Opiniones de usuarios

The incomparable Jodie Foster, along with John Lithgow, headline this movie about a woman on trial for killing her husband. Foster is a girl raised in a home when Lithgow comes to arrange for her to be his wife.

When they marry it turns out that he is a cruel man, and soon he begins to get sick and then sicker as time goes by. The movie leaves nothing to surprise as you know what happens each step of the way, but frankly both Lithgow and Foster have done so much better work that this one is a one time only viewing.

Two very talented actors in a strange and twisted tale. An orphaned girl seeks freedom from her orphanage by marrying an older man she does not love. Not enough character development. Good story with a bad screenplay. I'm sure Jodie would like to stick this one in her "never again" file.

Odd-ball movie. What could have been a decent story, instead fell victim to some very bad acting ... acting that was almost painful to watch ... it felt like the actors/actresses were totally uninterested in recording this.

Based on a supposedly true story based in 1800's New Zealand with an almost unbelievable plot, the unbelievability of the plot is made even more inevitable by poor acting. Instead of driving home the point of the real-ness of the movie, the acting made it look like a joke.

Watch it and be prepared to scratch your head at the end. You'll say to yourself: "either this was total baloney, or it was true, but the story very poorly told."

The slow pace of this movie adds nothing to the suspenseful nature. It's just plain boring. Lithgow and Foster are outstanding, but editing and/or directing made this a crash-and-burn. Yawn! Although the scenery is beautiful at times, the interior shots are all cliched and uninteresting. As if the director is trying to draw the viewer towards well-known references, but rewarding him with nothing novel in the end.

One of Jodie Foster's post-Yale disasters (she flailed about in the mid-'80s, trying to find her footing before "The Accused" in 1988 got her on the right path). Young woman at the turn of the century arrives in New Zealand as the arranged bride for a man who turns out to be demented (and with bad teeth); in the second act, the husband dies and the wife stands accused. I have rarely seen a film that looked so unlike what it was trying to capture, with ugly, dulled-out color, poor lighting and ungainly costumes. Foster is a beautiful young woman, but she's hidden here behind an unattractive coif, speaking in a tuneless monotone. John Lithgow plays the unfortunate husband, but there wasn't much (if anything) the actor could do with this villainous rotter, the part being so pre-conceived. The sequence involving the extraction of Lithgow's teeth is excruciating and should clear a room faster than a fire alarm. An ungodly bore, "Mesmerized" was surprisingly co-produced by Foster, who later blamed the whole mess on the careless post-production editing. NO STARS from ****

I bought this film based on the fact that Jodie Foster was in it. I wish I would have kept the receipt. The plot drags along like a dead mule. Foster pulls off the role of a much younger girl quite well, but John Lithgow does not help the film in the least. AVOID THIS FILM!!!!!!!

mesmerized is a good but very underrated movie about the true story of Victoria Thompson in the 1800's.Jodie foster is great in the role and her acting is above average as usual.well I'm a huge Jodie foster fan so i try to watch all her films,even the little known ones.john lithgow plays her creepy older husband.and Micheal Murphy(Howard sterns private parts)plays a minister who's into hypnotism.well i bought this DVD at a dollar tree store for a buck,the other feature is an early demi Moore film from 1981 called choices.as for mesmerized,i was surprised that i enjoyed it,after reading some of the posts i was determined to judge it for myself.all others should do the same,every one has different tastes. if you like Jodie foster then i recommend mesmerized.i give it 7 out of 10.sorry no spoilers.not giving away any of the plot.that would be a sin.

I bought this film at a 99 Cents store and basically got my money's worth. But I was very disappointed. Where was all the cruelty and bizarre sexual behavior? It really left a lot to your imagination, and a lot to be desired. No frontal nudity, whips, chains, trapeezes, or kinky three-somes. Not even a Clinton-Monica performance. The only gruesome part was the poor old guy getting his teeth pulled - WITHOUT anesthesia. That did nothing to satisfy my sexual curiosity. So if you want to see 19th century New Zealand with period costumes and American accents, go buy Mesmerized. It won't leave you that way, but it won't leave you broke either.

While I adore Jodie Foster and find all of John Lithgow's performances to be uniquely brilliant, I really didn't get this movie. The actors were great, but the filming, directing, and especially the script were inarticulate and just plain messy. While I kind of understood the plot by the end of the movie, I couldn't help being confused as I watched it. The character development was non-existent. The plot was put together with spit. I felt awful for the actors who looked like they were desperately trying to make sense of the movie for the audience. I've seen other confusing movies where the directing and script were so brilliant that even if I didn't understand it the first time, I was intrigued to watch it again. This time, I really was not interested to attempt it again. What a mess! Still, Lithgow and Foster should be proud of their performances. They really did a good job despite the lack of script. Good material, good story, and good acting - but what a shame that the director and the writer couldn't portray it any better.

"Mesmerized" follows the story of a young woman Victoria (Jodie Foster) in New Zealand 1880 who is put on trial for killing her husband Oliver (John Lithgow). Victoria is virtually forced into marrying Oliver, who just shows up wanting to marry her.

The story is very intriguing and, at times, keeps you on the edge of your seat. Unfortunately, the story also appears "broken" (e.g. why does Oliver suddenly show up out of the blue wanting to marry Victoria?) and the cinematography is sloppy and the acting extremely poor. If you want a film with entertainment, this is not the film to watch.

1 star - don't bother.

Too bad film location not given - great countryside. Foster was too "stoic" in this role but the plot was interesting.

