FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

HarlowMGM DREAMING OF Joseph LEES is one of the most romantic pictures of recent years but it is seriously marred by a pretentious streak, improbable character actions, and a artsy ambiguous ending that is a cheat. Samantha Morton gives an excellent performance but Eva is such an incredibly plain heroine that it's odd why two quite handsome (one of them, Rupert, extraordinarily handsome) men would be obsessed with this little church mouse.Set in 1958 rural England, Eva has long mooned over a distant cousin, Joseph Lees, who unlike the rest of her relatives has gone off to see the world and is interested in "books and things". Eva is pursued by a local pig farmer Harry who longs to be a prizefighter and longs to bed Eva. Having not hear anything about Joseph in years, Eva decides to slide into a relationship with the persistent Harry, only to have Joseph suddenly reappear and for the dark side of Harry's obsession to be revealed.I found the screenwriter's sympathy with Harry downright offensive given his truly dangerous personality. When Eva, upset with his barking dogs, tells him to "get rid of them", he does - he shoots them!! Later he goes and self-mutilates himself ( thinking perhaps Eva's emotional tie to Joseph was sympathy based?) - this is some scary sh*t and yet the screenwriter treats it all like, poor thing he really loves her and its tearing him apart. I realize this is set in the late 1950's (though you would never know it from some of the clothes and hairstyles) but even then women had more options that just feeling obligated for life to the person who deflowered them. That everybody was so sympathetic to Harry for all the emotional BS he put Eva through was just bizarre to me. The ending leaves it up in the air what will be Eva's final decision - Harry or Joseph - it's an artsy twist that the producers should have demanded be rewritten. There is a slight hint she will go with Joseph (her sister's smile) but it's certainly not clear what her final decision will be. Had the producers brought in someone to rewrite the script they may have had themselves a major hit instead of what it is, a obscure little film not seen by many and one of the very few from recent years that has never been released on DVD.The performances are excellent though - the young actress playing the little sister is really good and the ever dashing Rupert Graves proves once again he is one of the best actors in films today. But let's face it - if a woman has to choose between Rupert Graves or somebody else, unless that woman is mentally unbalanced herself, "somebody else" hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell.

geekwoman My best friend and I sat down to watch this film, and 15 minutes in, were were sitting in disbelief that this film was even made.Most distinctly, why is Joseph Lees the object of her desires?? No backstory, no explanation as to how they came to their obsessions with one another, and it seemed so ham handedly handled as to be laughable.The story went nowhere. The characters would go from good to bad, hot to cold, flirting to obsessed in the blink of an eye with no reason. What were these people's motivations?The music was EXTREMELY overbearing, and the cut-action slow motion edits looked like a bad student film.WARNING! small spoiler ahead: as my friend and I were watching we were yelling at the screen, and when we come to the scene where Harry is passed out on the bed after his lustful romp with the trampy girl (BTW, where did *that* come from?) and Eva walks into the room, I yelled "Smell his fingers!" in my crass way, and to my utter shock and disbelief, she did. That right there ruined the entire movie for me. That was really bad. Seriously bad.

Graham Hughes Plotless, pointless, tediously dull and lifeless. This film is a serious contender for the worst film that Britain has ever made. It is therefore no surprise to see Samantha Morton, the actress in the equally dreadful Brit-flick Under the Skin (1997), takes the leading role. Whereas dreadful Hollywood fodder like Showgirls, Battlefield Earth and Wild Wild West have some (although not many) redeeming features, Joseph Lees has none. It's not even fun to watch as a bad film. It starts off awful and then declines from there. It's the celluloid equivalent of Japanese water torture.Why is it so bad? Well, it is the sum of its parts. The direction is pedestrian, the acting is rotten, the script is dull, the story is predictable, the setting is miserable and all the characters do is mope around for two hours looking depressed. However, it is the sheer pointlessness of it all that deals the crushing blow. There is nobody to root for, nobody you can equate to, nobody to really care about. There is no humour, no emotion, no life, no empathy and nothing to make you want to watch it to the end.Imagine sitting for in an empty bar being spoken at by somebody incredibly boring and utterly unlikeable about something you do not care about. They talk in a dull, monotone voice, and after two painfully slow hours, they get up mid-sentence and leave without saying goodbye, even though you had the decency to sit there a waste a couple of hours of your life listening to their inane little tale.It would be more enjoyable to sit through all eight hours of Andy Warhol's lesson in pointless film-making, Empire, without a toilet break. Why the producers saw fit to spend the limited resources of the British film industry to make a godawful film that nobody would want to see boggles the mind. The only use for this film would be to show film students in a 'How Not To Make Movies' class. Avoid at all costs.

AZINDN Again, the Brits show off their capacity for quality adult drama, story lines not dummied down for public consumption, and actors whose ability to shine in roles without special effects, gratuitous nudity, and oversize lips makes this film a viewing delight. Rupert Graves is an actor whose face reflects emotional pain and sensuality in equal amounts. He is a treasure in this film. Stories of human dilema, period costumes, and location interiors add to the brilliant presentation.