peteringemann If you have seen the miniseries or read the book do yourself a favor and don't watch this movie. If you haven't, then please read the book, watch the miniseries and then stay away from this movie. This movie has nothing to do with Brideshead Revisited.

marieltrokan The grace of non-intervention is the disgrace of intervention. The disgrace of intervention is the disgrace of help.The disgrace of help is the disgrace of no injury. The disgrace of no injury is the grace of injury. The grace of injury is the grace of violence.Violence is intolerable. Grace is inspiring. Inspiring intolerance is uninspiring tolerance. Uninspiring tolerance is the illusion of non-inspiration and the illusion of tolerance. The illusion of non-inspiration is the reality of inspiration and the illusion of tolerance is the reality of intolerance.A reality of inspiration is a history of inspiration, which is a non-history of non-inspiration. A non-history of non-inspiration is a non-experience of non-inspiration. A reality of intolerance is a history of intolerance. A history of intolerance is a non-history of tolerance. A non-history of tolerance is a non-experience of tolerance.The experience of inspiration is the experience of intolerance - the literal experience of being inspired is the literal occurrence of violence.Authority is inspiring - censorship is inspiring.Censorship is the lack of style - the lack of style is inspiring

manueltb Even though the music, photography, set design and acting are very good, this movie was a disappointment for me. The plot has been skillfully manipulated. In this version, Julia's character has become a victim of a distorted protestant vision of catholic faith, and Lady Flyte is just a selfish, self-centered and fanatic mother. All the beauty, the hope and the humanity of the original is lost, leaving just tortured and melancholic characters who live a sort of impossible love. Of course there is no references to God's grace, personal conscience, repentance, charity, duty or the importance of the family. At the end, it remains only an obscure pseudo-reflection on guilt, that is supposed to be related with the scriptwriters' deformed idea of what the Roman Catholic religion is.

wgranger I enjoyed both the book and the 13-hr miniseries. In fact, the latter was one of the best things I have ever seen. I know you can't capture everything in 2 hours that you do in 13 hours but what I did see was a major disappointment. The 13-hr version was almost a verbatim enactment of the book. This version uses the same house (Castle Howard) and a similar plot line but that's it. So many elements are changed and I only remember a couple lines from the book. Everything else is de novo. e.g. bringing Julia to Venice so she and Charles could fall in love. In the other version, they did not fall in love until on the ship. With such a short movie, why did they feel they had to tell the tale in flashbacks like the original? And the original movie had a somewhat upbeat ending - not so with this version. While the actors in this movie were OK, they were NOT Jeremy Irons, Anthony Andrews, Clair Bloom, Sir Laurence Olivier, or John Gielgud. With the original, I bonded with all the characters and did not want the series to end: no problem with this one ending. My wife found it equally hard to follow and all of her questions were answered starting with, "In the original series..."