Reviews

I enjoyed the Helena Bonham-Carter version of this film far more. It captured the humor and romance of the story. It had some light in it. It was alive as any story should be. Even with its flaws, as in the rather lethargic portrayal of George by Julian Sands, it still made you feel more than this version.

Now to this newer film... The actors tried, you can see that. But it was as if the characters, scenes, music, and plot points were all pieces from some kit that had been assembled without instructions and with some special touches meant to make it prettier in the eyes of the assembler. The mood was dark, scenes that should have been funny were serious, scenes that were serious were either clumsy or Stygian in their gloominess. Conversations were awkward and forced. Explanations were few and both plot and character development were hasty and scanty as a result. All to make room, no doubt, for the artistic vision of the director or writer, whoever we have to blame. For, as others have said here, we have as our constant companion an older Lucy who is not living life to the fullest as the movie tries hard to discuss at one point, but revisiting places where she did her living. The places are dark, changed, almost black-and-white in their mood. The familiar "indoors in the daytime with the lights switched off" feeling is present. And if the place had been bright and full of people it would still have been poor Lucy remembering how she got her husband who... ah, here's a spoiler for you...

The romantic ending arrives but leaps, mind you, from Lucy running into a pond thinking to save a drowning George (who apparently was just having a nice float face down in a murky pond) straight to a sex scene in Italy which is just long enough to make you cry, "Good grief, they're nude!" before it cuts to the "after" sequence which always involves people laying under white sheets, chuckling to one another. And once they have you in full apprehension of a joyous happy ending (in spite of making no effort to explain the process of it), a quick artsy-craftsy shot of the beautiful sky outside fades, amid strains of wailing operatic soprano, to a shot of a stone dead British soldier lying, face frozen in a last look of horror, on the edge of a trench as the night flashes with bomb blasts. Yes, it's George, who after all that grinning which seemed to be his main job in the film, has fallen prey to the warmongers and left his Lucy to mourn.

If they were thinking to bring poignancy to the story I think they overdid it. There was too much bitter for the sweet to compete. And to save time for such rubbish, they made sure we hardly got to know the characters, and as a result, much of the plot, since their motivations drove the story as is usual with Forster's books.

The only good thing I can say about it is that I don't think there was anything in it that was so good that it was wasted in a bad movie. It all pretty much tanked.

And on basis of that, it did exactly what was wanted. I was surprised to like this movie since I'm in my 30s. But it's a light story that always keeps a sense of humor, and that's vital. A lot of mediocre movies are done with too serious of an attitude. This one is miles away from reality and was written, acted, and directed with that approach. Every Irish gag comes with a wink, even the touching moments stay light, and the finish is at once stupid and playful, and fun enough to pull it off. Things such as the boy's bewilderment after he trips and falls and cries in cheesy Irish brogue, "Oh, fer the love o' Mike!" are a stretch, fairly stereotyped, and still cute. The accents barely stay on the actor's tongues but you don't care. The story is just twisted enough that you'll watch it through, and not feel too stupid for having done it. This sounds like faint praise but it isn't... it's just how it is.

Light and silly but still enjoyable, it beats spending a St. Patrick's Day getting plastered.

I warned against spoilers because honestly I'm not sure what some people consider one.

The good news is, this is a lot like a trip to Disneyland without the lines. The bad news is, it's also like a trip there without any rides. In short, it has all the cloying sickly sweetness of the theme park in spite of trying to laugh at itself. It could be quite a good movie, in fact, I suppose it is quite a good movie. However, in spoofing some of the most common elements of fairy tales, or their Disney versions more so, they have still put in huge amounts of the sparkly candy floss cuteness that their other princessy movies ram down our throats in abundance.

Having been to Disneyland sometimes frequently with my children here in Orange County, I can tell you that it just brings back the feeling of sitting in front of the speakers while the parade roars by, munching churros when you'd rather have pizza, regretting the souvenirs and wondering how hard it's going to be to get to the tram and hike through the parking structure. If you have issues with corny movie music, you'll have trouble here too. I understand that a lot of it is supposed to be a joke, but danged if it doesn't feel sincere.

And with all that said first to help clear my head of the shock of all that sugar, I have to say that otherwise it was delightful. Not too deep, mind you, but a lot of fun. Susan Sarandon was brilliantly cast, just flawless in her performance. Evil with just the right touch of humor. Giselle was totally believable as the Disney princess, from her looks to her portrayal. James Marsden was a joy, even when he sang. He was just about the funniest thing in the film. The sight of him in full puff-sleeved period dress wearing a Statue of Liberty foam souvenir headband just got funnier the longer I looked at him. Also a highlight, the evil henchman calling Dr. Laura about his relationship with the witch. He is told to find out how she really feels about him. Cue the witch walking up and saying, "Hello, worthless."

If you like eating straight sugar or watching the motion picture equivalent and know enough about fairy tales to get common jokes about them, there's a good chance you can enjoy this movie without having to fast-forward the songs.

