasy or something?
And what was with the Mary Shelly possessing her before she dies then being in the lady who is brought back to be “The Bride”? That made no sense and took away from the movie. Where did she even come from in the first place? Why was she there? She wasn’t necessary, just say bringing back people from the dead makes them crazy.
The cinematography was very good though.
***SPOILERS***
It’s very feminist driven. All the men are bad or incompetent or weak. All the women are smart and empowered. Even my wife said, ‘I could have done with a little less sexual assault scenes’. The whole “I’d rather not” and “me too” were a bit on the nose.
Penelope Cruz’s character and the simp detective guy? Terrible!
And the film noir aspect was odd. It’s 1920s, and there’s transvestite orgies raves going on? Why couldn’t it just be a speakeasy or something?
And what was with the Mary Shelly possessing her before she dies then being in the lady who is brought back to be “The Bride”? That made no sense and took away from the movie. Where did she even come from in the first place? Why was she there? She wasn’t necessary, just say bringing back people from the dead makes them crazy.
The cinematography was very good though.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 5:01 pm to Suntiger
quote:
and “me too” were a bit on the nose.
I lol at that scene. That was ridiculous
quote:
The cinematography was very good though.
The movie is well made. Great costumes and set designs as well. She has talent. It's just the story was all over the place.
This post was edited on 3/8/26 at 5:04 pm
Posted on 3/8/26 at 5:04 pm to molsusports
quote:
Is the Landman guy (quoted on the previous page) part of their promotion team?
You got me. One guy on twitter thinks it's ambitious, messy, and ultimately worth seeing despite it's flaws.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 5:05 pm to Jay Are
If the people involved with the movie are the ones promoting that narrative, guess what!
I’m still right!
I’m still right!
Posted on 3/8/26 at 6:37 pm to Jay Are
quote:
One guy on twitter thinks it's ambitious, messy, and ultimately worth seeing despite it's flaws.
Link?
Posted on 3/8/26 at 6:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Correct. The movie failed because it was bad
This has to keep being repeated for some reason
and why was it bad?
THAT is being repeated for YOUR benefit because you apparently do not get it.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 6:57 pm to Philzilla2k
quote:
One guy on twitter thinks it's ambitious, messy, and ultimately worth seeing despite it's flaws.
Link?
Prior page in thread
If the Hollywood press were to somehow become insightful and actually critically evaluate the movies they cover that would be a rarity.
The whole business model is the opposite.
The consensus from the public seems to be charitably less than was hoped. The conventional critics seem to have a more positive attitude without concrete reasoning
Roger Ebert gave it 3 of 4 stars commenting:
quote:
In a way, it’s a relief to realize that Gyllenhaal doesn’t try to live up to that debut, or repeat herself with “The Bride!,” a mind-bending genre film set in a tangential “Frankenstein” universe. Instead, she swings for the fences freely, gambling liberally with a tale she experiments with in rethinking 1935’s “Bride of Frankenstein.” (The rethinking goes like this: this one is about the Bride, and not so much about the male monster.) The results aren’t always satisfying, but what’s satisfying is to see Gyllenhaal operate in this limitless “I’ll try anything once” mode, an entitlement rarely afforded to women behind the camera
Essentially seems to say 'go see it because she's a woman and we like female directed movies even when they wouldn't be good if the same movie was directed by a guy'.
The New York Times similarly supported the movie commenting
quote:
Gyllenhaal wrote and directed “The Bride!,” and has made good on that exclamation point with a time-shifting, genre-hopping movie that yowls and growls and shrieks, and every so often breaks out into peppy (literal) song. It doesn’t always make sense tonally and intellectually, but the whole thing is energetic, handsome and stocked with enough expert, appealing performers to hold your interest through the rougher, less coherent passages. Similar to what Emerald Fennell did in her recent adaptation of Emily Brontë’s “Wuthering Heights,” Gyllenhaal has taken one of the most famous novels by a 19th-century female writer to again reconsider the vexed, enduringly provocative figure of the monstrous woman.
As did the USA Today review quoted below
quote:
With Jessie Buckley and Christian Bale as the film’s monsters, “The Bride!” (three out of four; rated R; in theaters March 6) is a wild and untamed thing that reflects its patchwork creation. There are elements borrowed from B-movie horror flicks, crime dramas, Broadway musicals and love stories, mashed together in bold and bizarre strokes. And while imperfections exist in the violent, genre-defying romance, they don’t dim Gyllenhaal’s clear-eyed passion, grand ideas and big swings spattered on the screen
FWIW we really didn't have to look up the reviews to know they were going to be something like this. The media associated with the Hollywood powers that be are anything but impartial or independent.
This post was edited on 3/8/26 at 7:01 pm
Posted on 3/8/26 at 7:03 pm to molsusports
quote:
Roger Ebert
He’s dead.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 7:08 pm to Philzilla2k
quote:
Roger Ebert
He’s dead.
Not sure if serious
It's a movie review website bearing his name. Ebert started it before death and it remains as relevant as any of the others
I wondered while posting that if someone would say that but decided it was common knowledge on this particular board
Posted on 3/8/26 at 7:21 pm to RohanGonzales
quote:
and why was it bad?
Apparently it's just a narrative and tonal mess.
ETA: this is very common when people who want to be auteurs follow up on a major success (usually early as a director). Think Magnolia or Joker 2 (which wasn't early but followed his first serious work)
ETA2: I thought of a better one. Heaven's Gate by Cimino following the Deer Hunter.
This post was edited on 3/8/26 at 7:31 pm
Posted on 3/8/26 at 8:22 pm to RLDSC FAN
Holy wishcasting, Batman!!!!
Yeah, it looks like it's gonna shite the bed at the box office, but it pumped a lot of money into the domestic economy!
Yeah, it looks like it's gonna shite the bed at the box office, but it pumped a lot of money into the domestic economy!
Posted on 3/9/26 at 7:19 am to RohanGonzales
quote:I'll tell you why it performed badly
and why was it bad?
Poorly marketed
Feminist tropes
The thing in this thread, is people having to pretend it is one and MOST DEFINITELY not the other. No sir. No way.
It was both
It appeared to be, from the trailer, feminist slop. Marketing did little to assuage those concerns. Nor did it do anything to make the movie seem compelling.
But we will always have hipsters on the m/tv board that are here to explain that we just don't get it, it is only the one. . . .definitely not the other
Why? Because they need it to be true.
This post was edited on 3/9/26 at 7:22 am
Posted on 3/9/26 at 7:53 am to Roaad
quote:
But we will always have hipsters on the m/tv board that are here to explain that we just don't get it, it is only the one. . . .definitely not the other
Why? Because they need it to be true.
Or, you know, it was just a bad movie, which didn't appear in your 2 options for some reason.
On top of that, this sort of thing follows an established pattern of post-breakthrough works when directors were given too much rope with the follow up and their ambition and creativity outpace their ability as a director.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News