I usually love aristocratic period pieces and was drawn in early with its Howard's End/Remains of the Day feel; however, it went off the rails after the initial scenes offering us a glimpse into the main couple's world. I understand movie adaptations can't usually fit all the nuances and details that propel the characters' motives, but one minute, Brenda seems content with her life, if not a little bored, and the next, she's not shy about chasing a bland young man (Beaver) with whom she'd barely spent any time and had zero chemistry. The viewer gets zero build or indication she is falling in love/infatuated/connected with him in any way. Then, she's spending all her time away from her husband and talks about Beaver as if he's the love of her life--yet we don't see why any of this is driving her. Her son dies in a tragic accident and then she reveals she wants a divorce and to be free to marry Beaver. The husband sucks it up and attempts to absorb the role as the bad guy by allowing himself to be sued as the defendant and goes as far as to fake proof he had an affair. Brenda, who originally only wanted to be free to marry another man then starts bickering over the proposed settlement out of nowhere. Yes, this was supposed to indicate she was being manipulated by Beaver over money, but there aren't any supporting scenes building to that, leading you to wonder if some key scenes were cut during editing. But then the husband gets tough and cuts Brenda off and for some inexplicable reason, follows an obvious crack-pot explorer to Brazil where he is abandoned by guides, dying-then-saved, and then kidnapped in a truly bizarre segue and presumed dead. He is the only character who represents "good" and this is how it ends for him? I wasn't just disappointed; I was mad.
It was hard to believe that the movie I was watching at the end was the same one I'd started with. It was like 5 different script writers were tasked with different parts of the story, and none of the spans joined seamlessly. The background music was at times out of place in a 1930's piece and the lighting indoors was cheap and harsh, almost like a soap-opera. I still haven't figured out why Angelica Houston's character was even there. They could've cut every scene she was in and knocked 10 minutes off this mess with no effect on the plot or outcome. The only highlight for me was James Wilby's performance.
It was hard to believe that the movie I was watching at the end was the same one I'd started with. It was like 5 different script writers were tasked with different parts of the story, and none of the spans joined seamlessly. The background music was at times out of place in a 1930's piece and the lighting indoors was cheap and harsh, almost like a soap-opera. I still haven't figured out why Angelica Houston's character was even there. They could've cut every scene she was in and knocked 10 minutes off this mess with no effect on the plot or outcome. The only highlight for me was James Wilby's performance.