Jeremy-Northam Movie Reviews

A young female artist falls in love with a known homosexual and the two spend their remaining years in each other's lives. No, this is not a romantic comedy starring Julia Roberts, but "Carrington" is an emotional drama that is a triumph for Emma Thompson and Jonathan Pryce, and less than perfect for writer/director Christopher Hampton.

The film is good. It takes place in the years 1914-1932 in England. Thompson is Dora Carrington, a troubled artist who falls for homosexual writer Lytton Strachey, played by Pryce. Strachey is a bit of a dramatic, suffering from "old age" and other infirmities, although he would be considered a young man. Strachey is first attracted to Carrington, thinking she is a young boy thanks to her pageboy haircut and lack of makeup.

The two fall in love the only way they can: unphysically. They share a bed, but have no real sexual relationship and pursue the kind of physical love they cannot find with each other. Virigin Carrington falls for an angry artist who cannot understand their four year relationship with no sex. She is simply not attracted to his body, but gives in anyway, finding she does not enjoy sex anyway. She breaks it off with him, using her impending cohabitation with Strachey as a reason. She then brings home uptight army soldier Ralph, played by Steven Waddington. He is a man's man who does not understand all these artists and conscientious objectors (to WWI), but beds Carrington and, the film implies, Strachey. Ralph and Carrington marry and Ralph brings home friend Gerald for Strachey to "get to know." Gerald then suddenly falls in love with Carrington. The two have an affair. Strachey finds and loves a younger man named Roger, and Carrington dumps Gerald, later finding a guy with a boat who really likes his sex on the high seas. Ironically, he is not sexually attracted to Carrington, the very reason she broke up with the angry young artist. Strachey and Carrington end up back together in their strange living arrangement, and both meet their fates.

Thompson and Pryce are so good here it hurts. The main problem I had was with Hampton's choice of subject matter. He based the film on a book about Strachey, titled the film after Carrington, and I kept noticing a real lack of focus as to the film's main character. Hampton also writes Strachey like he is a poor man's Oscar Wilde, coming up with pithy sayings in between heartbreaks. Carrington comes across as flighty and confused, but we do not see how disturbed she is until after Strachey's death, and Hampton could have elaborated on that a little more. More scenes about Carrington and Strachey's work might have helped as well. The two hour movie feels like compressed images from a long running soap opera. Why should the viewer care so much about these characters?

Hampton the director is wonderful. In one scene, Carrington sits on a stump and, through a giant bank of windows, watches her husband and his live in mistress, Carrington's own new lover, and Strachey and Roger, all getting ready for bed. Hampton keeps the scene sad without becoming voyeuristic, as Carrington seems to be silently questioning all these men who have brought her to this place in time. Carrington's death is also handled tactfully.

I would recommend "Carrington," but with the reservations about the script. I definitely would recommend it on the performances alone, if nothing else.

This is rated (R) for mild physical violence, mild gun violence, profanity, some female nudity, brief male nudity, strong sexual content, strong sexual references, and adult situations.

I'm not sure if the last reviewer (Lawrence) was aware, but Virginia Wolfe was not part of this film. The lady who pointed out to Lytton that Carrington was a girl was Vanessa Bell. Virginia Wolfe never had children.
I had to view this film more than once to appreciate it. After all, I felt it should be called 'Lytton' instead of 'Carrington.' This is probably because this film was based on Lytton's biography and not Carrington's.
In fact, Carrington had many affairs according to an interview with Emma Thompson and some were with women but of course, there wasn't time to put all that on film.
Lytton and Carrington were definitely an odd couple and this is an odd but very interesting film!

NOW, you don't need to know anything about the infamous [?] Bloomsbury Group of 'Intelligentsia' in orde to enjoy this somewhat obscure film. Granted they are not prime eye candy either, except perhaps for the hunky lover or two - shared [?] by Dora and Lytton. If you are quite absurb and look at them as perhaps 'vampires' then the relationship makes sense, but thats the Gothic POV - their love is spiritual - carnality is left to the odd mortal who drifts into their lives.......SO DOES does true love mean physical and spiritual connection? After all Lytton was gay, Dora - who knows, perhaps bi - perhaps not. I think the point of this movie [disregard the historical truth] is that a truer bond can exist without the physical [St. Francis for example].

Back to our story though - she loves him, he physically is incapable of loving her, but they are bound, totally bound, not that attractive a couple, yet they do enhance each other's lives and THAT's what it's all about.

One of the most understated of Emma Thompson's performances, same goes for Mr. Pryce, who is ever-versatile! AND the supporting cast? Impeccable.

