Frank

“The Bride!” is a maniacal assemblage of ’30s musicals, ’40s noirs, 19th century literature and 21st century ideology. Every wacky second, you’re well aware how perilously close it is to falling apart at the seams. This spiritual sequel to “Frankenstein” is a romantic tale of obsession, possession and fantasy — adjectives that also apply to its filmmaker, Maggie Gyllenhaal, who expends massive quantities of energy jolting it to life. She succeeds by the skin of her teeth.

The monster’s missus comes with as much narrative anticipation as Godot. Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel has Dr. Frankenstein bicker with his creature about her potential existence before deciding against it in fear that “she might become ten thousand times more malignant than her mate.” Over a hundred years later, the debate continued, raging through nearly all of 1935’s “Bride of Frankenstein” which finally introduces Elsa Lanchester and her sky-high bouffant five minutes before the end credits, just enough time for her to make an iconic impression before her arranged husband blows them both to smithereens. Boris Karloff laments, “She hate me.” Lanchester’s Bride never speaks and quite possibly never knows what is happening to her at all.

Gyllenhaal’s empowerment story, meanwhile, feels like an unhinged scream. Jessie Buckley (who starred in Gyllenhaal’s debut, “The Lost Daughter”) tackles the dual roles of the Bride and Shelley, a hat tip to Lanchester, who did the same thing. The action starts in Shelley’s grave where she’s spent centuries seething about the sequel she never dared to write, then cuts to an American nightclub, where her spirit suddenly possesses a drunken strumpet named Ida (Buckley) — not smoothly but herky-jerky, with the angry author causing this gangster’s moll to go on the fritz. Her accent alternates mid-sentence from city gal to snidely British, Ida loudly accusing a mob boss of murdering women. She’s right and she’s next.

Our setting is 1936 Chicago, but this is an exaggerated, fictional world, not ours or even Karloff’s. Elsewhere in town, the original creature, played by Christian Bale, has lurched here from Austria still on his lonely quest for companionship. (For simplicity’s sake, he goes by Frank.) He begs the ethically gray Dr. Euphronius (Annette Bening) to help him finally experience what he chivalrously calls, “a garden of pleasure.” The blunter and crasser Euphronius asks if Frank has a specific shape of mammaries in mind. (Her maid, played by Jeannie Berlin, is a riot.)

This Bride comes alive roughly and rudely not having given her consent either. Regardless, now that she’s here, she still has to figure out her next move, with or without Frank, and often without key pieces of information. Frank has convinced her she’s an amnesiac. Also, somehow, she doesn’t even know that she’s dead.

The theme is, of course, a woman’s right to choose. But what’s interesting about Gyllenhaal’s approach is that she expands Ida’s options beyond an enthusiastic yes and a priggish no into a dim sum menu that includes a dubious yes, an asterisked yes and a no that rejects even having to answer the question. She also overuses Bartleby the Scrivener’s line, “I would prefer not to.” I would prefer not to hear that quote a dozen times in two hours, but neither I nor the Bride get exactly what we want.

A perversity in the script is that Frank is a manipulator and a gaslighter but overall a pretty good dude. Their bond is messy and thrilling, with one of the most delightful romantic montages in ages. There’s a great scene where Frank exposes his unbeating heart to her and gets rejected, yet he laughs with delight because the Bride’s stubborn spirit is exactly what he likes about her.

The Bride also looks dynamite in her bias-cut coral dress and peekaboo black lace bra. Her zapping turns her entire head of hair — not just a streak — shocking white à la Jean Harlow, and leaves an oddly-appealing black blotch on her cheek. It’s a fabulous look, at once sexy and frightful, with an element of cartoonishness as the movie sends her speeding around the country pursued by gangsters and the police, changing stolen cars but never her clothes.

The movie makes no secret of its phony mechanics. In one scene, the Bride is the most famous outlaw in America; in the next, a cop doesn’t recognize her at all. There are several moments that force you to accept that the characters can become psychic at will, including one where Frank somehow mind-controls a party to dance the jitterbug — heck, we almost believe that he invented it — and the smart move is just to give in and enjoy the number.

Whatever Gyllenhaal wants to do, she does, which becomes its own act of captivation and reckless empowerment. It helps that Buckley and Bale are terrific, as is the ensemble at large. The full force of Lawrence Sher’s cinematography, Karen Murphy’s production design and Hildur Guðnadóttir’s orchestral score is fabulous, combining to make something seedy, moody and extravagant.

Gyllenhaal’s love for other variations of this story is right up there onscreen with brash callbacks to Mel Brooks’ 1974 “Young Frankenstein” and the underrated “Frankenhooker.” Yet “The Bride!” isn’t just assembled from her passion for those movies. It seems to be made of every movie: a wild and playful and overbearing ambulation of references.

Almost every role is a Frankencharacter of the director’s cinematic obsessions, like Penelope Cruz’s lady detective who is named for “The Thin Man’s” Myrna Loy, acts like “His Girl Friday’s” Rosalind Russell, and dresses like Barbara Stanwyck in “Double Indemnity.” I suspect that Gyllenhaal’s favorite movie might be the same as my own, the bitterly nostalgic ’80s-does-’30s Steve Martin musical “Pennies From Heaven.” Watch it and tell me if you agree and even if you don’t, at least you’ll have seen one of the greatest films of all time.

