CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

bobvend A film starring Helen Mirren and Anne Bancroft, along with an attractive male lead in Oliver Martinez. How could it possibly miss? Let me count the ways. Better yet, just do yourself a favor and view the 1961 version. Although more of a soaper and not anywhere near as physically explicit, it has a far more honest feel than this definitely watchable but glossy neo-costumer. Not to say that the two top-notch actresses aren't truly wonderful in their respective roles, it seems to be more a problem of the director's interpretations of both story and characters. The actors seem to overplay at times, and some key lines and scenes taken from the original are treated as throwaways in this new version which is far too tailored for modern sensibilities. As completely riveting as she is, Mirren's Karen Stone never really comes off as the sympathetic character Vivien Leigh so bravely portrayed in the 1961 film. This retelling here is all very beautifully filmed and there's a lot to look at and lush music to hear. The film almost redeems itself with it's wonderfully staged final scene, full of suspense and sadness, almost operatic. Too bad I had to wait till the end to see such a worthwhile moment.

bbboomer49-1 I don't know of what social class Rodrigo Santoros character had been before the war but I do know Mussolini did favor the aristocratic crowd prior to the war, causing the middle class Italian to increasingly fear and hate him. I do remember my grandmother talking about his breaking up the unions and doing everything to help the wealthy. Santoro did not need to speak, his expressions and his eyes spoke for him. I don't believe he was anyone to be feared. He was homeless and hungry and probably ill. This wealthy lady represented life and survival to him, but how was he to catch her eye when he had nothing at all to offer but himself? The night that she was standing outside the restaurant and jumped at him demanding to know what he wanted from her showed us she had nothing to fear from him. He backed away and appeared as if he was about to cry. When she finally threw him the keys his eyes filled with hope as if the gates of heaven had been open to him. I believe he went to her, not to harm her but with the hope of becoming a very devoted companion to her. That in their union he would survive and she would not be lonely anymore.