In 'Women In Love' D.H. Lawrence somewhat pokes a great deal of fun at the 'Bloomsbury Set' - also depicted in the Russell movie, although he was never officially part of this rather odd group of pre flower-children Children. [The ever-controversial 'Women In Love' seems to focus on the other side though - 'men in love' - an interesting counterpart to this movie].

AND the 'bed-hopping'? Causes a positive draft!

A young female artist falls in love with a known homosexual and the two spend their remaining years in each other's lives. No, this is not a romantic comedy starring Julia Roberts, but "Carrington" is an emotional drama that is a triumph for Emma Thompson and Jonathan Pryce, and less than perfect for writer/director Christopher Hampton.

The film is good. It takes place in the years 1914-1932 in England. Thompson is Dora Carrington, a troubled artist who falls for homosexual writer Lytton Strachey, played by Pryce. Strachey is a bit of a dramatic, suffering from "old age" and other infirmities, although he would be considered a young man. Strachey is first attracted to Carrington, thinking she is a young boy thanks to her pageboy haircut and lack of makeup.

The two fall in love the only way they can: unphysically. They share a bed, but have no real sexual relationship and pursue the kind of physical love they cannot find with each other. Virigin Carrington falls for an angry artist who cannot understand their four year relationship with no sex. She is simply not attracted to his body, but gives in anyway, finding she does not enjoy sex anyway. She breaks it off with him, using her impending cohabitation with Strachey as a reason. She then brings home uptight army soldier Ralph, played by Steven Waddington. He is a man's man who does not understand all these artists and conscientious objectors (to WWI), but beds Carrington and, the film implies, Strachey. Ralph and Carrington marry and Ralph brings home friend Gerald for Strachey to "get to know." Gerald then suddenly falls in love with Carrington. The two have an affair. Strachey finds and loves a younger man named Roger, and Carrington dumps Gerald, later finding a guy with a boat who really likes his sex on the high seas. Ironically, he is not sexually attracted to Carrington, the very reason she broke up with the angry young artist. Strachey and Carrington end up back together in their strange living arrangement, and both meet their fates.

Thompson and Pryce are so good here it hurts. The main problem I had was with Hampton's choice of subject matter. He based the film on a book about Strachey, titled the film after Carrington, and I kept noticing a real lack of focus as to the film's main character. Hampton also writes Strachey like he is a poor man's Oscar Wilde, coming up with pithy sayings in between heartbreaks. Carrington comes across as flighty and confused, but we do not see how disturbed she is until after Strachey's death, and Hampton could have elaborated on that a little more. More scenes about Carrington and Strachey's work might have helped as well. The two hour movie feels like compressed images from a long running soap opera. Why should the viewer care so much about these characters?

Hampton the director is wonderful. In one scene, Carrington sits on a stump and, through a giant bank of windows, watches her husband and his live in mistress, Carrington's own new lover, and Strachey and Roger, all getting ready for bed. Hampton keeps the scene sad without becoming voyeuristic, as Carrington seems to be silently questioning all these men who have brought her to this place in time. Carrington's death is also handled tactfully.

I would recommend "Carrington," but with the reservations about the script. I definitely would recommend it on the performances alone, if nothing else.

This is rated (R) for mild physical violence, mild gun violence, profanity, some female nudity, brief male nudity, strong sexual content, strong sexual references, and adult situations.

I'm not sure if the last reviewer (Lawrence) was aware, but Virginia Wolfe was not part of this film. The lady who pointed out to Lytton that Carrington was a girl was Vanessa Bell. Virginia Wolfe never had children.
I had to view this film more than once to appreciate it. After all, I felt it should be called 'Lytton' instead of 'Carrington.' This is probably because this film was based on Lytton's biography and not Carrington's.
In fact, Carrington had many affairs according to an interview with Emma Thompson and some were with women but of course, there wasn't time to put all that on film.
Lytton and Carrington were definitely an odd couple and this is an odd but very interesting film!

NOW, you don't need to know anything about the infamous [?] Bloomsbury Group of 'Intelligentsia' in orde to enjoy this somewhat obscure film. Granted they are not prime eye candy either, except perhaps for the hunky lover or two - shared [?] by Dora and Lytton. If you are quite absurb and look at them as perhaps 'vampires' then the relationship makes sense, but thats the Gothic POV - their love is spiritual - carnality is left to the odd mortal who drifts into their lives.......SO DOES does true love mean physical and spiritual connection? After all Lytton was gay, Dora - who knows, perhaps bi - perhaps not. I think the point of this movie [disregard the historical truth] is that a truer bond can exist without the physical [St. Francis for example].

