The Bride!

I'm Jordan Hatfield, this is Faster Film Critic.

Today on the show, we talked about Bride,

with Culture of Thurman, Chase Fugel.

The Bride is a 2026 Dark Romantic psychological drama

directed by Maggie Jinn and Hallstarring Jesse Buckley,

Christian Ballon, and Net Benning.

Do you know why I think we would really love this film?

Ed Gain, man, I think you'd be into it.

Get in, we're going cinephiling.

["Faster, film critic, talk to you."

Culture, I got a feeling you're into, Dad Chick.

Are you a dead chick?

Nothing gets me going like a lady cadaver.

You know?

Gross.

Oh man, this film's getting a lot of mixed reviews, I'll say.

Yeah, well, yeah.

That's not a surprise, is it?

No, no, it's not a surprise, but I did hope for the best.

Yeah.

Let's start talking to Bride.

But before you start slinging your tomatoes,

let's focus on the positive here, shall we?

Okay.

That sounds like a great idea.

Some poopers lately.

You're bracing for the tomatoes a little bit too quickly.

Come on, give us a chance.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, have some hope.

Okay, you got one chance.

Let's talk about the bride.

Tell me what you guys think.

Chase, be nice, be gentle, be delicate.

I thought Jesse Buckley was great.

Her performance was fantastic.

Same with Christian Ball.

Yeah, I know that when me and you saw the trailer Jordan,

Christian Ball was going to be the weakest part of this.

But I think Maggie Jones always was the weakest part.

Christian Ball was pretty safe there.

I mean, obviously Christian Ball listens to our show.

So I want to take just a moment and apologize to you, Christian,

because I doubted you.

I made the statement going in that I thought

you would be the wink link in this movie, and I was wrong.

So officially, I apologize.

The trailer didn't really do him justice.

Yeah, agreed.

I thought he came across in the trailers

as being a little maybe cartoonish in a way

that I didn't think would work.

Yeah.

But I was wrong.

I thought Christian Ball was great.

Let's talk about Frank for a minute.

What did you guys, I mean, coming off

with Guillermo Dottoro's Frankenstein,

it's hard not to compare him to Jacob Allordy.

Guillermo Dottoro's take on Frankenstein

was very different than Maggie Jinnon Hall's take.

I mean, these are two completely different films.

And it's a little bit surprising

because Maggie Jinnon Hall gives space

for Mary Shelley in her movie.

I mean, Mary Shelley has a character in the film.

And yet Frankenstein's monster

does not represent Mary Shelley's Frankenstein's monster.

It represents kind of the beast

that we've come to know through Halloween costumes.

And Guillermo Dottoro's Frankenstein

is very similar, I think,

to what Mary Shelley originally represented in her novel.

But never mind all that.

Let's talk about Christian Ball.

I thought he was great as this monster.

I liked his representation of the monster.

I liked his look.

I liked the way he portrayed emotional complexity.

I thought that his character was represented

quite well in the film.

Yeah.

I wonder if he enjoyed returning back to Gotham.

No, well enough to bring back the Batman voice.

I was really surprised how much it felt

like a Gotham universe movie.

Maybe a little more Joker, Fulia Doe, than the Dark Knight?

I don't know.

There's also way too many parallels to Batman here

with Maggie Jinnon Hall, Christian Ball.

I just, I don't know.

It's not feeling right.

It doesn't feel like Frankenstein.

That's funny.

That's funny.

I didn't pick up on any Batman themes

other than the obvious Joker Fulia Doe,

which felt very similar in a lot of ways.

It definitely felt Gotham, the grittiness of it all.

Yeah, the mobster aspect and the CD underworld kind of thing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I can see that.

I can see that.

But what did you guys think of Frank?

Well, I think if not for what Christian

be able to decide to do with his character

and perhaps how he was directed,

he was probably the only real sympathetic character

in the movies.

Well, he's also kind of a pathetic character.

But you know, I think it was an interesting kind of portrayal.

