gfvaughn Great film, like classic literature, provides a window into human nature, motivation, and behavior. A valuable reason to watch serious films or to read good books is to vicariously live through an extraordinarily wide latitude of human behavior which one has no opportunity to experience directly. Balanced people in relatively stable circumstances are usually capable of reasonably normal behavior. This is what a normal audience expects to see in a dramatic show. This is not a normal story. Its two sets of characters display opposite models for behavior. The tragic decline of one family and the counterbalancing rise of the other is intended to be instructive.This story deals with the tail end of the rags to riches to rags in three generations scenario. As the story begins the Ambersons have reached their peak. They possess an aristocratic status and lifestyle in the Midwestern United States at the beginning of the twentieth century. The film has a period "Upstairs, Downstairs" quality. Principal family members have acquired and cultivated aristocratic values. The family is protective and supportive of its upper class stature but has become maladaptive and has turned inward. They are firmly in denial that economics and demographics are changing, which could upset their social position. Although they see change coming, none of them have learned to recognize opportunity or how to adapt to it. Repeatedly, when they embrace change, they fail. The youngest child, the lead male character, manages, with the invincibility of youth, to multiply the attitudes and beliefs of his immediate ancestors and magnify them by three, adding several affectations of his own, which leads him to become sheltered by those who love him while behaving unbearably toward most outsiders. As the story unfolds the family becomes like the frog in the frying pan, oblivious that the heat underneath it has been slowly turned up. The world has changed but the family is blinded by what it fears. Their fortune becomes dissipated. Their static inertia is unchanged until reality, delayed, intrudes at the bitter end.Wealth, fame, and power may corrupt. Two significant but deeply flawed romances tie the plot together. Isabel Amberson Minafer is the mother of young George Amberson Minafer. Eugene Morgan who loves Isabel is the father of Lucy Morgan who loves George. Yet Isabel and George who are wrapped up in their cold, calculating aristocratic habits, don't share a common mindset with their potential mates although there is a mutual attraction. While they are judgmental and demanding, their opposites are tolerant, patient and forgiving. George is at many points visibly socially deranged and is capable of contemptible behavior and extreme rudeness even within view of his family. Lucy and her father Eugene not only are capable of absorbing the abuse and neglect delivered by their respective love interests. They, the Morgans, behave magnificently by returning poise, tact and charm in the most stressful and demanding circumstances. Lucy wants to marry George but wisely will not until he demonstrates a potential to succeed on his own. Hers is the voice of moderation and reason which he defiantly refuses to accept. This is a study in contrasts on several levels. To make the contrast complete, the Minafers and Morgans financial and social circumstances become exactly reversed. The wealthy, famous, and powerful Amberson/Minafers become destitute, forgotten, and powerless. The young, struggling and modest Morgans become successful and wealthy. But at their zenith, father and daughter share an intimate moment together. In the final scene Lucy shows signs, for the first time, not of embracing change but of retreating into the isolation which their new wealth can now provide. Will the full cycle displayed by the Ambersons be repeated by the Morgans?Abstracting the central ideas a bit, this story becomes a commentary on certain of "life's lessons". People with advantages and resources are not necessarily happier than those without, because they may develop more sophisticated ways to screw things up. American aristocracy, in contrast to earlier European aristocracy after which it has sometimes tried to model itself outwardly, is not entrenched. Wealth and incomes are fluid. In order to maintain wealth one must be prepared to adapt and change as the Ambersons/Minafers were not. There are moral examples for those with closed vs. open minds and for those who are loving vs. judgmental. Children may be strongly influenced by and model their lives via emulating the habits and attitudes of their opposite-sex parents. Too much inbreeding can destroy a family or an entire social class. Good personality or appearance does not trump bad character.Moral truths are often difficult to understand and accept. Human behavior is complex. Often there can be a long chain from cause through a variety of circumstances to ultimate effect. Learning such truths is a process of trial and error. Social experiments cannot be precisely duplicated like simple laboratory experiments. Early actions can have much later unforeseeable and unintended consequences. Observation and ultimate conclusion is only attainable by those who have lived long and experienced much. Moral truths cannot be easily explained to the young whose unchecked passions and impulses can easily lead them astray. Morality is culturally transmitted. It is not, itself, the product of legislation and statutes. Successful statutes are the product of a moral tradition and positive social institutions including the family. Laws cannot be summarily reversed with good effect.In the laboratory of literature, art and film, life's lessons can more readily be compressed, illustrated, or acted out. The film viewer can observe behaviors without having to relive painful mistakes first-hand. Those who "get it" have their principles and core values affirmed. Those who do not should dig deeper by questioning their values to see whether their discomfort is due to self-destructive habits. This story brilliantly encapsulates human experience, even though one particular film production of the story may lack perfection. The central themes of "The Magnificent Ambersons" are powerful and timeless. Who knows how many opportunities there are for it to be remade?

