Pandaemonium

In the 19th Century, poets are the rock stars of their time – using drugs, living on the edge and revered by many for their creative influence. At a rally where he protests against the war with France and slavery, Samuel Coleridge meets the young William Wordsworth, who idolises him and joins him in his "revolution". When Coleridge flees the city with his wife and baby to set up a self-sustaining Utopia of their own, William and his sister join them. The two friends get down to work, although the writing process starts to destroy Coleridge from the inside – although maybe it's the opium? I taped this film because the title and cast caught my interest but, whenever I read what it was about I thought twice because it sounded like a dull historical film about characters I didn't know a great deal about. Despite this I decided to give it a go and see if it was any good. From the very start the film interested me with its strange visuals and interesting characters. The actual plot is not so easy to get into, but the relationships are well written and there is always something going on. I do not know the "real" facts behind these characters so I will not go down the road of picking at this film for what definitely contains a great deal of artistic license (the film ends on the London Eye) but in a way it is the license that makes it more interesting. With this, we are able to enter the experience rather than just the story; it also allows for plenty of interesting touches. I laughed quite a bit to read reviews ranting about errors in continuity, with some shots having modern things in the background – perhaps they didn't reach the end of the film to see that this was deliberate and became more frequent as the film went on (why review it if you haven't seen it all?). The precise meaning of this was lost on me other than it being about Coleridge being ahead of his time or timeless in his vision, but it did make the film interesting. The characters of Coleridge and Wordsworth are both interesting and it is they that make the story worth sticking with.

This is not to imply it is brilliant because it isn't, but it is enjoyable, interesting and different enough to keep me watching. The direction is a bit too forced at times but it does have some nice moments that are original if not cohesive. The cast do well to help inject a certain amount of humour, wonder and drama when any or all of them are required. Roache gets all the "wonder" stuff and is pretty good but he has the film stolen from him by stealth as Hannah delivers a great performance. Wordsworth starts out idolising Coleridge and following him, but then gradually turns to destroying his work etc – this transformation is very well done by Hannah, who works the extremes well but does the transition better. Support is as strong as you would expect from Morton, Woof, Serkis and others but the film belongs to the lead pair and the director.

Overall this is not a brilliant film but it is an interesting one. The narrative is difficult because the director tries hard to make it obscure and difficult to get deep into, but the general delivery features an interest character story told with humour, drama and good acting. The interesting (if a little pretentious) direction is always interesting even if it can be a little alienating at times. If it sounds boring and "not your sort of thing" then you'll be the same as me – in which case you should give it a try anyway, but I do wonder what fans of Wordsworth and/or Coleridge made of it.

A drama first and biopic second, "Pandaemonium" tells of the midlife of renown classical wordsmith and critic Samuel Taylor Coleridge who's life was not terribly interesting though he was on the cutting edge of 19th century neoromantic poetry. Probably taking some liberties for dramatic purposes, the film involves the poet's relationships with William Wordsworth, his opium addiction, his troubled marriage, and, of course, his struggle with the demons of the creative process. Visually beautiful, well acted, but a tad theatrical with some annoying interjections, Pandaemonium" is probably too esoteric for the film-going public at large. A splendid effort which will likely be most appreciated by those into classical literature - particularly 19th century poetry. (B)

This beautifully filmed treasure was a special treat to watch, as it transported me into a different world and captured the feelings I had as a student of English literature studying Coleridge and Wordsworth. Through its artistic interpretation of the inner landscape of Coleridge's mind, it reawakened the emotions that Coleridge's poetry itself evoked. I applaud the credit it gave to the women in the lives of these two masters, particularly Dorothy Wordsworth, whose importance to the poetry itself was unrecognized in the original works and has always been underappreciated. The film really brought to life "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," "Kubla Khan," and "Frost at Midnight."

The movie was so powerful because of the beautiful filming--the sets, scenery, costumes, etc., the photographic talents that captured these, the haunting background score, and the talented acting of the cast, particularly that of Linus Roach, who displayed a variety of emotional states so wonderfully, though I was really moved by Emily Woof's acting, as well. At first it seemed to me that John Hannah was merely walking through his role, but I now feel that the subdued acting was deliberate in portraying a much more sinister Wordsworth. I also applaud Samantha Morton and Samuel West for their roles.

The one odd thing about the movie was the segment shown during the final credits, in which Coleridge walks around in modern London, with dreadful popular modern music playing. I understand that a statement was being made, but it contrasted too sharply with the beauty of the film and the reverie in which I found myself. (The music was dreadful because of the contrast with the earlier context.) I really didn't need to be unkindly startled from the earlier sweet emotions. Only credit-watchers like me have to worry about it, though.

This is a truly dreadful film. Samuel Taylor Coleridge was a fascinating man, unhappily married, he lusted after Wordsworth's sister in law who would have nothing to do with him He was a habitual opium taker with a genius with words but his utter self obsession ruined him. Why make up such a ludicrous tale as Wordsworth getting him hooked on opium and plotting against him? The truth is much more interesting and far more entertaining than this excuse for a film. So horrifically, utterly awful I can barely type this for the bile dripping from my mouth. Note Emily Woof (here playing Dorothy Wordsworth) is the daughter of the current Director of the Wordsworth Trust....

If there's one thing I like about this film it is the very active presence of Dorothy Wordsworth! I am a big fan of both Wordsworth's and Coleridge's works and an currently studying some Wordsworth at the moment in terms of Marxist criticism and even though in Wordsworth's Tintern Abbey he mentions his sister, he does not actually give her a voice - he repressed her voice to a great extent. Collaboration has always been very common, especially in their time period, but was very rarely acknowledged - something pointed out very strongly in this film, and very correctly the film showed Dorothy assisting and advising her brother on his work. The fictional Dorothy makes some very political and arguably feminist comments in this film, she is trying to pave her way in a man's world, but in her alliance to Coleridge she loses her chance...

I'm not sure how much of this film was fiction or fact but I am very pleased with the representation of Dorothy as it is about time her voice was heard.