This kind of quiet subdued.

Also full of this kind of inner rage.

And he's got this tones of loneliness

to his characters that I think he pulled off really well.

He was, I think he understood exactly what the point

of his character was and I think he did.

I think all the actors in the movie were exceptional.

Yeah, I think he was kind of the perfect fit for,

you know, the brides, Jesse Buckley's kind of chaotic.

She's far more cartoonish and it's a nice compliment

to kind of her character in the chaos that surrounds her.

There was one scene early in the film

where Frank is sitting across a desk from Dr. Euphronius

and he has been kind of a monster up until this point.

She starts talking to him about his desire for love

and he looks up at her and he gets this big smile on his face.

And it was amazing to me the way his entire countenance

changed in this scene.

Like you could just see his romantic side come through

with such power.

And it was at that moment that I was like,

yeah, this is gonna work for me.

As far as Christian Bale's casting is concerned.

Yeah, it put a big smile on my face.

I was like, this is gonna work.

I love his aesthetic, his gruesomeness,

much more classy.

And I think that his romantic side really came through

in this film.

Yeah.

More so than most other Frankenstein monster movies.

Agreed.

Yeah, she didn't even when his face is covered.

He'll look over and give the bride a little look

with just his eyes that's very kind of almost endearing.

Yeah, I really, really enjoyed that.

My one criticism here is I wish that he had more opportunity

to be a monster.

Like they hit the romantic side of his character

out of the park.

I don't know that they hit the monstrous side

out of the park.

As far as aesthetic, yes.

But as far as personality, I wish that he would have had

opportunity to kind of drive more fear.

Sure.

Well, I mean, this is definitely the lady story.

And not just the brides, but everybody,

the doctors, the detectives,

this kind of similar uprising as we saw in Joker Folly at Dix.

This movie did what Joker was,

the sequel Joker was trying to do

having a much more competent way.

Yeah, the performances are what saves this movie.

It has some issues that I'm sure will get kind of into those.

Let's talk about Jesse Buckley for a minute

because I think she is my favorite actress in Hollywood.

I think she's arguably one of the best actresses working

here, but she's personally becoming one of my favorite.

I think she's absolutely fantastic.

She is.

I've heard a lot of people claim that her portrayal here

of the bride is less than stellar.

And I disagree with that.

I thought her performance was great.

Yeah, a bold choice to have her playing both herself

and sort of depiction of playing Mary Shelley as well.

And odd thing, it's explained to us very succinctly

as we go into the movie itself.

Why?

That's the case.

We don't know.

It works better than it should, but not always,

but Jesse Buckley's background in theater.

It shines through.

I mean, she can act superbly.

She can sing, she can dance.

I mean, she's very impressive.

I want to talk about her aesthetic for a minute

because her costume design I thought was absolutely brilliant.

The black stain on her cheek and on her lips

and her bright dress and her hair, her shoes.

I just thought the look of the bride in this

was absolutely fantastic.

And it totally fit kind of the chaotic tone

of her personality in the film itself.

I loved the casting choice of Jesse Buckley here.

I loved her aesthetic.

And there were moments in this film

where I loved everything about her.

You know, I think there's a single thing

that you can criticize her for

that wouldn't have been the director's shortcoming.

I mean, she really is mesmerizing.

When she's in the beginning,

there's a lot more of this back and forth

between her character and Mary Shelley.

And it does come across as a little theatrical

in some spots.

I'm like, oh, this is like,

this scene in particular,

before she gets pushed down the stairs,

it's like an actor's actor's spotlight.

I mean, she's going through all these,

you know, different dialects and mannerisms

and but extremely impressive.

I don't think anybody but her could have handled

that kind of material in the way that she did.

And that stair scene, by the way,

when she falls down the stairs,

that is one of the greatest stairfalls

that I think I've seen in a movie.

It was so cool.

When she's falling down those stairs,

I was like, dang.

Yeah.