Back to our story though - she loves him, he physically is incapable of loving her, but they are bound, totally bound, not that attractive a couple, yet they do enhance each other's lives and THAT's what it's all about.

One of the most understated of Emma Thompson's performances, same goes for Mr. Pryce, who is ever-versatile! AND the supporting cast? Impeccable.

In 'Women In Love' D.H. Lawrence somewhat pokes a great deal of fun at the 'Bloomsbury Set' - also depicted in the Russell movie, although he was never officially part of this rather odd group of pre flower-children Children. [The ever-controversial 'Women In Love' seems to focus on the other side though - 'men in love' - an interesting counterpart to this movie].

AND the 'bed-hopping'? Causes a positive draft!

I just got back from seeing The Singing Detective. I had to drive 152 miles to see it in a tiny little theater in Nevada City, California. I have to admit that I am very much a Robert Downey Jr. fan so I was highly motivated. I was captivated with the story. I was prepared for it to jump from reality to fantasy so everything seemed to fall into place. The acting was great ; the cinematography , superb. I just wish this film had a wider release. It was well worth the drive!

I have been following this film since prior to the shooting of the film. I am a faithful Downey fan and when I heard he would have the leading role in the movie version of Dennis Potter's mini-series I rented the mini-series to become familiar with the story.
It was a difficult story to follow and not too well received when it first was shown. It later became highly acclaimed. Ten years later, Dennis Potter wrote a film script, shortened it to a little under 2 hours (from the 6+ hours of the mini-series) and changed the venue from England to the United States, actually the Chicago area; the time period from the 40's to the 50's. The tone of the story line changed somewhat also as basically it is actually about Dennis Potter.....and in his final years, he bacame less cynical and less angry than the original Phillip Marlow (Potter)...he mellowed somewhat. Consequently, the film has a different feel as was Potter's intent. The script was not changed; only the location was changed to Los Angeles.

Robert Downey Jr. was brilliant....changing pace so smoothly from the psoriasis-ridden, hallucinating Dan Dark to the Private Detective who lip-syncs to the songs of the original artists of the 50's. It is a complicated story line, not a senseless blockbuster type with little substance, not meant for the non-thinking viewer. It was cast so well, Mel Gibson is fantastic as the psychiatrist, Dr Gibbon, Robyn Wright Penn, Carla Gugino and Katie Holmes were perfect in their roles. Katie Holmes part was small but with a huge impact...and she did it so well, as did the rest of the cast.

Keith Gordon's directing was masterful, the timing with the musical numbers, the settings going from brilliant, stark white in the hospital, to dark streets and interiors with bright red accents....fast paced humor.
The closing scenes were perfect, then a rare treat.....Mr Downey singing "In My Dreams", a 50's song written by Gene Vincent, during the closing credits. He has a wonderful voice...we need to hear more of him singing.

I have to give The Singing Detective 5 stars.....it was wonderful. I have seen it 3 times, the second time in Chicago along with the Carrier Achievement Award presentation to Robert Downey Jr. prior to the screening. That was a thrill!! I will see it again Fri. Nov. 7.

Anyone trying to compare this with the orginal mini-series will miss the whole point of the story....Potter did not intend it to be a condensed version, rather a new aspect of the story. Also, an interesting fact....after seeing Downey in "Chaplin", Potter said he felt Downey would be the one to portray the character of Dan Dark.

I think your appreciation of this movie may rise or fall depending on how endearing you find Downey's schtick, and whether you can abide musicals. I adore him, even dressed as a human pizza, and love musicals. I also adore Mel Gibson, who throws off his glamour to play a Downey's quirky shrink. The supporting cast is very excellently filled out with great actors, and we get to see almost all of them break into song! Yes, including Mel. The lipsyncing is not good, but I think that must be intentional, and managed to look past it.
So - Downey plays a dual role as a disfigured and helpless novelist and the hero of his novel, the titular singing detective. He doesn't sing while detecting, he does both mostly separately. We flash in and out of Downey's reality in a hospital and his hallucinations or his mental reliving of his novel, and occasional flashbacks to his youth. The detective stuff is great hard-boiled, sometimes well-worn, but often funny material. The humor is often wordy - puns and irony - and you want to catch every line. The closest comparison I can think of is Garrison Keillor's Guy Noir, kind of spoofy but respectful of the noir detective. It's a pity, but Downey's dialog is sometimes a bit unclear. There's also humor of absurdity - the songs, the hallucinations, the juxtapositions between worlds.
And there's stuff that's not so funny: sex, violence, and sexual violence. Your kids should not be watching this!

