Jeremy-Northam Movie Reviews

This movie was very boring, it was hard for me to beleive the actors and enter into the story, I could not wait it to end. I do like Uma thurman has an actress and the atmosphere and all the beautiful costumes was great but it could not help to save this movie.

Long after he made film versions of Henry James with "The Europeans" and "The Bostonians," James Ivory, acclaimed director, came back to this author with another film adaptation of "The Golden Bowl." Actually, Ivory had been thinking about the possibility of making films of "The Portrait of a Lady" or "The Wings of a Dove," but they were taken up as text by Jane Campion and Iain Softley respectively, so he turned to this book, the last one of James. The result is, I think, rather closer to the former rather than to the latter; like Nicole Kidman as Isabel, the film expresses with gorgeous costumes and props, but lefts its heart somewhere behind.

The story, very faithful to the original book, is comparatively simple. "Prince" Amerigo (Jeremy Northam playing, unaccountably, an Italian) belongs to a once prosperous and prestigious Italian family, which, however, is now finacially reduced. He meets and keeps a romantic attachment with a beautiful woman Charlotte Stant (Uma Thurman, gorgeous as ever), but without enough money he decides to marry Maggie Verver (Kate Beckinsale), daughter of rich American tycoon and collector of fine art Adam Verver (Nick Nolte), but still keeps on his clandestine meeting with Charlotte (who happens to be Maggie's best friend), who in turn married Adam. This delicate equiliburium of secret love lasts only for a short time until an incident happens, when Maggie comes to realize that her husband is having an affair with her friend: until the titular golden bowl, apparently perfect, but deep inside flawed and cracked like the relations of the chracters here, shatters into pieces.

The melodramatic (and some say banal) story of the book is preserved for most part, by the pen of Ruth Prawer Jhabvola, and probably no complaint would be heard from the fans of the original Henry James book. However, as is the case with "The Portrait of a Lady," it is also unlikely to convert film viewers to James fans, because the values described here is irrevocably dated. No one, at least in the most part of Western culture today, would not look at the theme of adultery as the people in the film do. You would think, looking at the tormented heroine such as Isabell Archer or Charotte Stant: If you don't like him, why don't you leave him?

In fact, this is the point of the book, which deals with the unique situations of the people trapped in the mores of the high sphere of society, tracing how a certain set of people would act in a given time and place, according to the social and phychological codes ruling over them. And now the film has a big trouble; in short, how can the movie interpret the subtle relations of the book (which, incidentally, is a very difficult to read, as every reader would find)?; how should the film present, before the more liberal modern audience, the believable characters that they can relate to, or at least, understand?

The film, trying to overcome this problem, succeeds but not perfectly. After Maggie realizes the truth about realtions between her husband and Charlotte, things start to change. The people who know the truth -- Amerigo and Charlotte -- are now left in the dark while the people who didn't -- Maggie and Adam Verver -- start to gain power over the former pair. The table has been turned, with the broken cup of gold, which is flawed....

... and flawed as the film itself. Charlotte and her husband go to American City, leaving behind Maggie and Amerigo, and thus Charlotte is virtually "packed" and "sent" to America where she will be buried alive for the rest of her life. On the other hand, Amerigo goes back to her wife Maggie, with a "Prince"-like attitude, saying that he loves his wife, as if nothing had happened. But he is also imprisoned in a family life he never cares. This crucial part of the book is displayed so weakly that some may be left confused watching the ending of the film.

This happens, I think, because of the film's cast: though Thurman and Northamm are good choice for the roles and fit in them pretty successfully, Nick Nolte and Kate Beckinsale are both greatly miscast: they just do not look like father and daughter who aodre each other. And more to the point, both characters of father and daughter should be given, my impression after reading the book tells me, more ruthlessness, or even menace, in separating the lovers of Charlotte and Amerigo. The fact is, they, father and daughter, conspire without saying that they need to conspire. The tycoon father literally collects Charlotte, and that cruelty is in the book with a striking lasso image, which hangs around Charlotte's neck, and of which end Adam holds firmly. Nolte briefly shows this side of the character when he silently and grimly supervises his wife's lecture about his pictures before the guests. But it is not enough at all, and about Kate Beckinsale, her acting is, sorry fans, but far from satisfactory, to convince us the authenticity of the last confrontation scene between Maggie and Charlotte, which is not so much suggestive of her inner feeling, as simply confusing.

