Avis des utilisateurs

I just do not get very inspired in this treatment of Isabel Allende's novel. The worst thing is that I cannot even identify exactly what it is that does not succeed in really drawing me into the story. Evidently the film is well made, beautiful filming, and the cast is really extraordinary, with some magnificent interpretations. The make-up department did excellent work on the aging process of the players. This is the second time I have seen this film, but the story's continuity did not get me really sympathising with and feeling for the characters. There is something missing: however, no way can either Meryl Streep or Jeremy Irons, among the other leading actors, be blamed for this. There is something abstract here which I cannot explain. It may be arguable that this film is better than `Missing' (1982) (qv), however `Missing' pulled me much more into the story.

Certainly, in no way should you pass up this film if you get a chance to see it: there are very good interpretations, at times even wondrous, combining with very intelligent photography and Hans Zimmer doing some of his best work.

I went into this film blind after missing out on it in the nineties after not appealing to my younger self at the time.

Now i'm more mature and open to all types of film, and not biased (i don't live in South America and have not read the book).

Tbh i didn't even read the storyline before so had no incline to either the story or even the exact genre of film i would be viewing, which imo always makes a film more intriguing the less you know about it.

To cut out the main jist of my review, i throughly enjoyed it from start to end! With great acting, scenery, score and editing you could tell it was a well made film from the off.

With quite a long running time i was expecting some overly long scenes, but it never felt drawn out and the pace was pretty spot on i never clocked watched once! And this is coming from someone that rarely views films longer than two hours and i watched the full 2h 25m original cut of the film.

The only gripe i guess in this version is knowing a couple of the characters (who i won't name) made it to the end starting with a retrospective beginning, i haven't seen the shorter version but i'm guessing this start was changed for the overseas cut?

To sum up, its well worth a watch even if you think the type of film is not for you.

The book was fabulous and remains one of my favorites. The movie, for some reason reminded me of "The Thorn Birds"--I guess because I felt so much was left out, and it would have been better as a mini-series.

The book evokes a much more magical, mythical, and "Spirit"-ual feeling that reflects the special flavor of life in South America, especially with Clara having green hair, and more powers in the book. A lot of that feeling is left out of the movie.

However, the movie mostly makes up for this lack in the extremely vivid presentation of the characters' emotions.

I never expected the tears. I never expected the emotion. I was swept away by the epic story and came crashing to earth when the troops took over. All this despite the fact that I do and did know who Isabelle Allende is and I was aware of the history of coups in S. America. I loved the people with the notable and chilly brilliant exception from Jeremy Irons (Can we ever really love his incredible characters?)

Another underrated movie that seeks much and delivers well although at times with a bit too much telegraphing (the bathing scene with the young Blanca for example.)

It was a three hankie movie in the end, A great three hankie movie.

metro_alma@earthlink.net

Compared with the book is very lame: it lacks that aura of magical realism and political agitation that saturates the book. As it is, the movie it's just an average love story with an interesting historical setting (maybe the best part)

The All STAR cast is impressive, But the script,shooting, .....hell, just the COMPLETE product, for a fictional drama.....INTENSELY ENTHRALLING!! LOVE LOVE LOVE THIS FILM!

Can such an ambient production have failed its primary goal, which was to correctly adapt Allende's novel? Obviously yes. Bille August managed to make a superficial, shallow film where basic elements of South American mentality are presented simply as side events, resulting in total incoherency. I can't believe there was a whole production team that could not understand the book! There is of course technical quality in this film and I think the actors did their best with what they had in their hands, but something is missing. And this something was the most important part.

The first time I saw THE HOUSE OF THE SPIRITS, I had a similar reaction to what most critics seemed to have. I felt the movie was bad, but couldn't say why exactly. It's hard to find fault in a movie with such an esteemed cast, such great sets and cinematography, etc. I knew it was based on a famous novel, so I figured the problem must have been in the adaptation.

Upon reading the novel and then going back to the film, I realized something interesting: the film starts out as a faithful adaptation before losing its way, but the biggest issue is the tone.

The novel's style of magical realism is, right from the start, difficult to adapt to film. There's green hair, there's magic remedies, and there's a very darkly humorous tone. The film on the other hand is very bleak and brooding, with only some slight supernatural element, which is kind of shrugged off. Roger Ebert, who always has a perfect way of articulating the best criticism, worded it best: "Magic realism, which informs so many South American stories, is treated here as a slightly embarrassing social gaffe, like passing wind. Clara's gifts are not made integral to the story; the filmmakers see them more as ornamentation." For example, in the book, Severo and Nivea die in a car accident and Clara keeps her mother's decapitated head in the basement. Years later, when Clara dies, Esteban tells his servants "Well, we might as well bury my mother-in-law's head now." Moments like that are missing, and instead we just have a scene of Severo and Nivea in a random car accident in the film, and are then never mentioned again. Why even bother having the car accident at all? And why waste Vanessa Redgrave in such a small role?