An absolutely wonderful film. Jeremy Northam once again proves why he is one of the best actors working today. It's too bad his work doesn't get enough attention. This film is the true story, and will keep you riveted to the screen. The entire cast is solid as a whole, but Northam steals the show with his portrayal of Phillip Heseltine. The film also features some of the most haunting music I've heard onscreen in quite some time. This is definitly a film you must see.

This movie never had a wide theatrical release in the U.S., rather it only played at film festivals where it received rave reviews. Jeremy Northam's performance as composer Peter Warlock and music critic Philip Heseltine earned him great reviews and notice from the casting director of "The Net", which began his climb to stardom.

The movie is loosely based on the life of British composer Peter Warlock and his arch nemisis, music critic Philip Heseltine. In addition to an interesting story and wonderful performances, the viewer is treated to great classical music. The only disappointment in the movie is the fabricated love triangle between Heseltine, Warlock, and Heseltine's girlfriend (so forgettable, I can't remember her name).

This was a role for Jeremy Northam with some meat on it. Excellent portrayals by the actors in this film. Music was beautiful.

Lovers of classic WWII British cat and mouse thrillers will like this movie.

I enjoyed the twisting, intelligent story of Enigma. I'll try to sum it up in two sentences. It's about a British codebreaker in WWII who suffers a breakdown after his lover jilts him, then returns to service to learn that the Nazis have changed the code of their Enigma machines. He must re-break the code, evade a government agent who suspects him of spying, and rely on his ex-lover's roommate to help him solve a parallel mystery about missing communications from the Germans in Poland.

Dougray Scott is haggard and believable as the brilliant mathematician on the verge of another breakdown. Kate Winslet de-glams to play the slightly frumpy but intelligent roomie of the elusive Claire. Jeremy Northam plays the dapper, light in manner but deeper than he appears, agent on the trail of the spies.

The story has great dialogue and respects its characters, giving them depth. I liked that the hero and heroine were not all prettied up. When Dougray Scott is chasing the traitor, he looks like an academic running through the streets. The scenery is stunning throughout, with English countryside, large manor houses and tudor cottages. One point that some reviewers has missed is that the story is layered. There's the thriller aspect with the codebreakers trying to crack the code and save the convoy steaming across the Atlantic from the German U-boats, but there's also the personal tale of a man struggling to unravel a personal mystery.

This is a story loosely, very loosely, based on British intelligence's efforts to crack the Nazi encryption codes used during World War II. The screenplay was adapted from the novel by Robert Harris by playwright Tom Stoppard whose cinematic credits include Brazil (1985) and Shakespeare in Love (1998). Dougray Scott stars as Tom Jericho who is decidedly not Alan Turing, the troubled genius who spearheaded the amazingly successful effort that allowed the Allies to know in advance what the Nazis were up to. The true story is one of the most fascinating to come out of WWII.

This fictionalization is also a very good story. Michael Apted's direction gives us a nice feel for the era and for the type of people involved, intellectual and somewhat nerdish, creative people who were as valuable to the war effort, or even more so, than the soldiers in the field. Dougray Scott does a nice job of depicting a mathematician who has gone a little crazy because of an abortive love affair with a beautiful intelligence clerk, Claire Romilly (Saffron Burrows). He is sent away after cracking the Nazi code, but when the Nazis institute a new code he is returned from the nut house and pressed back into service. Still haunted by the memory of Claire, it is not clear that he is of any use. When he discovers that Claire is missing, the subplot begins with Jericho and Hester Wallace (Kate Winslet), once Claire's roommate, sleuthing through top secret intelligence files looking for clues to determine what happened to Claire and whether she was a spy or not. What they discover along the way of course is each other. Watching them is Wigram, a rakish secret service agent with a heart of pure darkness, played with mystery and an arrogant ruthlessness by Jeremy Northam.

Billed as a thinking man's thriller, it is that. However, the plot suffers from two main problems: Claire can only be seen in flashback (I would like to have seen more of the woman who said, "Poor you. I really got under your skin, didn't I?"), and the action of the film must take place within a few days time, which means that Jericho must simultaneously crack the new code, find out what happened to Claire, and romance Hester. I don't think Apted's direction successfully solved these problems. His concentration on a realistic "feel" to the movie merely masked them.

Nonetheless, one can appreciate the action and remain fully immersed even while not following all of the plot's intricacies. The juxtaposition of the tall, blonde player of men in the person of the beautiful Saffron Burrows with the short, full-figured, Nancy Drew-like Hester in the person of the beautiful and gifted Kate Winslet was a stroke of casting genius. They are fascinating to watch. The contrast between the sensitive and vulnerable Jericho and the worldly and immoral Wigram provided an interesting balance. All four of the leads were excellent.

