ÉVALUATION IMDb
6,3/10
14 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA pair of literary sleuths unearth the amorous secret of two Victorian poets only to find themselves falling under a passionate spell.A pair of literary sleuths unearth the amorous secret of two Victorian poets only to find themselves falling under a passionate spell.A pair of literary sleuths unearth the amorous secret of two Victorian poets only to find themselves falling under a passionate spell.
- Prix
- 1 nomination au total
Avis en vedette
The ending made up for any flaws this movie had. It made me smile as a viewer. Overall it's a good movie. This is a fine cast. The chemistry between Northam and Ehle was magnificent to say the least. You wanted the movie to just remain with them. Eckhart and Paltrow are fine in their roles. Eckhart is effective in his role although I do understand some people's ire that his character was made into an American. If the intent was to convey that he was an outsider who goes against convention and dares to think of things differently, then I think he was still effective and convincing. Presenting him a foreigner would only reinforce this intention. Paltrow is not bad in her role but I think this is where there is an argument that an actual British actress would have been more effective (i.e. someone like Kate Beckinsale, Rachel Weisz, Catherine Keener, or Emily Mortimer who all have the distinction of having attended prestigious British universities like Oxford and Cambridge) in making the character more complex so we could truly understand the psychology of an ice cold British, female academic. Besides having a British accent which Paltrow seems to do well, the part required an understanding of the woman's psyche that I'm not sure I fully understood. Despite being an American from Texas, Renee Zellweger did this well in Bridget Jones' Diary, although her accent was a bit posh for the character. This is my only criticism of a movie that was still good overall.
This is one of those movies that belongs in a special category: Films Worth Watching for Exactly One or Two Scenes.
Really, it's crazy. Other than these two scenes, the movie is mediocre, with Gwyneth Paltrow's great beauty the best thing about it.
But these two scenes! It's as if they are from another movie entirely, a movie you saw as a child and never forgot, a movie that shaped your adult love life.
If only the rest of the film around these two scenes were equally as good.
Here are the scenes: a man and a woman, deeply in love with each other, delay kissing, for the moment is not yet ripe. They spend time together, including collecting shells along the seashore.
Finally, one candle-lit night at dinner, the woman, radiating the original Earth Goddess, smiles at the man, and that smile communicates all. He knows that this is the night. He follows her to her bedroom, where she has positioned herself -- gracefully, beautifully, sensually -- in readiness for him. His hands shake...
Second scene: a man meets a little girl, and in that meeting comes to understand deep heartaches of his life in a whole new way.
And ... those scenes are reason enough to see this movie. Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle are superb; the costumes are gorgeous; the lighting is perfect ...
And then you have the rest of the movie. Gwyneth Paltrow and Aaron Eckhart play two modern scholars studying the lives of the characters played by the aforementioned, excellent, Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle.
Paltrow is terrific, everything the script calls for.
Aaron Eckhart ... was really good in "Company of Men." Here he just isn't enough. When Paltrow kisses him, and attempts to display passion, you are certain: she'd never go for this guy. She could get someone so much better, and she will.
The script makes Eckhart's character out to be something of a boy-man. Eckhart plays him with perpetually greasy hair and unshaved face. he wears the same clothes everyday. And he's something of a nothing.
But Northam and Ehle, and their story ... for the ages.
Really, it's crazy. Other than these two scenes, the movie is mediocre, with Gwyneth Paltrow's great beauty the best thing about it.
But these two scenes! It's as if they are from another movie entirely, a movie you saw as a child and never forgot, a movie that shaped your adult love life.
If only the rest of the film around these two scenes were equally as good.
Here are the scenes: a man and a woman, deeply in love with each other, delay kissing, for the moment is not yet ripe. They spend time together, including collecting shells along the seashore.
Finally, one candle-lit night at dinner, the woman, radiating the original Earth Goddess, smiles at the man, and that smile communicates all. He knows that this is the night. He follows her to her bedroom, where she has positioned herself -- gracefully, beautifully, sensually -- in readiness for him. His hands shake...