You know, I think the bride's character,

she's strange and she's got a volatile energy.

She's almost feral in some ways.

And yet she's also seductive and tragic.

Her character is quite complex.

She's unpredictable.

She's confrontational.

She's defiant.

Very rebellious in a lot of ways.

And then there's this Mary Shelley possession thing

going on.

Yeah, yeah.

And tell me how did that work for you?

Let's talk about Mary Shelley's part

in the bride's character for a moment.

I didn't think I added much to the story,

at least not for me.

It only confused me.

I don't really get the reasoning behind a choice like that,

especially changing Mary Shelley's personality

so much to be like so brash.

I don't know, I just didn't really get it.

What did you think, Jordan?

It definitely made it more complex.

It feels to me like the film was trying to say,

more specifically, Maggie Jinnonholm was trying to say

something about the creator versus the creation.

It kind of blurs the line between the creator

and the creation.

It feels almost as though the film is trying to say

there's always an umbilical cord running

from the creator to the creation.

In bride of Frankenstein, the bride is built by a scientist.

And in the bride, it kind of shifts that power

from the scientist to the author.

Here, the bride isn't just a scientific creation.

It's a literary one.

And I think that what Maggie Jinnonholm is trying to do

is focus in on the relationship between the creator

and the creation.

And I think she was trying to bring Mary Shelley in

and make her a part of the bride in a much more physical

and meaningful way.

I think that's what she was going for.

That, yeah, I would agree with that.

I also think that there's a very obvious statement

of feminism in this.

And that is fine.

So long as we, as an audience, are understanding why.

In other words, you've got this character.

It's got all this rage and all this chaos.

And she's got a drive that she doesn't

herself completely understand.

But we don't know why.

We don't know where that rage is coming from.

We don't know where that trauma is coming from.

We don't know what's driving it.

Aside from a couple of borderline cheesy interactions

with this mobster element of the film, which I think is the weakest

part of where you've just kind of got this tacked on as this guy.

This mob boss of cuts out ladies' tongues,

silencing voices, patriarchal kind of thing

that we've seen before.

But what are you trying to say about it?

There's something missing that we talked about

weathering heights as a movie that doesn't have anything

to say.

And we approach that a little bit with this.

And I think that this being Maggie Gyllenhaal's second film,

there's a little bit of an experience

that shows through here, which are probably my main nitpicks

about this movie.

They're stronger than nitpicks.

But it's the tone.

We've got a pretty strong setup between Frank and the bride.

And it's more fun to kind of watch her be confused.

And she's retaining some of her character,

even though she doesn't remember her pretty naturally.

But then it slowly starts to descend into this chaos

and madness that isn't quite fully motivated.

And the choice to use almost the spirit of Mary Shelley

to complicate her character and not kind of being told

why is not answer shown why.

It was a little frustrating.

And it was interesting, but it was almost

like it was done for the sake of highlighting Jesse Buckley's

acting prowess.

And for that to work, I need to know why.

I need to know more about what the character

experienced that's driving them towards this philosophy

than a couple lines by a detective three-quarters

the way through the movie.

Yeah, I would agree with that.

I think Maggie Gyllenhaal was trying

to tie the creation back to the creator.

That was her goal.

But I don't think she succeeded in that goal.

I think it was very messy.

You know, you brought up tone.

You brought up tone several times in your comments.

And I think the tone here is very complicated.

There's mixes of horror and romance and musical elements

and dark comedy.

I mean, it's gothic.

There's surreal drama.

There's stylized musical moments.

The tone almost feels unstable and unpredictable

like the characters at the center of the story.

Unstable and unpredictable.

I actually liked the tone of this movie.

Did it work for you?

I would say for the first act, maybe the second part

of the second act, do.

As the movie progresses, it starts to,

I think it starts to collapse under its own weight.

And it's not quite.

It just kind of loses sight of what it is.

And it starts to fall through the foundation

that it created in the first part for me.

Yeah.

I enjoyed the first half a lot more than the second half.

