Steineded How sad is this?

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Roedy Green The most appealing thing about this movie is the sound. Much of the movie takes place in a fine old mansion. The sound captures that. There is usually lots going on off screen left and right. The dialogue is crystal clear. I found myself putting more attention into the sound than the visuals.This is a story about Britons of privilege in the 1920s. The movie captures the music, the costumes, the furnishings in a sumptuous way. The actor who plays the matriarch brilliantly exudes haughty disdain while technically being perfectly polite.The two lead characters have a gay relationship that never seems to go beyond a bit of flirtation. I found that simply not believable. It was a tease.The main theme of the movie is the way the Catholic church utterly ruins the lives of three people, who take religion far too seriously. According to the Catholics, this life is worthless, mere preparation for the hereafter. The preoccupation with sin hamstrings all three so they waste their lives worrying about petty rules. The Church teaches that Catholics are superior to everyone else, and blocks love with non- Catholics. Catholics shun anyone who breaks one of their rules, and feel smugly superior about doing that.Finally Catholics force a Latin death ceremony on an atheist who strenuously objects.The movie a bit of a downer as we watch one of the leads kill himself slowly with alcoholism.

patrick powell Julian Jarrold's interpretation of Brideshead Revisited is not exactly bad, but it's not very good either and, for me, is a great disappointment. Evelyn Waugh is my favourite author, but even I admit that Brideshead is something of the cuckoo in the nest in his work (and he also admits in a preface to later editions that he did tone down the sumptuousness of the novel's first incarnation). It is not typical of his work. Having said that, it is still a damn sight more subtle than Jarrold's film.Matthew Goode as Charles Ryder does rather well as the middle-class lad who is bowled over by every aspect of the Catholic aristocratic family which takes him under its wing. But Ben Whishaw's Sebastian Flyte is a parody. It doesn't help that I can't stand Wishaw and have loathed his every performance, but I'll try not to let that influence this appraisal.In a sense Wishaw's two-dimensional portrayal of Sebastian as a young, weak, very gay, spoilt and rich man adrift in the world and life typifies what, in my view, is wrong with Jarrold's film. Where Waugh has a light touch and is subtle and ambiguous, Jarrold uses far too broad a brush to paint his picture and thereby kills the piece stone dead. It might survive for later generations as an entertaining enough period piece, but it can and should expect no higher praise than that.Certainly, there are a great many aspects of the film which score well: the production is good, the casting - except for bloody Wishaw - is decent, but without hitting the bullseye in translating the novel's essence to the silver screen, all those successes are rather pointless.

pik923 Okay I admit that it took me awhile to see the film after it was released - three years that is. And I loved the very very beginning of the film, and thought this would be really good, that British touch of taking a sensuous, romantic period piece and making it work on film. But this doesn't cut it. Unfortunate - because M. Goode is really great in the lead role. He steals it for me, as does the young man who plays Sebastian. Emma T is wasted in the film - not her fault. The script isn't' as good as it could be, and there are moments where one could perhaps fault the editing, direction, adaptation? not sure. But it doesn't flow as well as it could flow.With all that said, may I suggest everyone enjoy the wonderful British TV series of the story. It really is great - not just great film, but great TV and great story telling.This doesn't work. Too bad - I'm sorry for all involved, it had potential.

Rui Miguel Duarte Doing re-makes may be attractive to the uncreative directors who can't come up with an idea of their own; but doing re-makes may also be a tricky business: You always have an original measure against. Now doing re-makes of Jeremy Irons is brave indeed. I only now saw the film and was left with the feeling that some people don't really know where they get into. It would be more prudent to imitate comic books or second-rate performances by third-class actors. The problem with doing a remake of Brideshead Revisited on screen is that the original is darn good. Attempting a remake would demand a whole battery of Emma Thompsons and most of all a better direction and writing.Lovely Julia, by the way! One day, all women will look like that!