But see this for Tom Stoppard, who might be called "a thinking man's" screenwriter. His gift for writing witty and authentic dialogue based on research and a finely trained ear is part of what makes this an interesting film well worth seeing.

While most movies that are released during the summer lack sophistication, great acting, and a plot, this film has them all: in spades. Endlessly interesting and complimented by John Barry's haunting score, "Enigma" delivers one cinematic pleasure after another.

The story, set in WWII, and based on real events, centers on Tom Jehrico (Dougray Scott), a brilliant codebreaker at Blenchly Park, who cracked the Nazi Enigma code. But now that code has been changed, and supplies that the British need for the war are in jeopardy. Not to mention the lives of the crews on those ships. Complicating matters is the disappearance of his ex-lover,Claire (Saffron Burrows), which has cast the shadow of suspicion over Tom as the possible traitor. Teaming with Claire's doudy roommate Hester (Kate Winslet), the two race to crack the code and unmask the traitor before hundreds of lives are lost. All the while, the mysterious Wigram (Jeremy Northam) seems to always be following them. . .

My summary of the plot simply doesn't do it justice. This film must be seen to be truly appreciated. Scott is great as the haggard, brilliant mathematician whose heart has been been broken, and Winslet is wonderful as the witty and underappreciated Hester. But the real standout is Jeremy Northam who steals every scene he is in, as the very dapper, and very suspicious Wigram.

The dialogue in the film crackles thanks to a great screenplay by Tom Stoppard which was based on the bestselling novel by Robert Harris. Do yourself a favor and check out this example of smart adult cinema.

Lovers of classic WWII British cat and mouse thrillers will like this movie.

I enjoyed the twisting, intelligent story of Enigma. I'll try to sum it up in two sentences. It's about a British codebreaker in WWII who suffers a breakdown after his lover jilts him, then returns to service to learn that the Nazis have changed the code of their Enigma machines. He must re-break the code, evade a government agent who suspects him of spying, and rely on his ex-lover's roommate to help him solve a parallel mystery about missing communications from the Germans in Poland.

Dougray Scott is haggard and believable as the brilliant mathematician on the verge of another breakdown. Kate Winslet de-glams to play the slightly frumpy but intelligent roomie of the elusive Claire. Jeremy Northam plays the dapper, light in manner but deeper than he appears, agent on the trail of the spies.

The story has great dialogue and respects its characters, giving them depth. I liked that the hero and heroine were not all prettied up. When Dougray Scott is chasing the traitor, he looks like an academic running through the streets. The scenery is stunning throughout, with English countryside, large manor houses and tudor cottages. One point that some reviewers has missed is that the story is layered. There's the thriller aspect with the codebreakers trying to crack the code and save the convoy steaming across the Atlantic from the German U-boats, but there's also the personal tale of a man struggling to unravel a personal mystery.

This is a story loosely, very loosely, based on British intelligence's efforts to crack the Nazi encryption codes used during World War II. The screenplay was adapted from the novel by Robert Harris by playwright Tom Stoppard whose cinematic credits include Brazil (1985) and Shakespeare in Love (1998). Dougray Scott stars as Tom Jericho who is decidedly not Alan Turing, the troubled genius who spearheaded the amazingly successful effort that allowed the Allies to know in advance what the Nazis were up to. The true story is one of the most fascinating to come out of WWII.

This fictionalization is also a very good story. Michael Apted's direction gives us a nice feel for the era and for the type of people involved, intellectual and somewhat nerdish, creative people who were as valuable to the war effort, or even more so, than the soldiers in the field. Dougray Scott does a nice job of depicting a mathematician who has gone a little crazy because of an abortive love affair with a beautiful intelligence clerk, Claire Romilly (Saffron Burrows). He is sent away after cracking the Nazi code, but when the Nazis institute a new code he is returned from the nut house and pressed back into service. Still haunted by the memory of Claire, it is not clear that he is of any use. When he discovers that Claire is missing, the subplot begins with Jericho and Hester Wallace (Kate Winslet), once Claire's roommate, sleuthing through top secret intelligence files looking for clues to determine what happened to Claire and whether she was a spy or not. What they discover along the way of course is each other. Watching them is Wigram, a rakish secret service agent with a heart of pure darkness, played with mystery and an arrogant ruthlessness by Jeremy Northam.

