Reviews

It is indeed a wonderful love story, a strong script, a strong cast; it's clever, intelligent and beautifully edited.

Viola is a young and beautiful woman who falls for words and poetry, a bit like Roxanne in Cyrano de Bergerac, and as Shakespeare doesn't have a big nose, they fall in love. The big bad guy is supposed to be Lord Wessex and he could be bad I supposed if he weren't played by Colin Firth ( who delivers as always a delicate performance and gives a deep inner life to his character).

Lord Wessex is a bit like Darcy in Pride and Prejudice: no one has a good opinion of him in the audience, Darcy is proud and distant, Lord Wessex is not romantic, raw and really doesn't have a clue about women. This could be the perfect beginning for a love story... that will never happened. It is indeed a real mystery to me: How can Viola resist the first look of Lord Wessex in their first scene at the theater?

As for Joseph Fiennes he is a good Shakespeare but I wonder how better it could have been if Shakespeare In Love had been made earlier and Colin Firth had had the part of Shakespeare as planned! I must say that personally I would have prefer Lord Wessex to change throughout the movie and conquer Viola's heart, but I also prefer Colin Firth's acting to Joseph Fiennes' !!!

Although the movie is well made, I'm not particularly fond of it. When Juliette Binoche and Colin Firth are around we assist to the best scenes of the film, as they are both absolutely excellent, and truly Juliette Binoche holds the movie on her shoulders. I guess Ralph Fiennes is good too in a certain way, but I find he lacks subtlety and is often cold ( he doesn't have the delicacy of Colin Firth); he really is at his best when he has a lot of make-up and he cannot rely on his looks.

The photography is beautiful and I guess in a general way it deserved its Oscars (mostly because the other movies in contention where not very good either). But one of the major problem is the love story - which unfortunately is the plot line - between the count and Mrs Clifton. It may appeal to some, but to me it's completely histrionic that she willfully leaves Colin Firth for Ralph Fiennes'character! Maybe I should read the novel to see how Goeffrey is described, but the way Colin Firth plays it, Mrs Clifton is a fool to walk on him. Could it be possible that Colin Firth was miscast because he was too charming for the part? Surely, in the script, Goeffrey's character is not enough developped, but to me there is no real valuable reason why she needs to cheat on him, because she is not in love with the count, what ever happens between them is torrid sex! It's mostly a physical fling which is not justified to me. Personnaly I would prefer a husband who could sing with humor in front of a bunch of people than the guy who wonders all movie long how to call the little hole in the woman's neck!

I give it 6/10 because there are way too many scenes between the count and Mrs Clifton that don't make any sense to me and because the story in itself has not touched me enough. If you fall for Ralph Fiennes' blue eyes, you will probably adore this movie. Maybe I wasn't objective because I watched it to see Colin Firth, be the judge!

It's a love story about rebirth and self healing. The foundation of the plot seems very simple: a young man comes in a town to clean the wall of a church. With a subject like that it could be absolutely boring...but it's not. "Emotion" could be the word to describe it all, though "repressed emotion" would be even more accurate. It's a delicate movie, with thousands of details you might not see the first time; it's deep and truly is a masterpiece in its genre.

Of course to appreciate it you must love repertoire movies. It's not a blockbuster movie...far from that. You must be in a slow mood I guess to enjoy it.

This is the kind of movie I would like to keep in my collection: isn't it a pity that "anonymous" has probably sold his tape already? (I cannot find it in Montreal!)

While watching the 1979 TV version of P&P, the general impression I had was that the BBC had an empty spot to fill, few money, and they had to rush through the whole thing as fast as possible to be ready on time.

The final result is that the series doesn't breathe, no one has any fun, and at every moment we are under the impression that if we prick our ears, we'll hear the actor say between two yarns: " Good gracious, this line is over too!" The scenes between Darcy and Elisabeth are very dull and no one can truly believe the repressed burning passion of Darcy for a second (It's obvious that if Darcy falls in love it's only because the script says so). Although some of the best lines of the novel have been kept, it's a torture to listen to them as they are uttered without any feeling or intelligence, exactly as if the actors didn't know what they were saying.

Unfortunately it doesn't stop there. It's impossible to imagine a worse cast, as every character is ill casted (especially Miss Bingley and her brother and the Bennett's parents) They go along calling themselves by names, but the general acting ability is so bad that I'm sure that they never rehearsed not taken any time to go into the character' psyche (i.e. the scene when Elisabeth cries - it couldn't be more fake)

Nothing else helps this production to gain some life on another level: the set decoration is tasteless, the costumes seem to have made a bee line from an old theater attic to the set (without any respect for the time's fashion or the actors' pride! - the military uniform especially looks like a Halloween costume bought for few dollars at the corner's shop), the stillness of the camera or the sudden close-up don't add anything either.

