Mr_Ectoplasma "Gothic" is a fictional account of a June evening in 1816 which purportedly inspired Mary Shelley to write "Frankenstein." It was at the Villa Diodati, with her soon-to-be-husband Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, her stepsister Claire Clairmont, and Dr. William Polidori—all important historical figures. During a storm, the group decide to have an impromptu seance, after which they are tormented by apparitions, visions, and bumps in the night.Criticized by some for being one of Russell's more outlandish works, "Gothic" is certainly bonkers —like a fever dream crossed with the literary works of its subjects. Total cohesion is impossible given Russell's aims here, which are far more impressionistic than anything else. The film works itself into a frenzy that mirrors the state of mind of its characters, under the influence of the monsters of their own minds, or of God's, or the devil's, or perhaps (according to some historical accounts), opium use. The film never clues the audience in to any of these; we are simply handed the madness all its own.There are some nightmarish visuals throughout and several notably disturbing sequences. Others are utterly bizarre and borderline comical, a line that seems to be toed quite finely throughout. Intimations of the characters' own inner struggles and demons are transmitted subtly and overtly: Miscarriages, lost romances, homosexual desires, and religious paranoia. The performances match the content in terms of their histrionics; Julian Sands is especially over-the-top as Percy Shelley, and the same can be said for Miriam Cyr and Timothy Spall, while Natasha Richardson and Gabriel Byrne are a bit more understated in comparison.In the end, "Gothic" is really one of those love-it-or-hate-it types of films. It is thin on plot and thick on impressions and visuals. At times the film feels like a haunted funhouse where things go bump in the night, and at others is far more grave and dark than its more tongue-in-cheek moments. For what Russell seemed to be aiming to do, the film accomplishes it with the help of each creature, apparition, and hysteric. As a deluge of human repressions, fears, and existential dilemmas come to life, "Gothic" is an appropriately bloody, dripping pulp. 9/10.

george karpouzas I have read some, quite of lot, of the viewers' critiques before watching this movie again, from start to end, and form a final opinion. I did see the movie, which I have seen whole or in fragments previous times and some things became clearer to me.You have to know enough about the background of the story and the heroes to understand the plot. Otherwise you will think that they are a bunch of raving maniacs. I happened to be interested in the Romantics, thus I knew a lot about the stories generated from the time spent in the famous villa. There the most famous novel of Mary Shelley, Frankenstein was conceived. I had read the novel in the English language with a dense introduction that was describing the preoccupations of Shelley's circle, the infatuation of the age with the newly discovered electricity and the belief that it could generate life. Also I knew about the intricate relationships of the characters involved.If someone without this background tries to understand what the movie is about, he will be disappointed unless he has such a fine artistic sensibility and general education that can fill the gaps of the ignorance of the facts and emotions surrounding this coterie of quite exceptional people.All the information relevant is contained in the dialogues and images but unless you knew that before you would be unable to make the relevant connections or understand why the characters behave in such a manner, why and what they speak about and the whole purpose of it all.The actors are good I think for their roles. Gabriel Byrne has the latent evil touch and subdued lasciviousness that we attribute to Byron, Julian Sands is truly, the "Mad Shelley", as he was called by his fellow schoolboys when at Eton, Timothy Spall gives a grotesque image of Dr. Polidori, which is perhaps unavoidable given the fact that tradition has so much focused to the personalities of the two great literary men that his reputation has been eclipsed, therefore a normal appraisal is perhaps impossible. Myriam Cyr as Claire Clermont follows the conventional interpretation of her character as a sensuous girl attracted by the fame of the poets and lacking herself the depth and gravitas of Mary Shelley. Natasha Richardson is the most normal character among the protagonists and has a fine sequence of scenes, near the end, where she sees as if a prophetess the ensuing fate of many of the characters, which latter developments validate. The other point I wanted to make about Claire Clairmont is that when she is not portrayed as a slut with cultural pretensions, she is shown in a condition of animalistic primitivism or as possessed by demons. Dr. Polidori is also a buffoonish homosexual who eyes both the great poets. It is clear that because Claire Clairmont and Dr. Polidori were the ones of the company that did not achieve literary fame, because the were not the "literary monuments" the other two and to a lesser extent Mary Shelley later became, they have to suffer in the hands of posterity when a director has to cast their roles so as to fill the required quorum along with the "great ones". Not only life but also posthumous reputation is unfair....Sound and visual effects are adequate and achieve surprise and fear, especially the first time the movie is watched. A lot of demons and related creatures occupy the screen. One though must not blame the director for overdoing it because those elements formed the staple iconography of the so called "Gothic" atmosphere and the diaries of the heroes contain references to hallucinations and the like, perhaps because of drug taking, or just because the symbiosis of some of the most active and strong imaginations alive during that particular time.The best word that I can use to describe this movie is "uneven". It has good actors, it is supported by sound and scenic effects, it has costumes that look authentic but at times it becomes disgusting, chaotic, devoid of a real plot and radiates hysteria. There are attempts towards sexual explicitness, though by today's standards not so offensive; it must have been for the eighties though...I was interested in the movie because I am very interested in the Romantics. Otherwise it can be seen as a story of rich people indulging to their decadent appetites for sex, drugs, aimless philosophising and self-absorption, reminding one of a company of people devoted to Marquis de Sade's idea of pleasure(graphic illustrations of his books are page-turned by Mary). Mind you, if tabloids had existed during that time the story would have been a scoop. It might even hit YouTube. When famous people follow their fancies or get their kicks, it is always different from simple plebeians.... Apart from the literary fame of the characters, which in their lifetime was actually secured only by Byron, Shelley and even more Mary Shelley were to be vindicated by posterity; and Shelley was actually more famous-that is- notorious for his unconventional sexual mores, his atheism and his political radicalism, rather than for his verse, is this a story actually worthy to be made to a movie? I can not give a definite answer. Would such a story of drugs, free love (actually sex), hallucinations and sheer self-absorption be of interest to anyone? But of course it produced Frankenstein the most famous of Gothic novels …. I do not think that all this creativity was portrayed in the film. It focused more on the "bad, mad and dangerous to know" aspects of the characters. In that sense I do not think it does justice to what happened in the villa of Geneva and mainly to what was produced. Not all hedonists produce novels of enduring value. Stressing on the eccentric aspects of the lives of the characters the film has betrayed their literary significance and succumbed to sensationalism and cheap thrills.