Once the detectives were introduced

and we got that musical number, it was like, all right.

This is not going where I expected.

Totally.

That's where it really slipped up for me.

Have you guys seen the original 1935,

Brighta Frankenstein?

I haven't.

Yeah.

I want to talk about the creation scene.

In Brighta Frankenstein, Frankenstein's monster

brings this woman up to Dr. Pristorius' lab.

And I mean, you've seen clips of it,

whether you've seen the movie or not.

They hook her up to the bed.

They've got all the electrical equipment

and the Jacob's ladders and the Vonnegraf generators

and all the things.

And they put her on the bed and they

send the kites up into the sky waiting

for the lightning to strike and inject some electricity

into this dead body and bring her to life.

That scene in Brighta Frankenstein is magnificent.

Man, it is so cool.

The movie's about 75 minutes long.

This scene is only about five and that five minutes

completely justify the entire film.

That's good.

It's pretty iconic.

It is so cool.

Elsa Lancaster plays the bride and her physical appearance.

She's only on screen for just a couple of minutes.

And she has no dialogue in Brighta Frankenstein.

And just visually, her appearance on screen

completely justifies watching Brighta Frankenstein.

I highly recommend you check that film out.

But particularly the lab scene.

It was the mad scientist, Dr. Pretorius.

It's really, really cool.

And I was a little disappointed by the,

she's a live scene here in the bride.

You know, I did think Annette Benning was really cool

as Dr. Euphronius.

Yeah.

And her lab was cool.

But compared to that 1935 film, I just expected more here.

There was a moment where she's coming to life

and it flips to black and white.

I think it's a negative, actually.

They might have flipped the film to a negative.

That was a really cool and creative choice.

I liked that quite a bit.

But if I'm in a compare it to the 1935 version

with the low tech and the small scale special effects,

I mean, this film was made 91 years ago.

And I just thought it was superior.

That scene is really, really cool.

In the bride of Frankenstein, not so cool,

relatively speaking in the bride.

And it kind of let me add a little bit.

Yeah, agreed.

It's almost like both from a character standpoint

that Dr. was character, she seems fairly normal.

And Tell Frank was like, yeah, can we think of a body

and bring her back to life?

She's like, I don't know.

He's like, well, you're a mad scientist, I thought.

She's like, okay, let's do it.

It was kind of weird.

And then the whole scene did feel a little bit rushed.

It was kind of, I expected more sciencey stuff.

And just I expected a little bit more pizzazz

instead of what it was, which is, I think,

just an actor showcase and yeah, I don't disagree with that at all.

Okay, guys, Jay specifically, I know you're itching

to throw some tomatoes.

But before we do, is there anything else about this film

that you liked that you want to comment on?

Again, the performance is the aesthetic,

the production designer, all top notch.

I mean, I love, you know, it's a big swing

to have Mary Shelley as a character kind of intervened

into the real world and fused herself with this character.

I love that, you know, when we see her,

it's basically she's like in this dark void,

this spirit world where she's decided to fixate

on Buckley's character and come back to life.

The movie has, it's trying to say a lot.

Again, I don't think it quite hits those notes at all,

but it's, if I'm thinking about a movie after I've seen it,

and as I'm doing with this one,

that means there was some complexity to it.

There was some food for thought that required

a little bit more dissection.

And I think a lot of it works,

and some of it doesn't, and it's disappointing

when there's a vision that's very strong.

You know, it's paced very intentionally.

It's thoughtful.

A big chaos is a hard thing to depict,

and it's a hard thing to follow,

naturally as an audience member.

So, you know, in fairness, kind of like Judge of Rabbit,

I'm still, you know, complex movies or complex themes.

I think they require a little bit

of thought provocation and dissection.

It's no different than this.

It's just, I think that there's so many things,

kind of thrown at you really in the movie,

and you're trying to follow,

because what I really wanted to know

is I wanted to know more about Ida,

and we just didn't get that.