All in all, the film is good; as you expect from Ivory's films, you see costumes and props that are delight to your eyes. Still, the film shows unwittingly that some books cannot be made into film. Probably, the most successful film adaptaion of the books of Henry James is Wyler's "Heirness," which is based on "Washington Square." This gives, however, least of James's taste.

Unlike other reviewers, I haven't read _The Golden Bowl_ and I hate Henry James. Perhaps that's why I adored this film. Visually, it is even more sumptuous than most Merchant and Ivory films. But what makes the movie more than just a pretty package is Jeremy Northam, who in addition to being stunningly handsome as ever, delivers a performance of depth and nuance. Along with his wonderful roles in _Emma_ and _The Winslow Boy_, the part of Amerigo should help establish Northam as one of the best actors around, up there in my mind with Kenneth Branagh and . . . well I can't think of many others as good. Kate Beckinsale is also astonishing in this film, doing a much better job of playing an ingenue who finds unknown inner strength in a time of need than Winona Ryder did in _The Age of Innocence_. And the ever-reliable Nick Nolte delivers a believable, complex performance. The only thing that made this film a four-star rather than five-star film in my book was the appalling performance of Uma Thurman, who is so bad that at the climax of the film, when she delivers what should be the most poignant line of the movie, I actually burst out laughing in the theatre (very embarrassing). I can't think why directors haven't noticed that Ms. Thurman is these days merely a pretty face, but the rest of the cast and the production was stellar, and the story gripped my interest throughout.

This movie was very boring, it was hard for me to beleive the actors and enter into the story, I could not wait it to end. I do like Uma thurman has an actress and the atmosphere and all the beautiful costumes was great but it could not help to save this movie.

Long after he made film versions of Henry James with "The Europeans" and "The Bostonians," James Ivory, acclaimed director, came back to this author with another film adaptation of "The Golden Bowl." Actually, Ivory had been thinking about the possibility of making films of "The Portrait of a Lady" or "The Wings of a Dove," but they were taken up as text by Jane Campion and Iain Softley respectively, so he turned to this book, the last one of James. The result is, I think, rather closer to the former rather than to the latter; like Nicole Kidman as Isabel, the film expresses with gorgeous costumes and props, but lefts its heart somewhere behind.

The story, very faithful to the original book, is comparatively simple. "Prince" Amerigo (Jeremy Northam playing, unaccountably, an Italian) belongs to a once prosperous and prestigious Italian family, which, however, is now finacially reduced. He meets and keeps a romantic attachment with a beautiful woman Charlotte Stant (Uma Thurman, gorgeous as ever), but without enough money he decides to marry Maggie Verver (Kate Beckinsale), daughter of rich American tycoon and collector of fine art Adam Verver (Nick Nolte), but still keeps on his clandestine meeting with Charlotte (who happens to be Maggie's best friend), who in turn married Adam. This delicate equiliburium of secret love lasts only for a short time until an incident happens, when Maggie comes to realize that her husband is having an affair with her friend: until the titular golden bowl, apparently perfect, but deep inside flawed and cracked like the relations of the chracters here, shatters into pieces.

The melodramatic (and some say banal) story of the book is preserved for most part, by the pen of Ruth Prawer Jhabvola, and probably no complaint would be heard from the fans of the original Henry James book. However, as is the case with "The Portrait of a Lady," it is also unlikely to convert film viewers to James fans, because the values described here is irrevocably dated. No one, at least in the most part of Western culture today, would not look at the theme of adultery as the people in the film do. You would think, looking at the tormented heroine such as Isabell Archer or Charotte Stant: If you don't like him, why don't you leave him?

In fact, this is the point of the book, which deals with the unique situations of the people trapped in the mores of the high sphere of society, tracing how a certain set of people would act in a given time and place, according to the social and phychological codes ruling over them. And now the film has a big trouble; in short, how can the movie interpret the subtle relations of the book (which, incidentally, is a very difficult to read, as every reader would find)?; how should the film present, before the more liberal modern audience, the believable characters that they can relate to, or at least, understand?