It's 1880 New Zealand. Victoria (Jodie Foster) is on trial. She recalls her journey to that point. As a baby, she was dropped off at an orphanage. Growing up at the orphanage, she is introduced to merchant Oliver Thompson (John Lithgow) who quickly proposes. She marries the stranger and discovers that he's a controlling, volatile creep. His father is more of the same but his brother George is much more sensitive.

The first half is perfectly fine. It's got the bad husband and brutalized young wife. It builds to a tense climatic moment halfway through. It does struggle to maintain that intensity in the second half. There is some ambiguity to the plot which does not really help. It needs to be tightened. It probably should turn into a trial movie with flashbacks. Although Jodie Foster was still in her early 20s, the character needs to be a teen and the closing text reveals the inspiration to be the trial of a 19 year old wife. Her vulnerability would be heighten with a younger actress. The movie seems to be holding back which prevents it from being better.

The film has a slow paced but interesting plot.

The greatness of this film resides in the performances of Jodie Foster and John Lithgow. Foster's performance is understated but no less powerful. It is a joy to see her subtle facial expressions. Only an actress of Jodie's caliber can convey such strong emotions with so little, like a Rembrandt potrait. This contrasts with the totally different performance of Lithgow. His over the top histrionics are very appropriate to the character he plays.

I enjoyed this film grealty, but most of all, these performances.

Victoria, a young orphan in late-19th-century New Zealand, enters into an arranged marriage with a wealthy older man; when she comes of age, she leaves the orphanage and goes to live with her husband, who is little more than a stranger to her, and finds married life difficult to face. Her new husband is loutish and chauvinistic, but he has a handsome sensitive younger brother, which complicates the young girl's life. A romantic triangle, tragedy, and mystery ensue; when Oliver, the husband, becomes ill, the cause could be the chemicals he uses to exterminate rats or something more sinister. "Mesmerized," which was originally titled "My Letter to George," is a tidy did-she or didn't-she supposedly based on true events. Co-written and directed by Michael Laughlin, the film may be too slow for some; events unfold at a leisurely pace, but those attuned to PBS dramas or Merchant-Ivory productions may find it to their liking.

Jodie Foster both co-produced and stars as Victoria, the orphaned child bride; her cool impassive demeanor suits the role of an unwilling wife in a loveless marriage. However, her iciness extends a bit too far, and little heat ignites between Foster and Don Shor, who plays the younger brother, George, which undercuts their supposed attraction. John Lithgow breathes life into Oliver, the grizzled insensitive husband; he has some good moments, and his character is more vibrant and alive than that of the cold Victoria. Harry Andrews also does well as Oliver's equally loutish father.

A delicate score by Georges Delerue enhances the period film, and the script, co-written by Jerzy Skolimowski, is well written and literate. A short, well intentioned movie, "Mesmerized" is no classic, but better than average, and boasts a good performance by Lithgow, a fine score by Delerue, and an enigmatic fade-out that will leave viewers pondering, "Did she? Or didn't she?"

I found this film to be disturbing; not in a David Lynch way but more like some odorous menacing person sitting beside you on a bus that you really don't want to look at but do and then regret it. There were no redeeming factors to be found in spite of the fine acting of Foster & Lith

Comparing Jodie Foster's 1986 New Zealand based film with New Zealand filmmaker Peter Jackson's poisonously awful 2006 "remake" of King Kong, Foster is the clear-cut winner. The difference is that Foster's film is a quality movie. Mesmurized also compares well with Foster's own Panic Room or Flightplan. In Mesmurized the suspense is real, in the other two pictures the suspense is contrived and quickly forgotten. With rich local color recreating New Zealand in the 1880's this picture drives home the lack of opportunity and repressiveness women lived with a century ago. These days young women have a wealth of opportunity in choosing a mate, a sex partner, a career, everything. Here this girl goes from an orphanage into an arranged marriage, to live with a man she neither knows nor loves, with no apparent opportunity to either escape or change. This was called NORMAL. The somewhat abusive John Lithgow character is deep-down frightened of his wife, clueless as to how to communicate with a woman and establish a loving friendship. His brother George has no such problem, simply inviting Jodie "would you care to look at the dogs" -- doesn't sound like much, does it; but it amounts to an opening-up of friendship. The hard suspense lies in whether and how Foster will free herself from the repression. I well understand the negative reviews posted herein. Young people today have no knowledge of the harsh repressions of yesteryear, a time and place where paths to happiness dead-ended fast. God bless their ignorance; celebrate their joy.

This vastly underrated Victorian period piece stars Jodie Foster as a woman scorned by her husband, the scheming John Lithgow (here with a very convincing Kiwi accent). Foster co-produced and the film anticipates some of the issues raised in her breakthrough film, The Accused. Harry Andrews is also on hand to deliver one of his typically sturdy performances as Lithgow's father. Personally I found this a fascinating character study, generally well-acted, with some outstanding location photography.

While watching this on late-night TV recently, I couldn't help but think back to an Oscar-bedecked offering that was released about seven years later - The Piano. Both set in New Zealand, both about mail-order brides who can't stand their husbands ... etc. Mesmerized doesn't indulge in the florid touches with which Jane Campion pumped up her rather empty opus (chopped off fingers, Harvey Keitel's Maori facial tattoos and frontal nudity, etc.), and this is certainly a serious effort by co-producer Foster, but that doesn't mean it's better filmmaking. In fact, despite the cast, it's flat and unimpressive visually and for the most part boring storywise. So if Campion did any ripping off, it was at least in the interests of high camp.