And surprisingly I'd still recommend this version of P&P for the very lovers of the genre or for those who would enjoy to see a parody of the film. It is indeed a great deal of laugh!

However, if you want the real thing, it would be best to watch the 1995 version with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth.

A saga, a silver mine, lots of horses and guns, an Ennio Morricone's score, an incredible cast...

It's hard to say something bad about this TV-serie, it has suspense, political drama, love, greed, action, but in the end, after all these hours I've spent to watch and love these characters, nothing really stays with me, something is lacking. It's 309 minutes well spend but it stops so brutally that I fell cheated. All that for that?

It is surely a "must see" for any Colin Firth's fan, but nothing that will stop the Earth turning!

I think I would never have been to see this movie if it hadn't been for Colin Firth. I don't love family dramas, mostly because it's always based on the parents point of view, even if the central hero is a child. As I am always on the side of the child, it seemed to me, while I was watching the movie, that I was the only one who truly see how much this child was abused.

In "My life so far", the young Fraser is caught between an irresponsible father who beats him and a mother who doesn't protect him. And even if the camera shows us his suffering and his fear, it always pushes us to to forgive and forget what has just happened. Mostly because at the same time we are expected to be bewitched by his father's desire for a French cellist. Of course he is gorgeous, and the desire we see in his eyes is breathtaking, but clearly the script wants us to love and forgive this child-like father at any cost, even at the cost of his own son. The last scene is pretty clear on that subject: the film doesn't end on Fraser but on his father, who is now so"good" to let him drink, smoke and watch pornographic photos. What is the moral of this? The father stays irresponsible and his last smile wants us to believe that he is changed and that he is a good father.

As I love Colin Firth's acting so much, I must say I am very puzzled by this movie. He plays very well indeed, that is not the problem, he has all the subtleties the character demands, but the film just doesn't amount to anything. No one really seems to care enough for Fraser and it seems that it is the only reason why the father takes up so much place in the movie. This idealized father that even Fraser calls a genius. But how could he ever say the contrary since nobody ever tells him that what he feels when he suffers is true?

I must confess that the first time I saw that movie, few years after it's release, I couldn't help, but find it a pale version of Stefan Freirs "Dangerous Liaison". Recently I have seen both movies and I must say that my opinion is quite the opposite now. In "Valmont" everything is subtle and I think this is why most people didn't get it. You can destroy someone's life without having written "I'm Bad!" on your forehead. With her slow-velvet voice Annette Bening is a snake under a rock:she is terrifying. As for Colin Firth's Valmont he is charming, he flies like a butterfly, but he knows exactly what he is doing. We believe in his seduction not because we are told to but because we are seduced ourselves. People have been saying that Valmont was too light, too boyish. There is nothing boyish in the way he says at Mme de Tourvelle "Is that what you want?" You see at that point how his hight-pitched voice, that goes with his voice and smile, is only a mask, as powder was John Malkovitch's mask. Colin Firth said that Milos Forman was too subtle for his own good and I think this is why some people can still find "Dangerous Liaisons" more powerful. As for "Valmont" even if the end is a bit weak, I wouldn't hesitate to say that it is from far the best version of the two movies. For those who go by the book, as I once did, you might be puzzled by the differences with the original story but for its deep sensitivity, its wonderful cast and this art of subtlety, it's really worth every moment of it.

When I first saw the movie I already knew the plot because my video's book had the bad idea to say who the murderer was. Anyway the film is so marvelously done that even if you know you still get the chills. I was really impressed with Hart Bochner performance, mostly because he has the kind of face which usually is cast in an afternoon soap opera and though his character is mostly physical, he never plays it at a first level. I'm very moved each time I see him cry. It could have been so easy to over do it, to be pathetic or melodramatic but instead he is touching and true. As for the part of Adrian, Colin Firth with his dark-low voice (that gives some more weirdness to the part- mostly because of the contrast with his childish face) is just brilliant. The irony to see him play the victim as Bochner takes over Valmont's seduction is pure amazement. Everything is in the details: every look, every attempt to smile, the way he walks, the way he talks and stutters. Adrian may seem fragile but he is a survivor. Every detail in the movie adds to the actors performances: the frightening neighbors (the way they invade his life is no surprise to his disliking them so much), the music, the camera shots of the "living" city opposed constantly to the claustrophobic dark apartment and even the apartment itself which is almost a character per se. It has its life and its secrets. For example we never actually have a full view of the two bedrooms, we know there is a kitchen but we never see it and we only see the bathroom through a glass window. The only space used in the apartment is the living room which gives to this thriller a feeling of a closed-room drama. I guess that if you are not bewitched by the actors the film won't do it for you. It's not the kind of thriller only based on action plot. The real interest of the film remains in the relation between those two different men and not in the murders themselves. I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who loves to see good and subtle acting. It's a powerful 1h45 drama lesson!