Now this leads into another issue: the most infamous criticism of this film is that it stars a bunch of "gringos" (Jeremy Irons, Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, and Winona Ryder) as Chilean characters. At first glance, you might think this is a shallow thing to criticize: actors play characters of different ethnic backgrounds all the time, nor is there any one way that a Chilean person should "look." But I think this criticism is actually a misdiagnosis of a bigger problem. The problem isn't that these actors are all Anglo; it's the fact that they play their characters in a very Anglicized way for an Anglo audience. They mispronounce names like Tres Marias ("Trays Muh-ree-ahs") and Esteban ("Estuh-baan") and say them all as if these names are foreign to them. Irons, who is British, sounds American while Close, who is American, sounds British. Winona Ryder's character is presented as an all-American girl. There's even a scene towards the end, while Blanca is being tortured and Alba waits for her at home, where Alba is eating out a Kentucky Fried Chicken box in the 1970's! (KFC didn't start opening stores in Chile until 1992. Yes, I actually looked it up out of curiosity). Now you might say "Who cares if they show a KFC box? That's nitpicking." It might not seem important, but on a subtextual level, it's significant. The filmmakers are trying to dilute the Hispanism of the story and create the mindset that this could easily be happening in the US. All of this adds a feeling of displacement to the movie. Because it loses its Chilean and Latino identity, the politics lose their context. What is the coup at the end all about? Why does it happen? What happened to the workers at Tres Marias? Why was Pedro III an enemy of the military's?

When you take this story, remove its Hispanic context and magic realism, what you're left with is just a domestic drama, which is less interesting than its book counterpart when it is simplified. The adaptation's biggest change is the removal of an entire generation and combining Blanca and Alba into one character. This completely changes the third act and it now makes no sense for Esteban to help Pedro III escape. In the book, Esteban joins forces with Miguel as they both care about saving Alba. In the film's version, joining forces with Pedro III will in no way have any affect on saving Blanca. The impact of Esteban's relationship with Alba is also lost as she is reduced to only a small child in the film and not given much character. In the book, Esteban has affairs with multiple women at Tres Marias and fathers many children, which everyone is aware of. In the film, he just randomly commits violent rape one day in a very abrupt scene, and then completely forgets about it until a son shows up one day. Because of the removal of an entire generation, Esteban III in the book is Esteban II in the film, and his character is given the Hollywood archetypes of a perverse and disturbed villain rather than as the symbol of lineage of violence he was in the book. In addition to this you have the removal of Blanca's brothers from the book and a climax that doesn't play very dramatically, and the resulting story is very fractured and loses the epic 3-generation sweep of the novel.

I am left wondering if any film could have been made of this book, which has so many characters and spans many different episodes. Regardless, this film, and its serious tone, do not suit the book at all, and just leaves audiences wondering what the story they just saw was all about.

For whatever The House Of The Spirits draws in criticism, it has one overriding virtue. Among the many things that Americans are deficient in knowledge about is South America. This film and the book by Isabel Allende give us an insight into Chile and their society. Not something that in news, literature, or cinema that we deal with all the time.

Unlike many South American countries Chile had a long democratic tradition until the coup that toppled President Allende in 1973. As a society it was not a series of military dictatorships as other countries. It was also a prosperous country. But one where prosperity was reserved for a few.

This film is the story of the rags to riches rise of Ernesto Trueba as played by Jeremy Irons. He does it like so many in America do, he marries it and in this case it's Meryl Streep, a woman who has psychic powers which she has contained since childhood lest she be regarded as a freak. Irons marries her and they have a daughter that grows up to be Winona Ryder.

Irons is our central character and like many who rise from poverty even in this country they want to make sure that even the hint of it never touches their person or their families. He's one nasty Padrone and makes sure everyone knows he's not one of them any more. And like a medieval lord he takes his pleasures wherever while always maintaining a respectable married front. One of those 'pleasures' gives him a nasty surprise in the end.

And of course he doesn't want daughter Ryder mixing with any of the peasant kids. When she has an affair with Antonio Banderas who has been radicalized it's not something that Irons can abide.