Billed as a thinking man's thriller, it is that. However, the plot suffers from two main problems: Claire can only be seen in flashback (I would like to have seen more of the woman who said, "Poor you. I really got under your skin, didn't I?"), and the action of the film must take place within a few days time, which means that Jericho must simultaneously crack the new code, find out what happened to Claire, and romance Hester. I don't think Apted's direction successfully solved these problems. His concentration on a realistic "feel" to the movie merely masked them.

Nonetheless, one can appreciate the action and remain fully immersed even while not following all of the plot's intricacies. The juxtaposition of the tall, blonde player of men in the person of the beautiful Saffron Burrows with the short, full-figured, Nancy Drew-like Hester in the person of the beautiful and gifted Kate Winslet was a stroke of casting genius. They are fascinating to watch. The contrast between the sensitive and vulnerable Jericho and the worldly and immoral Wigram provided an interesting balance. All four of the leads were excellent.

But see this for Tom Stoppard, who might be called "a thinking man's" screenwriter. His gift for writing witty and authentic dialogue based on research and a finely trained ear is part of what makes this an interesting film well worth seeing.

While most movies that are released during the summer lack sophistication, great acting, and a plot, this film has them all: in spades. Endlessly interesting and complimented by John Barry's haunting score, "Enigma" delivers one cinematic pleasure after another.

The story, set in WWII, and based on real events, centers on Tom Jehrico (Dougray Scott), a brilliant codebreaker at Blenchly Park, who cracked the Nazi Enigma code. But now that code has been changed, and supplies that the British need for the war are in jeopardy. Not to mention the lives of the crews on those ships. Complicating matters is the disappearance of his ex-lover,Claire (Saffron Burrows), which has cast the shadow of suspicion over Tom as the possible traitor. Teaming with Claire's doudy roommate Hester (Kate Winslet), the two race to crack the code and unmask the traitor before hundreds of lives are lost. All the while, the mysterious Wigram (Jeremy Northam) seems to always be following them. . .

My summary of the plot simply doesn't do it justice. This film must be seen to be truly appreciated. Scott is great as the haggard, brilliant mathematician whose heart has been been broken, and Winslet is wonderful as the witty and underappreciated Hester. But the real standout is Jeremy Northam who steals every scene he is in, as the very dapper, and very suspicious Wigram.

The dialogue in the film crackles thanks to a great screenplay by Tom Stoppard which was based on the bestselling novel by Robert Harris. Do yourself a favor and check out this example of smart adult cinema.

I really liked the adaptation of A.S. Byatt's ANGELS AND INSECTS and I was hoping the film vertsion of A.S. Byatt's POSSESSION would be equally satisfying but it's not. The story is irresistable to English lit types like myself. One day while going through a literay archive a research assisstant finds an original letter written by a famous Victorian poet tucked between the pages of an old book. The letter is a love letter to an unknown lover which is doubly surprising since the poet was thought to have been a devoted husband. The research assistant immediately understands the importance of the letter and so he takes it with the intent of using it to determine just who the poet may have been writing to. Meanwhile the poet is the subject of a major retrospective and anything related to him is fetching high prices at auction so the letter has not only literary value but monetary value as well and so once the existence of the letter is made known intrigue soon follows it wherever it goes. This should have been a really easy movie to make because its got everything from romance to suspense. Unfortunately a bit of miscasting ruins the film right away. Aaron Eckhart is a scruffy blonde American and he is cast as a scruffy blonde American. But the role requires depth and passion for literature as well and Eckhart conveys neither. This actor also has a noted lack of passion for his co-star, Gwyneth Paltrow. This makes both actors look bad. Given a proper co-star Paltrow would have given a stellar performance but she has no one to act with. Eckhart just isn't right. Hes a good looking guy but he looks out of place in a library and he looks bored when hes next to Gwyneth and so we get bored with him. When he crosses paths with Paltrow we are supposed to believe she falls for him precisely because he's not English and so presumably has fewer hang-ups than the uptight restrained Englishmen she usually dates but on the contrary he has more hang-ups than anyone in the film. Maybe she falls for him because he is not intellectually complicated(just emotionally wounded), that would be a reasonable explanation but whatever the reason the chemistry simply is not there. It looks like Eckhart and Paltrow don't want to kiss and so its just awkward to watch them force themselves on each other for the camera. Eckhart hasn't yet learned how to convey a variety of emotions, he always has the same lackadaisical (perhaps self-absorbed) look on his scruffy face.

On the other hand, as virtually every other reviewer has noted, the Victorian love affair between the poet Randolph Ash and his lover Christobel LaMotte which we see acted out as the researchers uncover each strand of their story is very nice and convincing and satisfying. But be warned these period scenes are brief in comparison with the modern scenes. And unfortunately the very competent acting done by the period performers just makes the modern pair look all the more lost when we return to the present tense.