The film, trying to overcome this problem, succeeds but not perfectly. After Maggie realizes the truth about realtions between her husband and Charlotte, things start to change. The people who know the truth -- Amerigo and Charlotte -- are now left in the dark while the people who didn't -- Maggie and Adam Verver -- start to gain power over the former pair. The table has been turned, with the broken cup of gold, which is flawed....

... and flawed as the film itself. Charlotte and her husband go to American City, leaving behind Maggie and Amerigo, and thus Charlotte is virtually "packed" and "sent" to America where she will be buried alive for the rest of her life. On the other hand, Amerigo goes back to her wife Maggie, with a "Prince"-like attitude, saying that he loves his wife, as if nothing had happened. But he is also imprisoned in a family life he never cares. This crucial part of the book is displayed so weakly that some may be left confused watching the ending of the film.

This happens, I think, because of the film's cast: though Thurman and Northamm are good choice for the roles and fit in them pretty successfully, Nick Nolte and Kate Beckinsale are both greatly miscast: they just do not look like father and daughter who aodre each other. And more to the point, both characters of father and daughter should be given, my impression after reading the book tells me, more ruthlessness, or even menace, in separating the lovers of Charlotte and Amerigo. The fact is, they, father and daughter, conspire without saying that they need to conspire. The tycoon father literally collects Charlotte, and that cruelty is in the book with a striking lasso image, which hangs around Charlotte's neck, and of which end Adam holds firmly. Nolte briefly shows this side of the character when he silently and grimly supervises his wife's lecture about his pictures before the guests. But it is not enough at all, and about Kate Beckinsale, her acting is, sorry fans, but far from satisfactory, to convince us the authenticity of the last confrontation scene between Maggie and Charlotte, which is not so much suggestive of her inner feeling, as simply confusing.

All in all, the film is good; as you expect from Ivory's films, you see costumes and props that are delight to your eyes. Still, the film shows unwittingly that some books cannot be made into film. Probably, the most successful film adaptaion of the books of Henry James is Wyler's "Heirness," which is based on "Washington Square." This gives, however, least of James's taste.

Unlike other reviewers, I haven't read _The Golden Bowl_ and I hate Henry James. Perhaps that's why I adored this film. Visually, it is even more sumptuous than most Merchant and Ivory films. But what makes the movie more than just a pretty package is Jeremy Northam, who in addition to being stunningly handsome as ever, delivers a performance of depth and nuance. Along with his wonderful roles in _Emma_ and _The Winslow Boy_, the part of Amerigo should help establish Northam as one of the best actors around, up there in my mind with Kenneth Branagh and . . . well I can't think of many others as good. Kate Beckinsale is also astonishing in this film, doing a much better job of playing an ingenue who finds unknown inner strength in a time of need than Winona Ryder did in _The Age of Innocence_. And the ever-reliable Nick Nolte delivers a believable, complex performance. The only thing that made this film a four-star rather than five-star film in my book was the appalling performance of Uma Thurman, who is so bad that at the climax of the film, when she delivers what should be the most poignant line of the movie, I actually burst out laughing in the theatre (very embarrassing). I can't think why directors haven't noticed that Ms. Thurman is these days merely a pretty face, but the rest of the cast and the production was stellar, and the story gripped my interest throughout.

Movies which are remakes, such as Gloria, can make things difficult for yours truly. My first instinct is to compare them to the original. Then I realize that, more often than not, most of my readers haven't seen the original, unless it's famous, like Psycho or The Mummy. The situation is akin to that tag-line at the start of all movies on video these days. That's the one that tells you the movie has been formatted to fit this [TV] screen. What that means is that about a third of the movie image has been chopped off. Yet, if you didn't see the film in a theater, you don't miss what you never saw.

For the record, the original Gloria came out in 1980. It was a small independent film by John Cassevetes starring his wife, Gena Rowlands. I recall it's being a tight, first rate thriller about a gangster's girlfriend's one chance of doing good. The role was tailored for Rowlands, and her performance alone is well worth seeing the movie, if you can find it. My other memory of it is that it was shockingly violent for its time.

