MarieGabrielle
John Hurt is understated and quite funny as a repressed British author, who, on one quiet evening happens to rent "Hot Pants College" starring Jason Priestley as Ronnie Bostock.The premise sounds silly and under-developed, but it isn't. John Hurt perfects the role, and becomes an aficionado of Ronnie Bostock's film "career" eventually learning that Bostock lives on "Chesterfield" Long Island, a fictional NY suburb.He decides to visit, and help Bostock develop his career. Hurt is hysterical, as a capable Shakespearean actor quoting Walt Whitman, and educating Priestley as to what film roles he should take. Jason Priestley is also pretty funny, trying to get decent film roles as an American is not easy-..."he's so sick of playing stupid kids"... (his girlfriend whines).John Hurt also makes a few endeavors to get Priestley to relocate to London- ..."you know Rimbaud and his patron/lover Paul Verlaine had quite a successful partnership"... Priestley thinks that Rimbaud is "Rambo"- if you don't get the joke, then you have the same problems Ronnie Bostock/Priestley has.At any rate, this film is worth viewing. Intelligent and funny. 8/10.
MartinHafer
First I need to point out that John Hurt, as usual, does a fabulous job of acting in the film. I have always loved his work and he does himself credit by his performance. So, I feel a little bad about not liking the movie more than I did. The problem, for me, is that the plot and the pairing with Jason Priestly just didn't seem to make any sense. You see, Hurt is an elderly writer who is living WAY behind the times--owning no television, going to see no movies and living a quiet quiet and isolated life. Then, on a lark, he finally decides to go to a movie and enters the wrong theater. Instead of an E. M. Forrester film (or some other respected British writer), he walks into a theater showing a brain-dead teen movie (sort of like Porky's). However, once the movie begins, he is captivated by the actor, Priestly, and becomes infatuated with him. Then, he spends the next 75% of the movie going from Britain to Long Island to try to find and befriend Priestly. This just didn't make ANY sense at all. It's not because of the homosexuality, but it would have been equally silly and unbelievable if he'd fallen for some young female in the movie and spent the movie pursuing her.Think about it--it would be like a writer with perhaps the reputation of a John Updike or Joseph Heller seeing Britney Spears on MTV and then dropping everything to pursue her!
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.
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.
AD