andros12 I found myself reminiscing about this film long after having seen it. Initially expecting a probable pale imitation of the 1961 original; it seemed this new film appeared to possess many symbolic occurrences and images that seemed strangely familiar. For example, the homeless man knocking at Karen Stone's door reminded me of a picture I had seen as a child. The caption below the picture read "Look, I am standing at the door knocking. If one of you hears me calling..." Revelation 3:20I also remembered some of Helen Mirren's past performances as characters very unlike Mrs. Stone; therefore it required a preliminary adjustment to accept her as the more sensitive, deeply passionate, fading beauty. However, her outstanding vocal delivery and subtle nuances in voice and movement combined very effectively to bring Karen Stone to life. Karen Stone, a woman bewildered and lost after her humiliating final theatrical performance, the death of her husband and the loss of her youth finds herself "drifting" with no particular focus after finally deciding to settle in Rome. She meets an "old harpy" named the Contessa and her "man for hire" Paolo Di Lio. Olivier Martinez plays Paolo in stereotypical fashion as a vain, arrogant, self-centered rogue and Karen Stone is totally captivated by him. "Love is blind" is truly one of the film's major underlying themes as Mrs. Stone refuses to accept the total reality of her arrangement with Paolo anymore than he fully accepts the fact that he is, in actual fact, a purchased lover. Even Karen's physical appearance changes as her "addiction" progresses to the point where she resembles a heavily made-up caricature of her former self.The films heavily stylized 1950's costuming, artful set decoration, masterful cinematography and haunting, poignant score set against the backdrop of the "eternal" city serve as a very effective combination of elements in creating the films memorable romantic impression.For the most part, the characters are interesting and enjoyable to watch providing one accepts them strictly for who and what they represent. Anne Bancroft as the calculating Contessa appears to have a fun loving side as opposed to Lotte Lenya's vicious ruthlessness in the original film. Coral Browne's performance as Karen Stone's friend in the original film is, however, sadly missed.Rodrigo Santoro's performance as the homeless man presents an interesting character study because of his primary reliance on facial expressions which are powerfully supported by the films unique presentations of symbolism, colour and sound. When Karen Stone first makes eye contact with him on a bridge he responds with a provocative leer and exposes his chest, his hand held over the heart area. This gesture is dramatically different from her initial meeting with Paolo, wherein he lights her cigarette, a probable symbol of a fleeting but fatal pleasure.From the beginning the homeless man appears to be on a quest to establish contact with Mrs. Stone. His motivational perspective as a positive or negative force remains unclear throughout the film. At one point, there is a wonderfully effective camera shot circling around his head as he gazes up at Mrs. Stone on her veranda. An impoverished vagrant, he goes largely unnoticed as he eats scraps off the ground, gets kicked by a police officer, is laughed at by Paolo's barbers and is repeatedly viewed with disdain by Mrs. Stone. Thus begins a series of unexpected but plausible Biblically symbolic references: "...without majesty, we saw him, no looks to attract our eyes, a thing despised and rejected..." Isaiah 53:2 The homeless man's next couple of appearances are lewd demonstrations perhaps meant to reflect Mrs. Stone's "addiction" to physical pleasure at the expense of her personal dignity. Later, Paolo calls Karen to the window and asks her the identity of the man in the street. There are cathedral bells ringing in the distance as she refers to the him using the somewhat unusual description as a probable "money changer." Luke 2:14. When the mysterious man knocks on her door for the last time, Mrs. Stone finally confronts him with her impassioned plea, "Why do you follow me?" He responds with a mute, tear filled expression.The film is brought to a overwhelmingly unhappy, emotional climax at Karen Stone's final "party" when she overhears the Contessa describing her as "a harlot who has struck it rich." Karen looks to Paolo for reassurance. There is none. Mrs. Stone is at last forced to come to terms with the person that she has become.Left alone after throwing out Paolo, the Contessa and friends, Helen Mirren performs a wonderfully effective mime performance as a woman alone and humiliated while pacing around her clock as she silently acknowledges her helplessness over the passage of time.She then wraps the three keys to her apartment in a white handkerchief. Waving the handkerchief like a flag of surrender from her veranda, she throws it down to the homeless man waiting on the street. He takes the keys and looks up, his face a rich tapestry of emotion. As he approaches the first gate to her apartment, a "trinity" of lights shine in the background. In addition, directly behind him an obelisk-like formation reflecting an ice-blue light projects toward the sky resembling a "conduit" of sorts. As he approaches the second gate it becomes apparent that the stairway leading to Mrs. Stone's apartment has become awash in the blue light as well. When he opens her door the light enters her apartment and it also flows in through the windows. The blending of the various colours form an echo reminiscent of a renaissance painting. The homeless man moves silently toward her, his face half obscured in shadows, his eyes a profound reflection of love and understanding.As Mrs. Stone smiles back, the couple's faces go out of focus, as though each person had suddenly ceased to exist.

Osibi Tenesee Williams is marvelous, but this is really awful.I am a huge Mirren fan but she is miscast as an ageing fading "beauty".Olivier is' way too old at pushing 40 to be a young gigilo and I have real problems with his "acting" and not just in this movie.I have seen all his early French movies as well as his newer ventures into English.There is a harsh cold arrogance within him that yells male macho pig that lacks any depth or finer feelings.He seems always so stiff and unnatural,his acting is really wooden.( The scene where he lifts his hand to hit Helen/Karen had me in stitches ) The Santoro chap without uttering a word, was truly mesmerising and far more of a breathtaking hunk,one wonders what all the fuss over OM is really all about.The entire movie was wooden and forced.I truly loathed it.I am old enough to remember the original which was not that brilliant either, but knocked the socks of this sad re-make.I felt sorry for Mirren selling her huge talent up the river in this bilge and OM needs roles wherein he is and acts his 40 rather than this 'nonsense in this, and Unfaithful, of being a cheeky 23 year old which he patently is not.he looks his age.He seems very arrogant vain cold in all his movies..the French press call him the "Mannequin who wants to act".. which may be a bit harsh as they loathe him for his misogyinist treatment of their divine la Binoche..but grains of truth maybe.Given that I do admit as a TW fan this is the hardest story to get right on screen it seems..or maybe no-one can get the 'casting just right? Borrow it it is harmless viewing, but do not waste money buying DVD