As an alternative to this I would suggest renting THE FRENCH LIEUTENANTS WOMAN (Meryl Streep & Jeremy Irons)instead to those viewers who really want to see a great film which contrasts love and art in two distinct time periods. Or if you are an A.S. Byatt fan I would suggest renting ANGELS AND INSECTS.

"Possession" is one of those movies where as soon as it is over you want to go out and read the novel upon which it is based the better to be able to enjoy the full tapestry of the story. Reading A. S. Byatt's 1990 Booker Prize-winning novel would also allow you to better appreciate the adaptation by David Henry Hwang, Laura Jones and director Neil LaBute, which offers some interesting and creative approaches, both in terms of the story and how it is portrayed cinematically.

The story is essentially a romantic mystery. American Roland Michell (Aaron Eckhart) is working as an assistant to a literature professor in London doing research on Randolph Henry Ash (Jeremy Northam), a poet Laureate during the reign of Queen Victoria. Roland discovers some letters from Ash that suggest the poet, a paragon of devotion with regards to his wife, had a romantic relationship with Christabel LaMotte (Jennifer Ehle), a minor poet and apparent lesbian, at least according to the historical record that exists. Roland enlists Maud Bailey (Gwyneth Paltrow), a English scholar who studies LaMotte, and the two begin their journey as literary detectives.

Of course a romantic relationship will develop between Roland and Maud as they are caught up in revealing the past of Randolph and Christabel. However, I have to admit that I was much more interested in the detective work unlocking the secrets of the lovers from the past than the slowly developing romance between the two scholars. Actually, I was much more interested in the romance of the two lovers in the past rather than in the present. This is not only because my academic interests are extremely sympathetic with unraveling the meaning of ancient texts, but also because the two poets have more hurdles to overcome in the romance department. After all, Eckhart and Paltrow are so good looking that their physical union is no more in doubt than their intellectual coming together. This film might actually have benefited from having less better looking leds in terms of this particular story.

LaBute gets points for the rather seamless way that he shifts back and forth between the past and the present as letters and locations allow us to slip back and forth between the two. I also have a real affection for films that still do the old trick of having stage hands move things around so that a total transformation is achieved on a set within a single panning shot back and forth. But what makes "Possession" so memorable is the powerful final scene and the haunting final shot, which is where this 2002 film achives its own sense of the poetic.

I am hard pressed to explain why I am only giving this film four stars given how much I like it; my best guess is because the film is only 102 minutes long and because this is a literary adaptation I cannot help but think this is the abridged version. There are a few deleted scenes available on the DVD, but they do not indicate anything substantial missing from the film. I also wanted to lose myself more in the story of Randolph and Christabel, and the Victorian world in which they lived. I really liked this film, but what I really wanted was to love it.

"Possession" directed by Neil LaBute starring Gwyneth Paltrow was the last thing in the world I ever expected to enjoy watching. I only saw this film because I had already seen everything that was playing in my local theathre except this. I was bored wanted to go out, so I figured, why not?
I had no clue what this film was about, so everything that took place just suprised me. And, maybe that was the best way to see this film. "Possession" is a film, I just love! The movie brims with passion. It's such a tender, gentle, extremely well crafted love story, that to resist it, one has to have no life flowing through their veins. It was a suprise hit, that makes me sad to think, not many people will go see this movie. It's something the American public will deem, to "arty".
"Possession" tells the story of how two people, Roland Michell (Aaron Eckhart) and Maud Baily (Gwyneth Paltrow) trace down an unknown love affair that took place 100 years ago between two Victorian poets; Randolph Ash (Jeremy Northam) and Christable LaMotte (Jennifer Ehle). As the two of them unravel this mystery they themselves start to fall in love also. Now, of course I can't go into any more detail of the plot then I already have. To do so would merely ruin the whole experince for you.
"Possession" is so beautifully told, it's director, Neil LaBute, a director whom I've never watched a movie by, really handled the material with such simplicity that to do it any other way, the story would come off as being forced. The movie just seems to flow, like a good poem it almost carries a lyrical motif. The acting, the cinematography by Jean-Yves Escoffier is so perfect that I just fell under the film's spell.
"Possession" is one of the year's best films and is a film I can only hope will receieve a few Oscar nominations when the time comes. Gwyneth Paltrow, an actress who I usually don't like does a wonderful job. So far it's one of the best performances I've seen an actress give this year. And the screenplay by LaBute, Laura Jones & David Henry Hwang should also get nominated for their adaptation of A.S. Byatt's novel.
Everyone should try to go see this movie. Take a quick break from the loud summer action movies we've been subjected to these past months and enjoy what this film has to offer. You'll be pleased in the end.
Bottom-line: "Possession" is a movie swelling with passion. It's absorbing, sometimes tragic love story carries you away with it. It's one of the year's best films!