Michael Neumann Percy and Mary Shelley visit Lord Byron's Swiss retreat to stimulate their calloused nerve ends in a wild orgy of free sex, laudanum, and the sort of Freudian psycho-sexual hallucinations only true poets can conjure. All for nothing, since in his attempt to duplicate the unbridled amorality of the evening director Ken Russell throws in everything except a reason for making the film in the first place. Supposedly Mary Shelley was inspired afterward to write her novel 'Frankenstein', a fact simply mentioned in passing after everything is revealed to have been nothing but a collective bad dream. Like its characters the film is self-absorbed to the point of unintended parody, with lots of florid emoting, profound dialogue, and nauseating, drug-induced imagery meant to either shock or titillate the viewer. A generation (or two) ago it might have been considered a 'heavy trip', but in these jaded days the strongest reactions will likely be fatigue and embarrassment. A bad dream is, after all, nothing but a bad dream.

amplexuslotus This is the type of film which makes you fall in love with movies. Ken Russell is a master filmmaker and one which always captivates, delights and challenges the viewer. I was lucky enough to catch him in Philadelphia in the 90's where he was given a filmmaker award for excellence in film. He's as interesting, humorous and intelligent as his movies.Other films by him I highly recommend WOmen in Love (1969), Lisztomania (1975), Altered States (1980), Salomé's Last Dance (1988), The Lair of the White Worm (1988), The Rainbow (1989) and there are probably many others - including his work for British TV - but I've yet to see them yet unfortunately.Gothic is a film which will enthrall, engage and frighten the viewer with excellent acting from ALL the actors - support and lead. Sad that this was Richardson's first major film and we have been denied the grace of viewing any future projects from such a wonderful actor.I highly recommend Gothic to any serious film goer. This is the type of film which will make wish to research further information about the main characters. Mary Shelley is brought to flesh through Russell's excellent direction and Richardson's beautifully nuanced intelligent interpretation.