ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

tentender ...and most atrocious? The DVD package's false advertising: "After 60 years, Welles' (sic)...vision has finally been realized." In a pig's eye. "Using the original shooting script, director Alfonso Arau...has re-filmed every scene according to Welles' (sic) directions." (The possessive of "Welles" is "Welles's," not "Welles'". Cheez.) And yet somehow without reference to either that script or those directions. Scenes are shuffled irrationally, others are missing, banal dialogue is added, there is an omnipresent, banal, and thoroughly unhelpful musical score, and the consistently perverse, absurd casting is compounded by equally consistent pathetically obvious bad acting. It is hard to say who is worst, but Jonathan Rhys Meyers is certainly the most insufferable, with his perfect and perfectly awful American accent, his ugly pouty face, and his complete lack of nuance. Jennifer Tilly -- an actress who, like Meyers, has done excellent work with Woody Allen -- is so lacking in any of the depth that Agnes Moorehead brought to the same role that -- well, it is criminal. Almost everyone in this has done better work -- but in contemporary material. (I needn't name names, EVERYONE is terrible... though the actor playing the 19-year-old Fred Kinney is handsome and has no chance to do any bad acting. He gets my vote. Also uncredited in the IMDb cast list!...Oh, alright: I will admit that Bruce Greenwood, Gretchen Mol, Dina Merrill and David Gilliam at least do play as though that had seen Welles's masterpiece and have some respect for it. But what can you do with direction like this???) No one seems to have even the vaguest notion that looks, behavior ... LIFE, was any different a hundred years and more ago from what it is today. Which difference, unfortunately, happens to be the very subject matter of Booth Tarkington's thoughtful, beautiful novel on which this horror is based. Both script adaptation and direction have proceeded with no sense whatever of what is most touching about the source material and the Welles film: their discretion. Compare the famous scene in which George learns that Fanny is penniless. The Welles version (and the superb acting by Agnes Moorehead and Tim Holt) is about the inability to tell the worst until there is no getting round it. The TV version is all about throwing plates and screaming. I will leave it to you to decide which is more effective. The suggestion of incestuous desire between Isabel and George is as loathsome as it is ridiculous. George's screams after the car accident: compare the absolute silence of George in the Welles film. By all means read the book, watch the Welles picture (a very model of adaptation from novel to screen), then watch this only if you want to experience genuine aesthetic pain.Why my comment is not ordered "worst" is beyond me. I could not be more disdainful of this hideous travesty.

Marsha Cannot believe this movie was made, much less that ANYONE cared for it. Young George was really over the top, atrocious acting by all except for Eugene's daughter, forgot her name-- When Madeline Stowe was in a scene, all I could look at was her weird application of lipstick, couldn't understand why she moped around and let her CHILD tell HER what to do either. Tilly was horrendous, and as for James Cromwell, I usually like his movies, but he was ridiculous in this one. Cannot believe he agreed to do this movie. The over-acting by the cast was accompanied by a very poor script, making my list of all time BAD movies. What in this world was all the hullabaloo about? I didn't see anything interesting nor shocking about this production, something a little strange when George kisses his mother, but this serves only to make the movie even MORE unbelievable. What a terrible waste of time!!

coleman-9 I am a huge fan of Jonathon Rhys-Meyers. That is to say, I am a huge fan of Jonathon Rhys-Meyers' pretty face and undeniable sex appeal. This movie was pretty hard to sit through. The characters were badly portrayed and impossible to relate to.

pea_flea One would think that, given the way A&E was touting "The Magnificent Ambersons," the actual film might be something to sit back and take note of and maybe enjoy just a little bit. The truth is, I've had bikini waxes that were more enjoyable, if only because they didn't last for three hours, like this incessant piece of drivel.The film is marred by five lackluster performances. The unfortunate thing is, they also happen to be the ones with the most screen time. Madeleine Stowe is supposed to be the intriguing, haunted heroine Isabel Minafer, but the only thing that haunted or intrigued me was wondering how much Collagen she must inject to make her lips looks so pouty all the time.Jonathan Rhys Meyers, as Isabel's spoiled son Charlie, is over-the-top and extremely annoying, a little rich boy run amok. His performance also runs amok, to the ruin of the film. You not only want to slap his character for being such a little snot, you want to slap Rhys Meyers for acting so poorly.His obnoxious character makes you wonder why in God's name Lucy Morgan (Gretchen Mol) would even be interested in him. After all, she's the spunky daughter of a self-made man and plays hard to get with all the other boys. But that's about it. Mol gives the character little depth or spark. It's not that she's as bad as Rhys Meyers, but like all of the other performances (save the glaringly bad ones), she's just forgettable.The same could be said for Bruce Greenwood's work as Lucy's father, entrepreneur Edward Morgan. As the man who falls in love with Isabel, Greenwood certainly looks dashing. He's a handsome inventor working in the automobile business, which stick-in-the-mud Charlie thinks is just a passing fad. The forbidden love between Isabel and Edward is supposed to evoke pathos and haunt our souls, but passion never ignites, and though the actors make googoo eyes and send each other love letters, which are ridiculously read straight into the camera by the characters, they never really convince you that they are madly in love.I thought Jennifer Tilly's turn as spinster Aunt Fanny Minafer might provide a respite from the other boring performances, but all she does is further annoy you, if only because of her obnoxious squeaky voice. Aunt Fanny, played by an actress of greater ability, could have been one of the more complex of the film, as she has led a disappointing and unfulfilled life. But like the rest of the character, you find you really couldn't give a rat's about her, either.It seems that Booth Tarkington meant for the title "The Magnificent Ambersons" to be ironic. While they may have loads of money and live in opulence, the Amberson/Minafer family are by no means interesting, exciting, intelligent, or worthwhile, much like most of high society today. They fall from riches to insolvency, while the entrepreneurial class represented by Morgan gains prominence and wealth, which only emphasizes the irony of this title. It seems that Tarkington may have meant his novel to be a commentary of the constant state of flux in which societal structures often are found. But then again, that probably didn't cross the director's or the actors' minds. The film never delves deep into any of these issues.There's nothing magnificent, even mediocre, about this film. It is a waste of time, and A&E is probably realizing, a waste of money as well.