Paul_message I've rarely watched a movie that has had such a negative effect on my enjoyment of it in the last five minutes as this one did. Everything else about this was an absolute delight to me. I thought Lucy and George were cast perfectly and the actors played them with beautiful subtlety of emotion. The scenes of Italy were visually gorgeous. Thoroughly enjoyable until an utterly stupefying ending that was as unnecessary as it was nonsensical. You could literally cut out the last five minutes or so of the movie after the two lovers have gone to sleep in their hotel room and everything makes intuitive and emotional sense. For me It achieved with natural grace what too many movies only contrive to, yet instead of fading to the credits they tack on an ill fitting ending scenario that wearily negates everything that has happened in a way that is neither believable or logical. Did they change directors at the last minute? Was he just having a bad day on that shoot? I guess I'll never know. Perhaps a recut? It would be an easy one to do; snip off a little bit at the end from an otherwise great film and re-release it the way it should be.

gilliann CASTING: A+ -- I thought that George Emerson in this production had a down-to-earth sexiness that was much more appealing than Julian Sands' version. The class differences were emphasized to very good effect in this one -- by comparison, Sands' Mr. Emerson seemed like an aristocrat, which made it harder to see the family's class objections. Lucy and the other characters were all played very well also -- the only character I didn't love was the elder Mr. Emerson, who was too much of a broad caricature for me here -- I preferred him in the original version, where he was my favorite character altogether. (I must admit that since Harry Potter, I can't see Timothy Spall without ears and whiskers -- he will be Peter Pettigrew/Scabbers forever in my mind).PLOT-CHANGE: F- This actually ruined the whole thing for me -- it made me furious! I never read the Forster novel, so after watching Davies' ending, I assumed that this must have been Forster's original ending, and reasoned that the Merchant/Ivory version must have been re-fitted with a false happy ending, because who would ever do the reverse? However, as I cried for fifteen minutes after the program ended, I knew that I definitely preferred the happy ending, manufactured or not -- the tragedy just seemed WRONG. How much angrier I was when I found out that Forster's novel DID have a happy ending! Good God! (Is that who Andrew Davies thinks he is?!) I've never heard of adapting a novel by changing the ending into a tragedy -- it doesn't fit, it subverts the whole point, and it ruined my evening. Andrew Davies, get over your pseudo-artistic self -- that stupid, ridiculous ending was a travesty. If Davies wanted to get attention for originality, he certainly did -- and from the reviews I've seen, it's overwhelmingly in the form of disgust.

pawebster I'm not sure why they made this version. The 1985 film had covered the ground well and been a big success.This version has its good points, however:* It gives a much more powerful feeling of the class divide and the tyranny of delicacy and propriety in the Edwardian period. This is mainly due to Sophie Thompson, who fearlessly makes Charlotte unlikeable in her embarrassed fussiness - even going a little too far in this. In the previous film, Maggie Smith possibly showed too much strength of character in the role - too much Maggie Smith, perhaps.* Rafe Spall is the best feature of this version. He shows much more lust for life - and for Lucy - than Julian Sands did. Sands was a cold fish in comparison. Also, Sands spoke with a fairly upper-class accent (quite unlike his father's) that negated the idea of his coming from a lower class. Admittedly there is a problem with Spall-George's talkativeness. He has a lot more to say for himself than he really should have, especially in the early parts of the story. That is the end of the good points. Now for the bad:* Elaine Cassidy makes Lucy live more than Helena B-C did, but at the cost of being much too knowing, pushy and generally modern than the character is in the book. This is a big flaw that strikes at the heart of the story. It is also much clearer that Lucy is, in fact, fascinated by George - for example she accepts both his stolen kisses fairly readily. Helena B-C truly seemed to dislike him, thus necessitating all the captions (taken from the book) spelling out that she was "lying". * Lawrence Fox is also bad in this. Where Daniel Day Lewis went over the top in prissiness, Fox just seems too sleepy. He specialises in this (see his role in 'Lewis'). How does he get the parts?* The bad, bad, bad point, as many have already noted, is the ending. I can only think that Andrew Davies was desperate to make his version stand out as really different. Having George die is as stupid as if Mr Darcy were to die at the end of Pride and Prejudice. (Have others noticed the parallels between the two books?) As for having Lucy take up with the coachman, words fail me. I suppose Davies wanted to show she had really thrown aside convention. Nevertheless, it stinks.

marcelproust Oh dear. When it comes to remakes, or "re-imaginings" or whatever the current vogue is for churning out an old favourite with a new cast, Sir Michael Caine said it best: only remake the flops. It makes perfect sense: if you fail then everyone thinks one can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but if you succeed then it's bouquets all round.But that remaking a classic like James Ivory's film of E. M. Forsters's novel of Edwardian manners is folly of the highest order was borne out last night with this limp and unengaging ITV drama.Wrapping the action in a clumsy flashback device robbed the story of any freshness or spontaneity, and it quickly became a lot like watching a school play version of one of your favourite films.There were some interesting touches - Mark WIlliams' closeted Mr Beebe picking up Florentine rentboys would have brought a blush to Forster's cheeks. Also amusing were Mr Beebe's blushes as George Emerson and Freddie Honeychurch shed their clothes for the famous bathing scene. But in order the find the gold there was a good deal of dross.Comparing any actress to Dame Maggie Smith is unfair, but Sophie Thompson really came off badly - her Miss Bartlett nothing more than the same irritating ticks and tricks she always uses. There was no real person there. Laurence Fox's far-too-handsome Cecil Vyse seemed to be reading his lines from a cue card and far more interested in his clothes than in Lucy.All in all it makes one deeply fearful for adapter Andrew Davies' upcoming version of Brideshead Revisited.