There’s a scene in which Frank meets his own idol, an alt-world version of Fred Astaire (played by Gyllenhaal’s brother Jake, who is good at mugging and singing), and vomits his fandom at him until the actor recoils. The intensity of devotion can feel a bit like that. It also exposes that our culture is ready for its own shock of invention. Shelley spawned the entire genre of modern science fiction; today’s talents often feel like remix artists.

Like the mad scientists she’s sending up, Gyllenhaal goes too far. She triply underlines her feminist themes and nearly sabotages her own clever creation. Ironically, she doesn’t trust the audience to think for itself either. The overkill hits its nadir when the Bride repeatedly wails the survivors’ hashtag, “Me too!” But grab a scalpel and cut 10 minutes out of it and “The Bride!” would be a rip-roaring dazzler. This monster is more than alive, it’s allliiiiiive.

The Tottenham hierarchy now have a huge decision to make.

Thomas Frank’s future at the club is uncertain. That isn’t a secret, of course – it has been the case for weeks.

Large sections of the supporters want him sacked. The boos that rang round Tottenham Hotspur Stadium at full-time were testament to that prevailing feeling from a disgruntled fanbase.

Crucially, there has been a loss of support towards the Dane internally.

So, the fact Frank’s disastrous first season in charge lurched to deeper depths following this defeat by Newcastle may have significant consequences.

If Nottingham Forest, who occupy 17th, beat Wolves on Wednesday night they will go level on points with Tottenham.

Frank is understandably hesitant to admit his side are in relegation fight – but the numbers don’t lie.

That said, it may not be Frank’s problem for much longer – Tottenham‘s latest loss will push the beleaguered manager closer to what appears an inevitable exit.

Indeed, such has been the level of contemplation regarding Frank’s immediate future at Tottenham in recent weeks that this loss will almost certainly trigger further soul-searching from the club’s leadership group.

The fact the Spurs board have stuck by Frank during such a difficult period proves they want the appointment to work.

The easier decision would have been to show Frank the door by now.

However, the Tottenham hierarchy believe Frank has been dealt a rough hand.

There’s an acknowledgment that the season has been disrupted by multiple injuries to key players.

There is also recognition that the squad needs repair work – particularly considering the departures of their two main sources of goals in Harry Kane and Son Heung-min.

There is also a sense behind the scenes that the squad is lacking in leadership. It was why they signed England international Conor Gallagher and tried to land Andy Robertson from Liverpool – both with plenty of Premier League experience.

There is also a sense from Tottenham‘s executive team that the club require a period of managerial stability.

But by the same token, sources have told BBC Sport that work towards a contingency plan in the event they make a decision they really don’t want to make illustrates the precarity of Frank’s position.

If the club decide to part with Frank in the immediate aftermath of this Newcastle defeat, they will have 12 days until their next fixture against Arsenal on 22 February.

That leaves Tottenham with a prolonged window to execute their replacement plan and leave Frank’s successor with time to implement a blueprint for the north London derby.

The pressure on Frank is at breaking point. We are about to find out if Tottenham crack.

One man and a much-anticipated trim.

But it started to feel, for Manchester United, Ilett’s long wait for the club to win five games in a row had become an unwanted irritation.

There was a time when it seemed as though United were prepared to play along with the gag. They did, after all, include a barbers’ room in their £50m training ground upgrade at Carrington. What better way to have a bit of fun?

Now though, in public and private, they are having nothing to do with it.

Skipper Bruno Fernandes and manager Michael Carrick were dismissive when asked about it after victory number four, against Tottenham – although Carrick’s admission he had been told of the saga by his kids hints at the wider attraction.

Ilett’s daily social media updates and the before and now pictures scattered across the digital sphere were initially quite amusing but serve as a reminder of how bad the team’s form has been.

Ilett plans to donate his hair to the Little Princess Trust and set up a JustGiving page for the children’s cancer charity, for those who wanted to offer financial support.

His initial fundraising target of £500 for the the Little Princess Trust has been exceeded significantly and by Tuesday afternoon stood at £6,132.

As attention-grabbing initiatives go, his pledge didn’t seem especially outrageous when he made it.

United had completed five-in-a-row eight months earlier, the 11th time it had happened – including the end of the 2015-16 season and start of 2016-17 – in just under 11 years following Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement.

The longest gap was from 25 January 2019, when United won the last of their eight successive wins following Ole Gunnar Solskjaer’s arrival and the end of five victories in a row under the Norwegian in April 2021.

It says a lot for United’s chronic form since Ilett made his vow that they had only won three in a row twice until Carrick arrived, changed the formation and turned his old club into winners once more.

To put that into context, United’s fellow ‘big six’ clubs have all won five times on the bounce in recent memory. Arsenal, Manchester City and Liverpool have done it this season – Chelsea have done it already this year.

Even Tottenham, whose form has been atrocious for 18 months now, managed it early last season, when United were one of the teams they beat.

Some fans have come to the conclusion they do not appreciate Illet’s humour.

One supporter was given an indefinite ban from Old Trafford by United for attacking Ilett on a concourse at the home game with Chelsea in September 2025.

Others have taken exception to him taking part in an advert for a major gambling company and monetising what was meant to be a charitable gesture. Ilett has denied making the kinds of sums being mentioned.

However, many have defended Ilett and most responses to his appearance on the leading Stretford Paddock podcast were positive.

The vast majority though, for and against, just want to see an end to it.