We were getting little pieces here and there,

but for me to love a character and root for a character

and be behind a character,

despite their flaws, despite their actions,

I need to know more about who they were before.

We just, we didn't even really find out until,

like I said, three-quarters of the movie

when SARS-Garde's character,

the detective is explaining a little bit about her background,

and it just wasn't enough.

I mean, it's fun enough via the performances

to kind of go along for the ride,

but man, I like, I really want to sink my teeth,

and I think it was easier to do that

with with Christian Bale's Frank,

because he was, he was a more sympathetic character,

but because Ida is kind of this,

she's this force of nature and chaotic,

and there's all this screaming and noise making,

but there's not a ton of setup or kind of explanation for it,

and I was really wanting that,

and that's, I think that's kind of what I said

when the movie starts to kind of sink

to the floor under its own weight,

and it sort of falls through at the, at the ending.

Yeah, I mean, I gotta give Maggie Jenner

an all credit for the swing.

I think she shows a ton of ambition in trying to make this film.

Yes.

There's a lot of themes.

There's themes of identity and authorship and sexuality

and power and creation.

There's a lot of ideas in this film,

and I think you just hit it on the head for me, culture,

and I'm just kind of thinking through this for the first time.

I think there's so much that Maggie Jenner

and Hall wants to say,

that not only does it get convoluted in this story,

but she forgets about the characters,

that it's really more concept rather than people,

and that really hits my biggest critique of this film.

I thought the film was beautiful,

in a gritty, dark, ugly kind of way.

I thought the characters were really interesting

in that I wanted to spend time with them,

and I wanted to know more about them,

but I was never emotionally pulled into the characters.

I think you're absolutely right.

I think there were so many different ideas coming at me

that there wasn't any room left

to emotionally connect to the bride.

As much as I love Jesse Buckley,

and I love her chaotic, feral,

defiant nature in this film.

She's psychotic, and I enjoyed that aspect.

It just, I needed something more than just Frank saying,

I need a wife,

let's inject some life into this dead body,

and then we just kind of following around

for the rest of the film.

There is no real purpose.

It's kind of a day in the life of these two monsters.

So I needed that emotional tie,

and that's what was absent for me personally in the film.

I think there's a lot to love here.

However, most people's reactions to the film

are quite negative, and I think that's because it's messy.

I think most people are saying this film is messy.

What is it that you guys didn't like?

Tonely, I didn't like it.

Like I said, halfway through,

is when the problems really started

with the detective subplot, the dance sequence,

her whole monologue during the dance sequence.

I can't remember if it's before or after,

but I just thought that was silly

that she's taking this celebrity,

holding him at gunpoint in front of all these police officers,

and they're not doing anything about it.

They're just letting her go on and on and on and on.

I think at its core,

it's really just the emotional connection to the characters.

I never really felt that.

I think that's what I wanted most from this.

Yeah, I agree.

The story is cohesive,

in the sense that I can follow what's happening,

but as far as themes and emotional draw to characters,

it did feel very messy.

There's no question about that.

I think this is kind of a common issue

with actors, turn directors,

is that sometimes they understand the craft

and they understand the story's structure,

and they're able to integrate all these things

in a way that works,

but then you've got some directors that formerly actors

that kind of treat this as like a showcase for performances,

and that can be fun too.

I think that's largely what this movie ends up being

as a showcase for just exemplary acting,

and I don't think there's a fault at all,

and their performances,

and if there is, it's attributed to the directing,

but from an academic standpoint,

it's I think we've kind of captured why it doesn't work

as a film,

but you've got your people that are kind of upset

or disconnected because of the heavy feminist elements,

and again, that can work if we're understanding why,

what's driving the characters,

and this, I feel like the use of Mary Shelley's character,

kind of fusing or possessing,

Ida's is kind of an underdeveloped idea

that has just meant to kind of create chaos.

