CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Matt James Victoria (Jodie Foster), a foundling, is arrange-married to a New Zealand businessman with the romantic skills (and respect for women) of a Playboy club keyholder. By modern day standards Oliver Thompson (John Lithgow) is brutish, though not, it should be said, by the standards of the time. Victoria shows increasing regret at how things have turned out, amplified by developing feelings for Oliver's brother George (Dan Shor) who, whilst he's no Emmeline Pankhurst, does have the virtue of knowing where his heart is. We meet Thompson sr. (Harry Andrews) and it soon becomes clear where Oliver's idiosyncratic character got its template. Some more demonstrations of brutishness and Oliver's penchant for watching his wife through holes in a wall as she disrobes, a perversion that the demure Victoria finds unbearable. She decides to leg it to the US with George but they are discovered aboard ship and George gets accidentally clonked on the thinkbox with a candlestick. Oliver and his father smooth things over by simply sending his carcass to America without an explanatory note, or even, apparently, a moment's regret. Now in true bondage Victoria settles into the role of attentive wife, and she is so attentive that Oliver suddenly falls ill. Victoria begins to look extremely sinister (why is it that extraordinarily beautiful women can do the chilling psychopathic-slow-burn look so well?)Along comes the perplexed doctor Finch (Philip Holder) to save the day. But the doc's hippocratic oath is slipping as he admires Victoria's shapely ankles while Oliver attempts to speak, "Gwarhf! Phlurg! Flumsh!" In a scene not for the faint-hearted, the doc offers some typically Victorian bedside manner: "Please try to keep calm. I know that it hurts." Now, let's whip the rest of those pesky teeth out shall we? Mercifully the tortured Oliver soon checks out and is solemly buried, presumably with his teeth in his breast pocket in an envelope marked "Choppers".In the final scenes which bring us back to the point we came in, Victoria is on trial. The good doctor seems to vacillate between honouring his oath and failing to fend off the image of Victoria's dainty feet which is clearly burning a hole in his trousers. The gambit works and Victoria assumes her place in civilised society where we find George anxiously waiting for her.Substantively that's the story but there were some issues. The acting was passable though perhaps below the standard we have come to expect from the leading pair. At the time I think Jodie was having doubts about staying in the biz and this was one of several ducks in the years before "The Accused".The accents were all over the shop. I don't know why Victoria has a cut-glass English accent if she grew up in New Zealand unless the foundling home was staffed by ex Girton girls. (It was unclear to me if the foundling home was in NZ or Blighty) The Kiwi accent is a brave, if variable, try by John Lithgow but he sounds Australian as do other players who attempt to sound correct. To the educated ear, Kiwi and Aussie are vastly different accents.The music is very strange; eerie when it needn't be and absent when eerie would be appropriate. The editing is either deliberately bizarre else done between (or during) bouts of heavy drinking. These become less of an issue as the film progresses, hinting heavily at a tight deadline and/or a sudden shortage of whiskey. New Zealand is far more beautiful than this film portrays and the under-use of the location is a pity.It's not a film to be watched often, or indeed, twice. But it can faintly entertain the one time.

two_funnie The movie focuses on the story, not special effects or violence. The reason nothing about the actual murder case is found on the internet is that no one has done the research in Australia and posted it anywhere. Just because there are no aliens biting people's heads off or people being gutted or shot every 3 seconds doesn't make a boring or bad movie.John Lithgow does a splendid job of being a pervert and a mental and emotional abuser, as does the actor playing his heartless father. A letter would have been sent to the orphanage asking for a girl of marrying age, the orphanage would have chosen and supplied her. The result of this marriage was a young bride totally alone, unloved by her husband, treated like dirt by his father, the servants treat her like an intruder, where else was she supposed to turn to? When she makes a friend in the reverend, the husband seems to care little. When she falls in love with her brother in law who DOES have a heart, the husband loses his mind. All he wants is his property, which is what she was considered at the time.As for other comments on "why didn't the autopsy pick up the poison," the medical facilities of the 1880's weren't the same as today. The doctor didn't lie- he just couldn't testify to something he didn't see.Jodie Foster did a splendid job of portraying an abused, lonely, unloved wife in an impossible situation.Foreign films about real stories aren't for everyone. Concentrate on the story, the film is fine.

vampi1960 mesmerized is a good but very underrated movie about the true story of Victoria Thompson in the 1800's.Jodie foster is great in the role and her acting is above average as usual.well I'm a huge Jodie foster fan so i try to watch all her films,even the little known ones.john lithgow plays her creepy older husband.and Micheal Murphy(Howard sterns private parts)plays a minister who's into hypnotism.well i bought this DVD at a dollar tree store for a buck,the other feature is an early demi Moore film from 1981 called choices.as for mesmerized,i was surprised that i enjoyed it,after reading some of the posts i was determined to judge it for myself.all others should do the same,every one has different tastes. if you like Jodie foster then i recommend mesmerized.i give it 7 out of 10.sorry no spoilers.not giving away any of the plot.that would be a sin.

kc83 I hired this on DVD ,I had never heard of it and the cover told me nothing not even the year it was made. It was made in New Zealand,I can't believe Jodie Foster traveled there to make it. She had already made several movies including Taxi Driver and Hotel New Hampshire. I bet she is ashamed of it. The quality of the DVD didn't help,from a low budget video company in Australia. The story was boring as well. This has got to be the worst movie I have ever seen.I took it back to the video store and received a free hire of another film. I just found out Foster produced this film,and then bad mouthed it. The film quality is awful,I fast forwarded through a lot of the film.