I saw this movie on TV when I was a child. That was my parents' mistake. I found Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory disturbing as a child, so deciding I wanted to see Rhinoceros because Gene Wilder was in it was plain wrong.

The whole thing seemed like a horror movie to me at the time. Having found it confusing to fit in with other people, maybe the movie spoke most directly to me. I have had a horror most of my life of blind conformity. Nevertheless, it was the stuff of nightmares at the time. My clearest memories of it are of Zero Mostel's transformation (the horror of finding one of the last hold-outs was lost) and seeing Gene Wilder huddling against a building out on a ledge high above a writhing mass of rhinos... I confess, I don't know whether that was really in it, just that if there were so few actual rhinos seen in it, as other reviewers suggested, my childish imagination must have filled them in. I would call that effective film-making... giving the mind what it needed to perceive the vision.

From the sound of things, this is a movie I should see as an adult to see whether it tends more to be horrifying or funny. Not much of a review, I admit.

I'd love to give this movie a great rating and review, but unfortunately it has some basic flaws that prevent it. Certain things have to be done for any movie to be all it should be. I like the premise very much, and I enjoy Fred's general chaotic manner. Sometimes I just like to see people go berserk. It's a quirk of mine.

The character development was lacking. They needed greater depth, and their actions needed more explanation. Most were fairly flat and cliché, such as the "jerk husband" and "controlling mother" stereotypes. This certainly made Fred shine among them as a character unlike any seen before, but only he could get away with the random and unexplained actions that the supposedly "normal" people sometimes chose. The movie would mean more as a whole if it had a fully fleshed plot and richer characters. Begin the right way and then move on to the lunacy.

Because the lunacy needs no explanation. They clearly put more work into the madness, after getting together a skeletal plot and barely workable characters. The agenda was wild humor and that's the part I enjoy. Oh, as a mom I would respond very poorly to sneaking out in the night or pouring mud all over the house as the girl and Fred did in the flashback portions of the film. But there's a side of me that enjoys watching them do it. I recognize that it's a fantasy, that he's supposed to be real in his fashion and the bizarre behavior is him acting out a child's anger at her mother's perpetually resentful treatment... the classic mother who never wanted a child.

The end is both lovely and out-of-pace. Fred spends the movie seeming not to care about anyone but himself yet in the end, he shows he cares for her and has been trying to help her in some demented way all along. I'm all for that but a little indication of it sooner would help it flow better into the plot. In the end, the girl has to free herself and that explains a lot of frustrating things she did through the whole film, things that seemed insane for any human to tolerate. Turns out she trained herself to go along so well that it takes incredible will and the help of an old friend to stop herself.

It has a lot of childish fun (a good thing) but it isn't for children. I still love those glass breaking sounds, and I love it in spite of myself when she wipes a booger on the jerk husband when she leaves him. Lucky for my kids I can still appreciate those things... but I wouldn't show them the film whole and unedited. There's some profanity in it, just enough to make it inappropriate, situations that are just over their heads (talk of infidelity and divorce, and a couple smooching on the couch as part of foreplay... stops there) and loads of what they call "imitative behavior." I have a 4-year-old boy. 'Nuff said.

I still wish I could rate this movie a big ten. But the failure to fully think out the characters and their actions outside of Fred's made the film hard to watch too much of the time.

It wasn't that this was a poorly made movie, or that the acting was bad. It could have certainly made a good point but all it seems to have done is stir the entire film-watching community into an unfathomable dilemma. To wonder whether you would do such a thing in such circumstances and not be sure you would not is appalling.

The idea of the husband agreeing to it is sickening and hard to grasp, but his later inability to cope with the thought of it brings it back down to earth. If a man managed to persuade himself of the insignificance of his wife's having sex just once with another man, he's a fool and either doesn't care or must realize later he was wrong. This guy felt it come home to him as he surely must.

And she was made to appear a sweet little self-sacrificing angel, which brings mixed feelings. He agreed to it initially and in theory had no business treating her like a criminal. And yet, she went and carried it out, with no apparent suffering. Anyone with any real integrity, honesty, and well... morals, would surely have some trouble with this, unless they indeed found it alluring enough to overcome their scruples.

That rich dude was also well-acted, but how creepy! Sexy he wasn't. He was a stalker, creeping around her everywhere she went and smugly buying her life piece by piece as if it were all part of buying her. I agree with those who said that the idea of his giving her up in the end was a crock. That kind of narcissist doesn't let go once he has what he wants. But I also think he did need to be attractive (on the surface anyhow) because that was pivotal to the jealously of the idiot husband and the uncertainty of the tart wife.

This is on my list of movies that never should have been made. It was one long "eew" moment for me and never once raised the question of whether I would. Believe it or not, there are some folks in the world who can see that it could never be worth it. Money can't buy back a filthy act. It's sad to see the morals of so many degraded to the point that they could even consider it.

The rating of 5 stars is for the acting and the film quality.