Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Animenter There are women in the film, but none has anything you could call a personality.

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

gkeith_1 Christopher Reeve not too convincing here. Seems he wanted Verena as a trophy, and as a prize taken from his cousin Olive. Having seen the movie and read some reviews, Verena was perhaps the ultimate mutton-headed dolt. Verena was very sweet, and Olive rightly predicted how Verena would be quite attractive to men.Jessica Tandy was excellent. She looked so ill as Miss Birdseye, that I figured she would meet her demise by the end of the movie. She was very dedicated to her cause, and knew that younger women would carry on the banner. She seemed to have more sense than many of the other characters.I had waited awhile to see this movie. I have not read the book. Christopher Reeve did say that "Somewhere In Time" was his most favorite movie that he made. I feel that his love story in that movie was more believable than in this one. Olive reminded me here of William Fawcett Robinson in that movie, controlling the actress Elise McKenna. Elise was adored by the public, ala Verena. It is said that Robinson was himself in love with Elise, and in "The Bostonians" we are led to believe that Olive was in love with Verena. In both cases, Christopher Reeve played the outsider/suitor who was despised by Robinson and Olive.

bkoganbing Henry James has not been an easy author to bring to the screen. The Heiress has been one glorious exception and even with the fine production values that Merchant/Ivory brought to The Bostonians it still doesn't quite measure up to The Heiress in glorious black and white.That being said The Bostonians is great window on the world of Henry James and the upper class society in which he moved in New York and Boston. James was a great evaluator of human nature even of the love that dare not speak its name.Stripped of all the trimmings about the emerging women's movement what we've got here is a triangle with a lesbian twist. Vanessa Redgrave got an Oscar nomination for Best Actress with her portrayal as an intellectual leader who feels she hasn't the voice to articulate the issues surrounding suffrage and all the other inequalities women endured back then. She latches on to a protégé in the person of Madeline Potter recently shilling for her faith healer father Wesley Addy. What she cannot, dare not articulate is the physical attraction she's feeling for Potter.Redgrave is simply marvelous as the frustrated, possibly even latent lesbian. We're never sure if she has or will ever consummate her feelings. This is Boston of the 1870s-1880s where such things are frowned there even more than most places in the USA. Vanessa's rival for Potter is Christopher Reeve a devilishly handsome young blade from the south who has come north to seek his fortune as a lawyer. As for Potter she's not sure of what she wants or even that Redgrave's interest in her is more than politics.Linda Hunt and Jessica Tandy have a pair of good roles, The Bostonians is great in terms of roles for women. Tandy is an aged old soul who rejoices in the changes in America she's seen in the 19th century of which she remembers most of. Hunt is her nurse/companion who is a shrewd observer of the events around her and Tandy.The Bostonians also got a nomination for Costume Design and the shooting in Boston and New York are fine. Boston has kept a lot of the same look Henry James knew in certain areas of the city and James Ivory made great use of Central Park in New York and some of the structures there that were put up in the time of Henry James.I won't say what happens other than to say that Vanessa Redgrave does find it in herself to articulate her cause. As for the rest you have to watch this very fine production to find out.

[email protected] Well meant production from the magical Merchant/Ivory/Jhabvala team. This one was made before they hit their stride, however. The first mistake was casting Christopher Reeve in the lead. He always looks like he's acting, there's nothing natural about it. His performance here is in par with cheap 70's pornography acting. He is supposedly classically trained as an actor, but I guess anyone who pays for and attends acting classes can say the same. Some have it and some don't, he doesn't. The costumes, art direction and sets are all lavish and appealing. The dialog is far too updated to make one believe that it's taking place in another century, it's almost like a high school production in that aspect. Redgrave and Marchand both give good performances, nothing remarkable at all, but acceptable. The rest of the cast is a mish-mash of mostly b-listers. Scriptwriter Jhabvala has proved herself time and again to be quite the artist, but the script here is flat. Perhaps the book it was based on is this dull and unconvincing. I was left simply unaffected by any message they were trying to convey about the period. I'm a fanatic when it comes to Merchant/Ivory pictures, but this one just didn't cut it. It seems they were more in their element with their amazing and opulent European productions. The quality of their American films seems to be quite cheap in production in comparison. I'm simply left wondering what a masterpiece this could have been had it been set in and filmed in England. If you're an Ivory/Merchant fan, stick with their better titles "A Room With A View" & "Sense And Sensibility", they both surpass this effort by leagues.

Kenneth Anderson I just finished reading Henry James' "The Bostonians," and though I found the book to be a fine read and rather effective in capturing the many waves of emotion that flow through its often unappealing characters, I can't say I was taken much with its mean-spirited and narrow satire. This three-sided love story involving a feminist spinster, her rather dim protégée and a Southern knucklehead (I'm simplifying wildly here) involved me more than it should have, yet it left a bad the taste in my mouth. What is one to make of a tale in which two of the most vulnerable characters are left wounded by the "hero" (Olive Chancellor in the present, Verena Tarrant in the future) and noble ideals are trounced by bigotry, brutism and misogyny? The author's phobic attitude toward the "Boston Marriage" of the two heroines seems to mirror that of the southern chauvinist Basil Ransom (which is offputting) and the book never quite recovers from thoroughly humanizing the doomed females while setting them up to be trounced by the Great White Male. Given that I found the book to have such objectionable themes, I probably should have stayed away from the film, but since movies have a long history of "free adaptations" of novels, I though that perhaps the film version of "The Bostonians" might give some form and direction to James' sometimes overwritten, anti-feminist jeremiad.Well, I should have left well enough alone. The film is slavishly faithful to the book in all the wrong ways – LOTS of talking, VERY leisurely –and never manages to improve upon its flaws. Vanessa Redgrave is rather remarkable, as is Linda Hunt, but everybody else comes off sorely lacking, especially poor Christopher Reeve who tries to be dashing but makes Ransom even more odious than in the book (which I didn't think possible). Scenes start and end with so little dramatic flow -or sense- that I really wonder what I would have made of the film had I not read the book (I don't think any of the behaviors of the characters would have made the least bit of sense). Though a weak attempt is made to make the ending less sexist than in the book, it's a case of too little, too late. "The Bostonians" still remains a politically offensive minor effort easily overlooked because it also commits the crime of being dull.