Suriname86 It reminds me a bit of "North and South" and the 2011 version of "Jane Eyre" in the sense that it's not a feel-good romantic period piece and the setting is pretty stark. Frankly, it's not particularly romantic at all. I suppose it's a character study more than anything. The main character has her own idea of integrity that I'm not even sure I agree with. I kind of liked the film but I see why other people don't; it's flawed: the movie depicts the close sibling relationship but, the actors who played the siblings didn't have much familial chemistry with each other (the actor who played Tom was particularly dull) so their scenes felt flat and pointless. Stephen and Lucy felt a bit generic as well. James Frain was wonderful and deep as Phillip but, so much so that he stuck out and it felt like he should've been a character in a different (and better) movie. As I mentioned, I "sort of" liked the movie but, it was very flawed.

ericbikeco I love period movies. Sense and Sensibility? One of my favorites. This was an exceptionally horrible production that stills-6 reviewed in a way I cannot top. Maybe the story was good, but this was so bad I won't even find out if Eliot wrote a good story and these clowns botched it. Anyone that gave this 8 stars had to be stoned or drunk.And now IMDb tells me my review isn't long enough, so I will have to rehash previously commented issues instead of providing a succinct "avoid this movie" warning: it's like they filmed the pile of storyboards and forgot to fill in the actual story. Not sure if this is a spoiler, but I sat for an hour and all if a sudden Whatsits is in love with Maggie? Huh? Maybe I don't get 1820 (supposedly), but he saw her across a room three times and they're off on a boat to go to Whoknowswhere for some reason that seems to be "the BBC didn't want a movie longer than 2 hours".

broadwaylady-1 It's too bad that the way this is set up it forces you to give any stars at all. This was not even a "b" flick; it sucked, plain and simple. This comes from a person who loves every movie, and has a special place in her heart for 'The Last Unicorn' (not that I would ever admit it publicly.) My main point in saying that is this: although I don't have very discriminating taste when it comes to movies, and I am more than easily entertained, this movie made me feel as though I'd actually wasted my time and energy even putting it in the VCR. For days afterward I felt as though I had never finished it because the beginning had promise, but the middle to the end was phenomenally bad. You have been fairly forewarned... stay as far away from this movie as is physically and reasonably possible.

stills-6 Great locations, beautiful shots, good if not impressive acting (except for the exceptional Watson). The only thing this movie suffers from is the story itself. The script necessarily pares down the story to its essence - but a good deal is lost in the translation. George Eliot's intelligence has been all but wrung out in favor of a questionable love story between Maggie and her brother Tom.This is the kind of production that takes the points of the plot and hits you with them scene by scene - bang bang bang. At the beginning, we are promised a truly artistic treatment with shots of the mill itself and the beautiful English countryside. But by the end we are bombarded with events without reflection and character motivations that are baffling. It's like watching someone write a sentence out on lined paper - realizing that there won't be room to fit it all on one line, the letters get smashed together towards the end so there is no punctuation, no style, and no white space at all.