Vladimir Love and Death on Long Island is an interesting, moody film, but it's difficult to decide if I truly felt satisfied having viewed it.What we are presented with is essentially a fish out of water story about Giles (John Hurt), an ultra-conservative English gent who begins slowly to reform his technophobic, insular lifestyle when he develops an interest in a young American film star (Jason Priestley). The nature of this interest is explored minimalistic ally, although there is obviously more to it than just a belief in the boy's acting talent or potential.We are then treated to a myriad of culture shock as Giles enters the universe of youth and as we see this very quaint man with his very quaint, idyllic lifestyle interact with very common, happy-go-lucky people, his character becomes increasingly complex. This culminates in a rather impressionistic, elusive finale where his true interest in the film star, Ronnie, is finally explored and brought to light.The film is at times wryly amusing and at other times cringingly awkward. For all its moments of social faux pas and clumsiness it reminds me a lot of Alexander Payne's films. The difference as I see it though is that Payne knows when to draw away from an embarrassing moment to make us empathise, but not altogether pity, the character. Here, the director Kwietniowski tends to hold our focus on such scenes which makes it notably less comfortable to watch.Having said that, Kwietniowski does handle a number of the film's elements remarkably well. Firstly, his cast is used to their full potential. In particular, John Hurt's wonderfully expressive face is used to explore a plethora of human emotion throughout the film. Secondly, the interaction between the generations - old age, middle age and youth - is handled with a soft focus that is ever-present but very understated. Even if one feels a lack of rewards from the somewhat alienating story, at least we have the pleasure of hearing John Hurt say in a very charming British accent, "Hey dude, how's it hanging?" And basically, the plot is also downplayed to the point where the film is far more an exploration than an anecdote. Its pace is very deliberate and its threadbare cast of characters is rich and complex for all that they're worth. I would find it hard to truly love this film but it is still a very capable, interesting effort.***1/2 / *****

Philacas We just rented this junker by accident and thank whatever, it was a freebie. If we had paid for this turkey, we would have DEMANDED our money back. The story was telegraphed from the first frame - (SPOILER) - English widower sees hunk in movie, gets obsessed, follows obsession, has adventures, meets obsession, is rejected, starts new life.Hurt phoned in the performance, Priestly did what Priestly does best - NOTHING - except look like a C list porn boy, and everyone else mugged. The best things about this appalling piece of dreck were the dog, Strider, and the vintage Porsche. And oh yes, there were no egregious errors when it came to the scenes shot in London.Don't waste your time, your money, or usage of your DVD. This is movie that ranks up there with 'Battlefield Earth' , 'Ishtar', and 'Gigli'. Despite the comments of others, this is an dreadful piece of rubbish and if someone gave me a copy it would end up as a coaster or in the microwave.

meitschi *POSSIBLE SPOILERS IN THE SECOND HALF*This was a film I was looking very much forward to, as I had just seen "Death in Venice" the day before, of which this is supposed to be a pastiche/parody. (Well, I think it is, in a way...)I must say that I was a bit disappointed by the film itself, I wouldn't say it is really exceptional filmmaking - especially the dialogue and the general look of the movie could have been more spirited. But nevertheless it is a nice, entertaining film - with a stellar performance by John Hurt.I didn't think about "Gods and Monsters" (one of my all-time favorites!) while watching this, though John Hurt's face constantly reminded me of Ian McKellen's (they even resemble each other physically in my view). But as so many people mentioned it here, now I think there are definitely some similarities in the storylines and characters of the two movies. The "confession scene" at the end was the best and most moving of it all, wonderfully played by Hurt - and proving at last that Jason Priestley is a better actor than he has been given credit for. His facial reaction to the confession was most impressive and would have honored even an actor of higher reputation.As for the interpretation of De'Ath's motives: I think this confession is indeed exactly the moment when he - under the pressure of never seeing Ronnie again as the teen flick star has to go to Vermont and then to L. A. - finally realizes that he is in fact in love with the young man and also desires him on the corporal level, not merely "admires his beauty without interest". (Otherwise he wouldn't mention explicitely to Ronnie that Verlaine and Rimbaud were lovers - even at the risk of losing him.) One can see during the conversation how De'Ath becomes more and more desperate as Ronnie seem more and more reluctant to listen to him - till he at last makes his fully revealing confession.Ronnie's girlfriend (very nicely and naturally played by Fiona Loewi) seems to discover the truth about De'Ath earlier than her boyfriend - I think this happens in the scene where she proposes to Gilles to call his non-existing "god-daughter" (who is supposedly a fan of Ronnie's) and the older man gets embarrassed by this. I think it is also she who wants to take away Ronnie from De'Ath as soon as possible by taking him to Vermont and then to L.A. ("He doesn't know [about going to L.A.] yet", she tells De'Ath during the baseball match). However, I may be misinterpreting something here. But no matter - the look on De'Ath's face after Ronnie has made the homerun reveals about everything he feels for the young man...I give it 7/10 (5/10 for the film, 10/10 for Hurt).

Azeem Ali Khan John Hurt is a great actor, and his performance in this film shows just how great. There have been plenty of reviews here that detail the plot and the essential characteristics of Giles De'Ath. What struck me even more on seeing the film a second time is what an extraordinary balancing act Hurt pulls off. De'Ath could so easily have been a caricature, a bumbling old fogey; Hurt shows that, while he is indeed out of touch, he is also highly intelligent and unapologetic about his fusty ways - and he also has the imagination to broaden his horizons. There were some lovely scenes showing other people's amused reactions to his naivety about modern ways, particularly those with his agent.I've never seen Jason Priestley in anything else (hey, does that mean I'm like De'Ath, an old fuddy-duddy?), but he certainly holds his own in the face of an acting titan, just as Brendan Fraser did in Gods & Monsters - and yes, there are a LOT of similarities between the two films. And I really enjoyed Fiona Loewi's performance as his girlfriend - what else has she done? The smaller roles were extremely well cast (as others have noted, Maury Chaykin is a treat), even De'Ath's sister-in-law, who is only in one brief scene, but conveys a lot about how highbrow and inaccessible his novels are considered to be.I'm also not the only one who has noticed echoes of Death in Venice, not only in the title and the storyline, but also, I'll swear at one point there was a Mahler symphony playing on the soundtrack - was that another nod? Then there is the artistic convention of the older mentor and the younger muse, which is explicitly raised in the film. There are a lot of interesting ideas about the nature of love, and about how even the most set in their ways can suddenly find a new lease of life.This is a film that rewards more than one viewing. See it if only for a truly majestic performance from John Hurt, a masterclass in subtlety, defiance and thwarted passion.