Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Cortechba Overrated

YouHeart I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

deacon_blues-3 I find this version of TMA much better than the truncated Welles production. The cast is much stronger throughout.In 1942, only Cotten and Moorehead were really good. Holt was a total stiff, and Costello was barely part of the set furniture. In this new production, every role is played memorably by a strong performer. Of course each role is acted differently than in 1942, but even so, this one's much more memorable and detailed. The story is much livelier and compelling. Costello was especially disappointing in the original, whereas Stowe really brings Isabel to life. You can sense the tragic waste of a truly beautiful relationship that never happened because of George's selfishness and sick fixation on his mother and her mutual fixation on her son. In the 1942 version, George's tantrums are all about reputation and public scandal. In this version, we get a much deeper and more complex insight into their tragic relationship. Greenwood is no Cotten, as he would undoubtedly be the first to proclaim, but Morgan's character does not require the genius of a Cotten. If Cotten had been young enough, George's role would have been much better for him. There is no way that Tim Holt could ever hold a candle to Jon Rhys Meyers. Meyers is captivating and relentless. He keeps you guessing about his character's development to the very end of the film. Mol is also better than Baxter, but they are close. James Cromwell especially brings a whole new dimension to Amberson. Richard Bennet was another stiff piece of set furniture in 1942. Hootkins and Collins are a draw.The set design and production value are voluptuous and fantastic in this film. Ditto for costume design. But dittos for the 1942 version as well.All-in-all, I find this version much more satisfying. It boasts a much stronger lead and strong casting at every level and every station. Even the flashbacks are done well using the same actors.I especially favor this version since it fully realizes Welles' own script without truncations from meddling producers and studio moguls.

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.

rosalindr I thought Jonathan Rhys Meyers performance as the snobbish, bullying, insecure Georgie was great. This guy bases his whole life on being the scion of a wealthy, upper crust family. When his family status drops, Georgie must find himself to escape from his arrogant dependence on his family name. I found the romance between Bruce Greenwood and Madeline Stowe somewhat tepid. Stowe looked old, and hardly the radiant beauty that Greenwood remembers. However the critics who say that Georgie shouldn't have been able to break up his mother's romance don't understand the social climate of the time period. The turn of the 19th to the 20th Century was an interesting time in America. Tarkington's book is about the changing social order, by showing the rise of self-made men over old money and lineage. I thought that was done very well in this production, but based on the other comments I appear to be in the minority.

Starlla34_98 I went back and watched this movie for a 3rd time. I do not see anything bad to comment on about it. Rubbish it's not. I see a truly unique film here. It is rather odd which I enjoy. And, JRM, portrays characters like Georgie to perfection. The whole cast played their parts well. As I mentioned before nothing is perfect in any film, but Myers is in his role here. His character really angered me at times, but hey isn't that what a movie is suppose to do? Evoke our emotions? I loved the movie. Worth watching 3 times.