Second scene: a man meets a little girl, and in that meeting comes to understand deep heartaches of his life in a whole new way.
And ... those scenes are reason enough to see this movie. Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle are superb; the costumes are gorgeous; the lighting is perfect ...
And then you have the rest of the movie. Gwyneth Paltrow and Aaron Eckhart play two modern scholars studying the lives of the characters played by the aforementioned, excellent, Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle.
Paltrow is terrific, everything the script calls for.
Aaron Eckhart ... was really good in "Company of Men." Here he just isn't enough. When Paltrow kisses him, and attempts to display passion, you are certain: she'd never go for this guy. She could get someone so much better, and she will.
The script makes Eckhart's character out to be something of a boy-man. Eckhart plays him with perpetually greasy hair and unshaved face. he wears the same clothes everyday. And he's something of a nothing.
But Northam and Ehle, and their story ... for the ages.
Two love stories unfold simultaneously in this attractive, sensitive, but not wholly successful adaptation of a popular novel. Eckhart plays an American literary researcher in England who stumbles upon some long lost and completely unknown love letters by a Victorian poet (who just happens to be having his centenary celebrated!) He pairs with an icy doctoral researcher (Paltrow) and they begin to piece together a heretofore undiscovered relationship between the married poet (Northam) and a fellow poetess (Ehle) who is involved in a long-standing lesbian love affair. The stories are presented in turns, often accented by some clever setups in which the same settings reveal jumps in time. Eckhart (an immensely appealing actor) took a lot of heat for his role which was originally intended for a British actor. His presence changes the entire flavor of the story as it was written in the source novel, yet he comes across as endearing as ever. Paltrow (an agonizingly overrated actress and overrated beauty) looks like Carolyn Bessette Kennedy only with a rigid, showy English accent. Her attention to the accent and to what she believes her character to be results in an almost robotic portrayal and nothing resembling a human being. The Victorian couple generates both interest and romance, yet isn't given the screen time of the contemporary couple. If a STAR hadn't been placed in the modern story, maybe the focus could have been more even and the Victorian story could have been given a touch more emphasis. Still, Northam and Ehle (who bears a striking resemblance to Meryl Streep) manage to make an impact. What was apparently quite enthralling and romantic on the page has become rather routine and familiar on the screen, though there are some lovely and thoughtful moments throughout. Some of the location scenery is gorgeous (as is Eckhart.) A host of British character actors round out the cast with results ranging from strong (Headey, Stephens) to campy (Eve) to wasted (Aird, Massey.) Someone needs to inform Paltrow that an accent, a bun and a turtleneck don't provide the performance alone. Some commitment, expression, thoughtfulness and especially realism are also in order!
I liked this film; and had no concerns whatsoever about watching it, despite the relatively low financial return, which I don't understand and also, the relatively mediocre percentage on Rotten Tomatoes, which I also don't comprehend - the latter of which I generally check before watching a movie, the former to see whether it's an indie or not.
I guess that this genre is not for everyone; to me it's a Jane Austen with added intrigue or a sophisticated Dan Brown with less intrigue.
There is lots of innuendo and suggestion, which unfortunately is generally bluntly explained shortly thereafter; it would possibly have been more interesting to keep it more mysterious and therefore make the viewer think longer than a few seconds.
I enjoyed it overall and would recommend it to those of a literary bent, it's not a popcorn flick.
I guess that this genre is not for everyone; to me it's a Jane Austen with added intrigue or a sophisticated Dan Brown with less intrigue.
There is lots of innuendo and suggestion, which unfortunately is generally bluntly explained shortly thereafter; it would possibly have been more interesting to keep it more mysterious and therefore make the viewer think longer than a few seconds.
I enjoyed it overall and would recommend it to those of a literary bent, it's not a popcorn flick.
I'm a big fan of Gwyneth Paltrow whom I regard as an actress of rare talent and beauty so, in spite of many reviewers being parsimonious in their praise for this film, I ventured out to London's Leicester Square to make my own judgement and did not regret it. Following her performances in "Emma", "Sliding Doors" and "Shakespeare In Love", for the fourth time Paltrow adopts an impeccable English accent.