That can be fun if that's your cup of tea,

but I think it's not quite focused enough to work,

and it doesn't give you enough to chew,

because if you're gonna go with a Bonnie and Clyde route,

which is very much kind of what these two end up,

the journey they end up on is very much Bonnie and Clyde,

there needs to be something that you're rooting for

for these characters, you wanna see them get away,

you wanna see them live their life.

Yeah.

You know it's head and towards a tragic end,

but you want to kind of have a little bit of fun

with them along the way,

and with this, we kind of don't,

I mean, this mobster element that, like I said,

feels tacked on, which is the shame,

because I think there's so much about this movie

that does work exceptionally well.

I mean, I love the, there's that scene where Ida's head

is in this glass kind of jar.

It's very 1930s-ass, I mean,

it looks like the soft focus,

and just visually aesthetically,

there's a ton of creativity going on here.

It's just not, I don't know the mega-gill in hell's quite,

there and honing those skills.

I mean, this is a, this is a big piece.

You compare this to her other, her first film,

which I did not see, but it was very simple.

Apply the effort, it just doesn't quite.

It doesn't hit its mark, and it does become a little exhausting.

But, at the same time, I'm still thinking about it a little,

but it's still, it's still resonating for some reason.

So it's not a complete miss, it's just messy.

Like you said, Jordan, it's a good word for it messy.

I wouldn't call this a miss.

I think it does miss in some key areas,

and I think that's really unfortunate.

This film has no masterpiece,

but there are things about it that I really liked,

and I think it's worth watching.

I want to talk about the feminist aspect of the film,

because I actually enjoy a feminist story.

And I think the bride is a perfect character

to tell a feminist story.

You know, bride of Frankenstein is often considered

one of the greatest horror sequels ever made.

And although I would push back on that sum,

I do view the imagery in bride of Frankenstein

to be incredibly iconic.

And yet, here is a woman.

I mean, the entire movie is bride of Frankenstein.

The title of the film is bride of Frankenstein,

and she has no dialogue, and she's on screen for three minutes.

Visually, she is very, very strong,

but that's all she offers.

And so to take that classic monster story,

to bring it to 1930s Chicago,

and to give the woman not just a voice,

but a strong character,

someone who's not gonna be pushed around

and listened to the man in the room all the time,

I really, really like that.

I think that really, really works.

So I wouldn't criticize the feminist aspect of the film.

Sounds like you would a little bit.

You mean me?

Yeah, either.

Not gonna me?

No, not, I think it's a perfect backdrop for it.

I just, for that to work,

I want to know about the character's background.

What makes her shoot who she is,

so that I can be behind it fully.

But the 30s is an excellent backdrop

for that considering Chase brought this up earlier,

the misogynistic aspect of society.

Not that it was every single dude was thinking a certain way

or every single woman was being subjugated,

but certainly was more prevalent back then than it is now.

I just want to, I want to know

how this girl got to where she is today.

Not only did they give her a voice,

they gave her some power.

Right in this.

Yes.

And we got to see a little bit more of like,

you know, women in society, all of a sudden,

they've got the same kind of ink stained cheek

and this movement that I found to be a bit more relievable

than what we saw in the Joker sequel.

And again, I was hoping for what we were supposed

to get the Joker sequel realized in this movie

where they're kind of out together,

they're kind of growing together,

they're growing on each other.

And then there's as there should be kind of this realization

to the movie that Frank has lied to her too.

This is one more guy in her life that's treated her like shit.

That doesn't bother me at all.

I just wanted to be able to identify and relate to her enough.

There should be a six, it's almost a six sense

and people that kind of want to see her succeed

despite all the horrible things that she's doing

because that's what kind of,

it's a weird kind of reward I want to see.

You know, I don't want to just see tragedy

for the sake of tragedy, if that makes sense.

Absolutely.

I think we all agree.

The story is messy.

The narrative here is a little bit messy.

The themes are a little bit messy.

Let's go ahead and rate the bride on a scale of one to five.

What do you guys give it?

Two and a half stars on the bride.

I think aesthetically it's really cool.

