I admittedly did not read E.M. Forster's novel and haven't seen this movie for quite some years, but was extremely disappointed with it at the time, having had great expectations.
The story revolves around a young English girl, Lucy Honeychurch, who has traveled to Florence with her strict cousin & prim spinster chaperon, Charlotte Bartlett. While in Florence, their hotel room lacks the desired scenic view, so fellow English tourists, Mr. Emmerson and his son George, offer to exchange rooms with them. Lucy and the liberal George begin a romantic attraction, much to the displeasure of cousin Charlotte, as Lucy already has a more suitable & aristocratic (though insufferably snobbish) fiancé, Cecil, back in England. After returning home, Lucy is torn between her socially expected marriage to Cecil and her desire for George.
Helena Bonham Carter is competent in the role of the genteel Lucy, though I personally failed to become that engaged in her predictable romantic tale and in fact found her rather annoying. Maggie Smith is of course wonderful as her thwarting chaperon, 'poor Charlotte', who alas, is invariably mocked and labeled as uptight.
The film indeed features impressive period costumes, wonderful cinematography (including magnificent Florentine vistas), and beautiful musical scoring (Puccini operas & Beethoven piano sonatas). However, there is some lazy writing here. Bit of a coincidence, isn't it? that the young English tourist, George, whom Lucy meets at her hotel in Florence just happens to become her new neighbour back home in England. All very convenient.
Also, this is yet another variation on the theme of Victorian sexual repression, not exactly a novel concept. In Forster's 1984 A Passage to India, the repression theme again manifests itself in the personage of Adela Quested, but I greatly preferred that particular tale with its conflict between the Raj and native Indians. I absolutely adore Jane Austen's novels and their modern cinematic versions, but, frankly, this particular costume drama is no Jane Austen.
One reviewer commented that anyone complaining about this movie 'has issues'. Funny, Austen's stories continue to remain popular two centuries or so after her death, without including any nude bathing scenes or whatever. Call me repressed, but I'm with Cecil and wouldn't be particularly comfortable myself stumbling upon a group of bathers skinny dipping. I wouldn't swoon, but neither would I go out of my way to lallygag about. I have no objections to nude bathing, but neither am I of the opinion that those who choose to do so necessarily represent a more enlightened form of humanity than those who do not. Pity, but I guess the point being made here is that modesty is an undesirable quality and is synonymous with being 'uptight'. Of course that's the modern philosophy, but I beg to differ. As for the vicar bathing nude, just the usual modern cinematic attempt to mock or denigrate the clergy.
Why couldn't the more traditional Cecil (with his sensitivities about modesty issues) have been made the nice guy rather than a boorish snob, and the sexually liberal George have had a nasty streak? I guess conservative (repressed? uptight?) equals snob and liberal equals loving & caring. This tale is just so predictable, I don't understand why people sing its praises so highly, other than for its obviously impressive cinematography, music, and costuming.
Yes, a depiction of period styles & manners, but the focus on personal passions versus social expectations is not a very original idea. I fully expected to love this picture, but simply found it had both an unoriginal romantic conflict and a very predictable ending. My stars are for the views of Florentine art & architecture, the Beethoven sonatas, and yes, perhaps even that beautifully photographed, romantic kiss in the field of flowers...but not for the generally hackneyed theme or the stereotypical characters.
The story revolves around a young English girl, Lucy Honeychurch, who has traveled to Florence with her strict cousin & prim spinster chaperon, Charlotte Bartlett. While in Florence, their hotel room lacks the desired scenic view, so fellow English tourists, Mr. Emmerson and his son George, offer to exchange rooms with them. Lucy and the liberal George begin a romantic attraction, much to the displeasure of cousin Charlotte, as Lucy already has a more suitable & aristocratic (though insufferably snobbish) fiancé, Cecil, back in England. After returning home, Lucy is torn between her socially expected marriage to Cecil and her desire for George.
Helena Bonham Carter is competent in the role of the genteel Lucy, though I personally failed to become that engaged in her predictable romantic tale and in fact found her rather annoying. Maggie Smith is of course wonderful as her thwarting chaperon, 'poor Charlotte', who alas, is invariably mocked and labeled as uptight.
The film indeed features impressive period costumes, wonderful cinematography (including magnificent Florentine vistas), and beautiful musical scoring (Puccini operas & Beethoven piano sonatas). However, there is some lazy writing here. Bit of a coincidence, isn't it? that the young English tourist, George, whom Lucy meets at her hotel in Florence just happens to become her new neighbour back home in England. All very convenient.
Also, this is yet another variation on the theme of Victorian sexual repression, not exactly a novel concept. In Forster's 1984 A Passage to India, the repression theme again manifests itself in the personage of Adela Quested, but I greatly preferred that particular tale with its conflict between the Raj and native Indians. I absolutely adore Jane Austen's novels and their modern cinematic versions, but, frankly, this particular costume drama is no Jane Austen.
One reviewer commented that anyone complaining about this movie 'has issues'. Funny, Austen's stories continue to remain popular two centuries or so after her death, without including any nude bathing scenes or whatever. Call me repressed, but I'm with Cecil and wouldn't be particularly comfortable myself stumbling upon a group of bathers skinny dipping. I wouldn't swoon, but neither would I go out of my way to lallygag about. I have no objections to nude bathing, but neither am I of the opinion that those who choose to do so necessarily represent a more enlightened form of humanity than those who do not. Pity, but I guess the point being made here is that modesty is an undesirable quality and is synonymous with being 'uptight'. Of course that's the modern philosophy, but I beg to differ. As for the vicar bathing nude, just the usual modern cinematic attempt to mock or denigrate the clergy.
Why couldn't the more traditional Cecil (with his sensitivities about modesty issues) have been made the nice guy rather than a boorish snob, and the sexually liberal George have had a nasty streak? I guess conservative (repressed? uptight?) equals snob and liberal equals loving & caring. This tale is just so predictable, I don't understand why people sing its praises so highly, other than for its obviously impressive cinematography, music, and costuming.
Yes, a depiction of period styles & manners, but the focus on personal passions versus social expectations is not a very original idea. I fully expected to love this picture, but simply found it had both an unoriginal romantic conflict and a very predictable ending. My stars are for the views of Florentine art & architecture, the Beethoven sonatas, and yes, perhaps even that beautifully photographed, romantic kiss in the field of flowers...but not for the generally hackneyed theme or the stereotypical characters.