This time she plays an academic specialising in the work of an obscure 19th century poet called Christabel LaMotte (Jennifer Ehle, whom I enjoyed in "This Year's Love"). She is approached by an American researcher, Roland Michell, played by a permanently unshaven Aaron Eckhart, who has discovered a possible romantic connection between LaMotte and fellow poet Randolph Henry Ash (Jeremy Northam, last seen in that other costume drama "Gosford Park"). It turns out that Ash's marriage has no physical side (for reasons which are not explained), while LaMotte's lesbian relationship may not be as exclusive as was thought.
All this sounds more raunchy that it is. There is in fact little sex and no nudity at all on show; yet director Neil LaBute ensures that sensuality imbues scene after scene. Set against the unusual locations of Lincoln and Whiteby, the modern-day academics retrace the steps of the two poets both physically and romantically in cross-cutting scenes that reminded me of the structure of "The French Lieutenant's Woman". If you're a pubescent popcorn-guzzler, you'll hate this movie and find it terribly slow and literary (it is based on the Booker Prize-winning novel by A S Byatt); on the other hand, if you'd like something different from the usual mindless, blockbuster fare, you'll probably find this a refreshing change.
This time she plays an academic specialising in the work of an obscure 19th century poet called Christabel LaMotte (Jennifer Ehle, whom I enjoyed in "This Year's Love"). She is approached by an American researcher, Roland Michell, played by a permanently unshaven Aaron Eckhart, who has discovered a possible romantic connection between LaMotte and fellow poet Randolph Henry Ash (Jeremy Northam, last seen in that other costume drama "Gosford Park"). It turns out that Ash's marriage has no physical side (for reasons which are not explained), while LaMotte's lesbian relationship may not be as exclusive as was thought.
All this sounds more raunchy that it is. There is in fact little sex and no nudity at all on show; yet director Neil LaBute ensures that sensuality imbues scene after scene. Set against the unusual locations of Lincoln and Whiteby, the modern-day academics retrace the steps of the two poets both physically and romantically in cross-cutting scenes that reminded me of the structure of "The French Lieutenant's Woman". If you're a pubescent popcorn-guzzler, you'll hate this movie and find it terribly slow and literary (it is based on the Booker Prize-winning novel by A S Byatt); on the other hand, if you'd like something different from the usual mindless, blockbuster fare, you'll probably find this a refreshing change.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesA large part of Church Street in Whitby was dressed to give it the appearance of a 18/19th century fishing town. Gwyneth Paltrow insisted that the whole place was screened off so that she was not visible to the small crowd of on-lookers. Jeremy Northam, however, took time to go and talk about the film to the bystanders. Miss Paltrow also turned down an offer from the local dignitaries to meet the mayor and be shown around the town. The Whitby Gazette carried a massive banner headline declaring "PALTROW SNUBS WHITBY".
- GaffesSome people think it was a goof that they handle documents without gloves. In fact, most institutions have found that NOT wearing gloves is better as bare hands are much more sensitive to the amount of pressure they are putting on fragile documents and people are therefore less likely to damage them.
- Citations
Christabel LaMotte: I cannot let you burn me up, nor can I resist you. No mere human can stand in a fire and not be consumed.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Siskel & Ebert & the Movies: xXx/Spy Kids 2/Possession (2002)
- Bandes originalesPossesso
Performed by Ramón Vargas
Conducted by Gabriel Yared
Music by Gabriel Yared
Original lyrics by Peter Gosling
Italian translation: Michela Antonello
Orchestra leader: Cathy Thompson
Produced by Gabriel Yared and Graham Walker
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Possession?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 25 000 000 $ US (estimation)
- Brut – États-Unis et Canada
- 10 113 733 $ US
- Fin de semaine d'ouverture – États-Unis et Canada
- 1 575 214 $ US
- 18 août 2002
- Brut – à l'échelle mondiale
- 14 815 898 $ US
- Durée
- 1h 42m(102 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant