AshUnow
This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.
Deanna
There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.
Gary
The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.
kyliebites
the acting in this film is wooden and not dynamic at all. The lead actress' characterisation of a 1920s was only made apparent because she actually said the year out loud. She saunters around with a swagger that is more modern than anything, and her voice fell into a predictable vocal pattern that when coupled with her obnoxious behaviour, soon becomes incredibly annoying.The script itself was poorly written; many of the lines between the two female leads were painfully forced and when delivered, gave the impression that the writer had no clue about how women talk(in general or to each other). My favourite moment has got to be when they were looking at the 'Easter eggs' and Helen's father gleefully exclaims ''and that was how Aphrodite made the lesbians!' The film in general lacked subtlety, making it hard to watch without some eye-rolling at the inevitable clichés and cheesiness. Even the intimate scenes sometimes felt cheap, with the exaggerated acting on the lead's part.
faerieface77
I couldn't watch this movie without cringing at the lead girl. She really was hard to watch. I felt like it was like playing dress up for her.This was apparently 1926 and I couldn't tell how old she was or what. She walked like Paris Hilton, Not Greta Garbo. She didn't seem to know anything about how an upperclass girl acted in 26. Also, did she have an accent? did she not? I really hope I don't see any more of this idiot.The lead actor though wasn't too bad. I felt like he really carried the movie for me.It was an OK movie over all. I won't watch it again. I can't bear the audacious acting.
midnightdelusions
Not the best, but certainly not the worst movie dealing with lesbianism that I've ever seen. The acting was pretty poor, especially in the beginning and it was wrought with clichés (especially the awful crazy/dead lesbian one). But, it did have it's moments. The cinematography was absolutely gorgeous and I loved the soft colors. Sappho, played by Avalon Barrie, starts off as a very irritating character, but as you get further into the film, you start to realize that she's like that because she's always repressed who she really was and even when she's trying to break free of her old self, no one will take her seriously. I admit that the end of the film where she is rejected by Helena made me feel really bad for her. The ideas in this story are good, I just felt as if they weren't executed well enough.
elenaanisimova82
I'm writing this note because somebody wrote a comment that this film is nothing we haven't seen before. Obviously, the writer's not from Ukraine and Russia, because this film is just everything we've never seen before - a beautiful tender tragic sexually-confused love story which at the end leaves everybody to make up their own minds. For us, Sappho is amazingly original and new. And amazingly popular in cinemas too.Thinkong about it, maybe the writer's not from America too, because recently I haven't seen any American movies this open and interesting and intelligent. So I guess he's from Mars. Or maybe some magical country where they only make good movies, and not stupid films like "Wanted".