When I read the few negative reviews among all the raves, I figured that some people are simply not sophisticated to appreciate a good movie. I was wrong. Gosford Park is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. It is incomprehensible when it comes to connecting the characters. Certainly, this movie would be better watched a second time. But why torture yourself to a second viewing of a movie that goes nowhere?

That is my only question about this waste of money.

A previous reviewer refers to this film as a 'classical Agatha Christie whodunnit'. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Never would Agatha Christie, mistress of her craft, have written such a feeble mystery. For a start, the murder doesn't take place until more than halfway through the film, the detective when he appears is an idiot who couldn't detect his way out of a paper bag, and it's pretty obvious from the start who the murderer is, and why she did it. Pathetic. The film is riddled with cliches, all the upper-class characters are grim and repressed, all the working-class characters are warm, vibrant, life-loving etc. The film is just about worth watching for the performance of Maggie Smith, playing the only interesting character in the film, and the lovely Ivor Novello music. As a mystery, the film is hopeless.

When I read the few negative reviews among all the raves, I figured that some people are simply not sophisticated to appreciate a good movie. I was wrong. Gosford Park is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. It is incomprehensible when it comes to connecting the characters. Certainly, this movie would be better watched a second time. But why torture yourself to a second viewing of a movie that goes nowhere?

That is my only question about this waste of money.

A previous reviewer refers to this film as a 'classical Agatha Christie whodunnit'. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Never would Agatha Christie, mistress of her craft, have written such a feeble mystery. For a start, the murder doesn't take place until more than halfway through the film, the detective when he appears is an idiot who couldn't detect his way out of a paper bag, and it's pretty obvious from the start who the murderer is, and why she did it. Pathetic. The film is riddled with cliches, all the upper-class characters are grim and repressed, all the working-class characters are warm, vibrant, life-loving etc. The film is just about worth watching for the performance of Maggie Smith, playing the only interesting character in the film, and the lovely Ivor Novello music. As a mystery, the film is hopeless.

Having read the book and now seen the film, still dissatisfied with the ending, but won't spoil it for you. Good characterization around a strong tale. Sophie Ward plays the unhappy, lonely Alice, ripe for an intense relationship with Clodagh, the persistent local extrovert who pursues her. The very talented Kerry Fox obviously enjoys the role, but not even she can carry a jarring change in personality mid-way through. And the writers fail her badly with some cliched, melodramatic lines towards the end. But Sophie Ward is luminous as the blossoming Alice. She manages some extremely difficult emotions with an admirable honesty, and skilfully portrays Alice's changing circumstances. As for art mirroring life, I doubt that she imagined when she played this role that it would be so true for her. Sophie's real life 'ending' was a whole lot braver than Joanna Trollope could manage. Certainly worth seeing for quality acting by the main characters, and a sublime supporting cast. END

This writer's work has been "bowdlerised", that is, expurgated, andheterosexualised as to be acceptable for mainstream cinematic viewing. The scriptwriter, producer and director (all women, incidently - for shame) are directly responsible for the way that Ms Trollope's novel about self-discovery, via an unsuccessful marriage and cathartic love affair, has been transformed into a cautionary tale about the kind of woman your mother warned you about. Upon discovery of the affair in the film, Alice (our heroine) goes to her husband and asks for a second chance; in the book, she asks for a divorce. In the book, Alice is a weeping wreck and Clodagh (the 'other woman') determined to show her how to appreciate herself and life; in the film, Alice is post-natally depressed and Clodagh a shallow seducer. In the film, Alice harangues Clodagh for not concealing their relationship; in the book, Alice says she would like to tell everyone. In the film, everyone wants a piece of Alice; in the book, Clodagh loves her as she lets her go, reluctantly, to find her own way. And Alice loves Clodagh as they let each other go, knowing too much emotional baggage would not see them through. In the film, Alice drives 'off into the sunset' (and then...?); in the book, Alice learns to be sufficient unto herself. I rest my case; a good queer story, skewed straight. Hand out the awards to Sophie Ward and Kerry Fox (yay, fabulous Kerry, fellow Kiwi!) who, not for a moment compromise their acting (including some sumptuous lip-locks) to a skilfully doctored script. And another award for Joanna Trollope's excellent story. Watch the film - it's well worth it. And read the book to find out what the author REALLY intended.