tentender ...and most atrocious? The DVD package's false advertising: "After 60 years, Welles' (sic)...vision has finally been realized." In a pig's eye. "Using the original shooting script, director Alfonso Arau...has re-filmed every scene according to Welles' (sic) directions." (The possessive of "Welles" is "Welles's," not "Welles'". Cheez.) And yet somehow without reference to either that script or those directions. Scenes are shuffled irrationally, others are missing, banal dialogue is added, there is an omnipresent, banal, and thoroughly unhelpful musical score, and the consistently perverse, absurd casting is compounded by equally consistent pathetically obvious bad acting. It is hard to say who is worst, but Jonathan Rhys Meyers is certainly the most insufferable, with his perfect and perfectly awful American accent, his ugly pouty face, and his complete lack of nuance. Jennifer Tilly -- an actress who, like Meyers, has done excellent work with Woody Allen -- is so lacking in any of the depth that Agnes Moorehead brought to the same role that -- well, it is criminal. Almost everyone in this has done better work -- but in contemporary material. (I needn't name names, EVERYONE is terrible... though the actor playing the 19-year-old Fred Kinney is handsome and has no chance to do any bad acting. He gets my vote. Also uncredited in the IMDb cast list!...Oh, alright: I will admit that Bruce Greenwood, Gretchen Mol, Dina Merrill and David Gilliam at least do play as though that had seen Welles's masterpiece and have some respect for it. But what can you do with direction like this???) No one seems to have even the vaguest notion that looks, behavior ... LIFE, was any different a hundred years and more ago from what it is today. Which difference, unfortunately, happens to be the very subject matter of Booth Tarkington's thoughtful, beautiful novel on which this horror is based. Both script adaptation and direction have proceeded with no sense whatever of what is most touching about the source material and the Welles film: their discretion. Compare the famous scene in which George learns that Fanny is penniless. The Welles version (and the superb acting by Agnes Moorehead and Tim Holt) is about the inability to tell the worst until there is no getting round it. The TV version is all about throwing plates and screaming. I will leave it to you to decide which is more effective. The suggestion of incestuous desire between Isabel and George is as loathsome as it is ridiculous. George's screams after the car accident: compare the absolute silence of George in the Welles film. By all means read the book, watch the Welles picture (a very model of adaptation from novel to screen), then watch this only if you want to experience genuine aesthetic pain.Why my comment is not ordered "worst" is beyond me. I could not be more disdainful of this hideous travesty.

mitchabramson I had watched Welles' original more than a few times, and so approached this 'made-for-tv' attempt with much apprehension. I was pleasantly surprised at the lush cinematic treatment and the superior acting. The treatment of the mother to her spoiled child gave just the right hint of their unhealthy and unconscious Oedipal situation; the mother even lying in bed in a black nightgown. I remain confused as to why the majority of bad reviews. Half the critics indicate the story is a "downer," but that IS THE STORY! You can see why Rys is tapped for the lead in Woody Allen's Match Point years later, and I recommend this film for anyone capable of enjoying objectively a well-made piece of film, and not pining away for the "happy ending" you've been taught to expect.

imdb-4671 Of course, even watching the Wells' version was like watching a completely different story than the actual Tarkington novel. The novel is so full of subtlety and nuance (and narration) that I suppose it would be hard for any film to capture it. But this TV flick seems to have been bourne out of some sort of bizarre class called Freud 101. A protective son, yes, but incestuous overtones??? By the way, where is the Midwest? It may have been an affluent family, but early-20th century Indianapolis bore no resemblance to this. Misty moors? Grand hilltop vistas? It's the Midwest for crying out loud! There were wooded estates then as now, but the book is rather specific in describing very public homes that were not removed from the peering eyes of the masses. It was kind of a main point.Now, if one were to simply avoid comparison with the book, I suppose it could have worked rather nicely as a Lifetime/Harlequin movie. The settings, scenes, and costumes were all rather pleasant in an escapist way.