Lanwench

LaBute is, on the surface, a strange choice for director of this film. I've enjoyed his previous work, but I scratched my head when I heard he was involved with this adaptation of Byatt's novel. Strangely, it does work pretty well - his usually sharp claws are sheathed. All in all, Possession is a decent film; the cuts from the novel were understandable even if it was a little disappointing not to hear more of Byatt's clever Rossetti/Dickenson/Tennyson spoofs.. I don't think anyone wanted to hear the entirety of 'Ask to Embla' in the film.

The movie gets a little flabby in the middle (and there's one soft-core sex scene that looks a bit too much "Sinemax at night" costume-drama) and the music is intrusive, but there's a great cast, the cinematography was great, and the script well adapted.

Loved the fact that the only 'action' scenes in the movie involve a bloody nose. This is chopsockey action for the librarian crowd. Hooray!

Two other, minor complaints - Jennifer Ehle as Christabel smiles too much. It was perhaps supposed to be an enigmatic Cheshire Cat effect, but I found it distracting - and there was no chemistry whatsoever between the otherwise very good Paltrow and Eckhart, even taking into account that their modern romance was supposed to appear nervous and self-conscious compared to the sweeping rapture of their literary predecessors. All in all a good effort, and the ending was very touching.

I was a little nervous about seeing the film, given how much I enjoyed the book, but I wasn't disappointed.

You know it's gonna be bad right away when there's a closeup of la belle Jolie's lips uttering some drivel that sounds like it was lifted straight from a romance novel. The sex scenes are beyond cheesy - completely gratuitous, and although I don't on principal mind looking at beautiful Angelina or hunky Antonio, I found myself bored and wanting to fast-forward - there was absolutely no chemistry there, and it was badly choreographed like late-night soft-core porn on cable. Corsets, boob shots, odd protestations of love after what? two days? He wants her back for what reason exactly? Because she's a good lay? Stupid camerawork. Bizarre accent from Jolie as Julia. Predictable ending. I knew this was gonna be a rainy-day cable flick, but I expected good cheese. This is strictly Kraft Singles.

My usually beloved Tom Stoppard clearly needed to make some car payments. What I thought would be an interesting story about code-breaking turned out to be little more than a tedious and illogical love story, with some Cool Spy Stuff thrown in for decorative accent.I'm sure the actors did their best, but the dialogue was hammy and the few good scenes involving the code breakers at work were as thin slices of luncheon meat sandwiched between doughy slices of white bread. And this isn't even touching on the multitude of glaring historical inaccuracies (in the real world these are called 'lies'), which I'd be prepared to forgive if the chosen fiction were at least interesting.

And what can one say about a film that so obviously believes its audience to be drooling morons, that it shows you a scene of Trafalgar square and announces: "1946: London after the war"?

Produced by Lorne Michaels and Mick Jagger. Jesus. That makes you think, don't it. Well, it was a rainy day, and at least the theater was dry.