Some scenes feel a little bit too heavy handed

like the entire dialogue is built around

trying to get a certain message across

instead of actually communicating between the characters.

I think it also villainizes the world in a weird way

that's probably supposed to draw you to its two main characters.

I think from that perspective, it takes too many liberties.

I think it oversimplifies the issue,

make the men look rapey, every man look rapey

and kill them and the mobsters, you know,

a symbol for the patriarch cutting out the tongues.

I just, I don't know,

I think it could have been a little bit more creative.

My favorite element of the film,

which I wish would have been explored more

is that Frankenstein got his kind of idea and passion,

his want for a partner by watching Hollywood films.

I thought that was so cool.

And I wish there would have been a little bit more of that,

the idealization of a relationship in love.

But for me, that was the strongest part of the film.

I'm going to go two and a half.

This is complex to rate.

You're right, man, I really loved.

We didn't talk much about that,

but there's a aspect of romance to his amorous relationship

to this kind of fictionalized thing.

And it's interesting.

I mean, if I'm rating this on actors' performances,

it's probably a four and a half, maybe even a five.

I mean, I do think Jesse Buckley is phenomenal.

It's a beautifully shot movie.

It's directed exceptionally well in some parts

and I think Borderline, poorly in others.

Visually it's stunning.

I did find the movie to be a bit exhausting.

The predictable in parts and completely unpredictable

in others, which interesting.

So it's really hard.

I mean, I feel like if I saw this movie

with a different audience, my brother loved it.

It's a tough movie to rate.

I think I would tear between a three and a half and a three.

But because I think it's such a unique concept

and it's such a unique idea,

but all of these concepts and ideas weren't balanced well

or they weren't executed to their full potential.

Probably set a lot of three for now,

but that could very well change over time.

And I think Maggie Gyllenhaal is flexing some muscle.

I think she's got a ton of potential,

but there were some things in here that just didn't quite work.

But overall, I enjoyed the experience.

I was just a little perplexed and a little frustrated

at the end of the movie.

So yeah, let's go with three.

Well, all right.

Guys, I think there's a lot to love in the bride.

I think Jesse Buckley can steal a scene with a single look

and she does so multiple times here.

I think her design is genuinely magnificent.

Christian Bell is quite strong as Frank,

but I do think he needed more opportunity to be a monster.

I wanted to see more fear from him,

but I do think his romantic side was convincingly portrayed.

Overall tone, a little messy, but I liked it.

I thought it worked for me.

The setting gives the movie both grit

and a strange kind of glamour that I appreciated.

It is a movie full of ideas, striking imagery,

and unmistakable artistic ambition.

Sometimes that works in its favor.

Sometimes it works against it.

Like the creature at its center,

I feel like the story is stitched together

from multiple compelling parts,

but it never fully comes alive.

Guys, I'm going to give this three stars as well.

We want to know what did you think of the bride,

please tell us.

One thing cannot be overstated.

People who recommend great movies

are important people in your lives.

I am going to recommend a great movie.

Jesse Buckley just won an Oscar for Hamlet.

The Oscar-winning Jesse Buckley was fantastic in the bride.

If you were a fan of the Oscar-winning Jesse Buckley

and have not seen wicked little letters,

you need to fix this now.

It was released in 2023, directed by Thea Sharok.

It stars the Oscar-winning Jesse Buckley

Olivia Coleman and Timothy Spall.

This English comedy is absolutely hilarious.

There's something about this film

that I just found incredibly charming.

That may be a really funny way to describe this film,

but to me, this film was charming, incredibly funny,

and it's based on a true story.

Wicked little letters, I highly recommend it.

Thank you for listening to Faster Film Critic.

And please join us next week when we talk project,

Hail Mary, you can also follow us on

Letterbox, Center Trek, and Instagram.

Email us at FasterFilmCritic at gmail.com.

Hit us up with questions,

comments, feedback, review requests,

and share this episode with your movie-loving friends.