The new version of Gloria is fairly faithful to the original plot. Gloria, this time played by the underrated Sharon Stone, has just gotten out of prison, where she has served three years to save the skin of her gangster boyfriend, Frank [Jeremy Northam]. During her stay in the slammer, she's had a lot of time to think. She thinks, for instance, about how Frank never once visited her. She goes to Frank and tells him that the relationship is over and that all she wants is the large sum of money he promised her for taking the rap for him. He refuses to give it to her.

Meanwhile, the gang's accountant has tried to give himself some protection by creating a computer disk which has the names of all those involved in the outfit's criminal activities. The plan backfires, and, in trying to get the disk, one of Frank's trigger happy henchmen kills the accountant, as well as his wife, mother and daughter. Only his eight-year old son Nicky [Jean-Luke Figueroa] escapes, but is quickly caught and brought to Frank's apartment. It is there that Gloria and Nicky's paths cross. Gloria must decide whether or not to risk her life in order to save the boy.

Gloria was directed by Sidney Lumet, whose credits include Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon and Murder on the Orient Express. This sophisticated New Yorker here fails to deliver a superior film. The photography of the New York locales is superb, and Howard Shore delivers a great music score. Gloria is one of the screen's most memorable characters and certainly one of its most unlikely heroines. She is streetwise, tough, shrewd and very self-centered. Doing the right thing does not come naturally to her. Sharon Stone undoubtedly could have given a performance equal to Gena Rowland's, if only the movie had stayed more focused on her. This new version is also hampered by a couple of plot holes, each bigger than the one that sank the Titanic. Still, assuming you have not seen the original, this should be fairly decent escapist entertainment.

In a comment on our times, the violence in the new version is much more graphic, yet by modern standards, it's fairly tame.

Okay, so Sharon Stone isn't Gena Rowlands, but hey she never pretended to be and her rendition of gangster's moll Gloria is a pretty good 1999 remake with a few changes that help rather than hinder the plot. I have to admit that the original film is still my favourite but I still think this is worth watching.

Sharon Stone gives a cracking performance as a tart with heart when she takes on a child orphaned by the mafia and sets about saving his life and her own. This is an up-to-date Gloria with little Nicky clutching a computer disc rather than a book of names that could bring Gloria's ex-friends crashing down from their villainous thrones. Unlike Gena Rowlands version, Sharon Stone's version of the film is not so overtly violent, relying instead on short bouts of brutality that doesn't leave too many people dead and dying in the gutter. There are also some memorable moments, most of them containing Stone wearing the most outrageous outfits I have ever seen on a woman! Her black dress in the opening jail scene is a cracker, she looks like Liz Hurley at the Oscars, only better looking, and her choice of clothes to take little Nicky to Catholic School, played by newcomer Jean-Luke Figueroa makes you laugh out loud. What on earth will the Nuns make of this brassy young thing???? I mean a skirt so short it makes your eyes water and those shoes, how on earth did she walk in them?

All in all Sharon Stone gives a gutsy performance, and so does her little co-star Nicky, dodging bullets, gangsters and crooked cops as they struggled to stay alive, relying always on Stone's survival instinct and biting humour. The film isn't as fast paced as the Gena Rowlands version but it is entertaining enough and it has times when it is touching and thought provoking. The wonderful George C Scott is excellent as the mobster Ruby who has a soft spot for Gloria, and it is through him that Gloria and Nicky find a form of salvation and safety.

Worth watching as long as you don't compare it too closely with the Gena Rowlands version. I enjoyed it anyway.

I have read the other reviews on this rendition of "Gloria", and I believe every one of those ranks the Gena Rowlands original as the better production. I disagree. I much preferred the Sharon Stone version. I rented both versions and saw the Gena Rowlands version first. The next night a saw the Sharon Stone version. I much preferred the Sharon Stone version, and I placed an order to buy a copy tonight.

The language is more poignant in the Stone version, and some people may be turned off by this. But I see this as being typical of the type of characters being portrayed. Remember, Gloria has just served 3 years in prison for a crime she did not commit. Then her boy friend would not give her the money he promised for taking the rap. The language is similar to that being heard today on the Soprano series.

The original version was good, the remake is better. Photography is better - I loved the car chase scene.

This is an enjoyable suspenseful film to watch.

Here is a classic example of excelent talent mixed with a terrible plot. This movie is awful, don't waste your time