The period of Chilean history takes us from the 30s right through the right wing coup against Allende and its aftermath with Pinochet military dictatorship. Irons becomes a Chilean Senator of their Conservative party. But while his party approves of the coup Irons survives to learn that old maxim about being careful what you wish for. He finds being a Senator carries very little wait among the members of the Pinochet junta.

Meryl Streep turns in a fine performance as his wife and her talents for clairvoyance and levitation seem kind of superfluous to the main story. This film clearly belongs to Jeremy Irons.

The House Of The Spirits is a well constructed film with some moving performances and is recommended highly for those who want some insights into Chilean history and culture.

Creeping historical "hacienda"-ascension story full of good people playing uglier-than-fiction roles to cherry things on top of sourly majestic interior/exterior shots.

We all know a movie never does complete justice to the book, but this is exceptional. Important characters were cut out, Blanca and Alba were essentially mushed into the same character, most of the subplots and major elements of the main plot were eliminated. Clara's clairvoyance was extremely downplayed, making her seem like a much more shallow character than the one I got to know in the book. In the book we learn more about her powers and the important effects she had on so many people, which in turn was a key element in the life of the family. In the movie she was no more than some special lady. The relationship between Esteban and Pedro Tercero (Tercero-third-, by the way, is the son and thus comes after Segundo-second-) and its connections to that between Esteban and his grandson from Pancha García (not son, who he also did recognize) is chopped in half and its importance downplayed.

One of the most fundamental things about the book that the film is all but stripped of: this is called "The House of the Spirits." Where is the house? The story of 3-4 generations of a family is supposed to revolve around the "big house on the corner," a line stated so many times in the novel. The house in fundamental to the story, but the movie unjustly relegates it to a mere backdrop.

If I hadn't read the book before, I would have never guessed that such a sappy, shallow movie could be based on such a rich and entertaining novel.

This is the story Esteban, a man who gain land and fortune through hard work. He only wishes for a loving family that have what he did not when he was a child. His conservative ways adds to that struggle and creates conflict with his family. This conflict grows when one of his low-class workers falls in love with his daughter. The military coup of 1973 to bring communism down in Chile is shown.

This film represents what it is to live in Chile. I have never seen any film that tells the culture and the people of the southern South-America better. Most people makes the mistake to think that people in Chile and Argentina are not white. The whole cast represents EXACTLY what chileans look like and the difference between the higher and lower class. You can learn a lot from this film.

This movie is 110% recommended. It may have some differences with the book but it is respectful to it. Excellent camera and direction work at a spectacular location.

I watched this movie a few days ago for the first time, with my mother. I wasn't sure what to expect because I hadn't watched the trailer or read about the movie before. In fact, I haven't even read Isabel Allende's book. What caught my attention and made me watch it was the participation of Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep, two artists that I love to see working. And what a surprise when I started talking "I've been there!" or "I know that place" while watching some scenes! To my pride, this movie was almost totally shot in Portugal. I am so used to seeing other countries in foreign films that I always feel joy and pride when I recognize my own country. And Portugal is such a beautiful country, with so much to show and so much potential that I am surprised to be so little visited by the foreign filmmakers. Maybe this will change gradually, now that John Malkovich, Madonna and Monica Belluci are living here with us...

The story of this film is interesting and appealing: spanning three generations of the same family, it focuses on Clara, a woman with a psychic gift to predict the future and contact the dead, and her marriage with Esteban, a wealthy farmer who made his fortune with much effort. But the main plot is about the forbidden love story between their daughter, the idealist Blanca, and Pedro Segundo, a poor young man who, moreover, is a communist. The hostile relation between Pedro and Esteban allows the film to show the political evolution of Chile during the twentieth century, from an oligarchic and conservative republic to a military dictatorship.

All these things are good but this story has some problems as well, which may (or may not) have origin in Allende's book. To begin with, I didn't like to see Clara's powers so poorly used. It's a subject with no real importance for the course of the story, and I was expecting more here. Another major problem is the simplistic way that political issues are handled. Everything is black and white, no gray areas. Communists are the good guys, fighting for freedom and people's rights, and conservatives are the bad guys, who are greedy, corrupt and oppressive. This is wrong, probably untrue and smells like leftist propaganda. In politics, things are never so simple as that. I believe, at least at this point, that the problem may be in Allende's text, for she is deeply communist and has never forgotten the brutal way her father was murdered, but even this doesn't justify the highly biased way the film deals with political subjects.

Concerning the actors, I am very happy. Meryl Streep did very well, with a contained and timid performance as required by her character. However, she was damaged by the way the script deals with psychic powers of her character. Winona Ryder was beautiful, giving strength and personality to her character. However, sometimes she seems naive and, as we don't realize the beginning of her love story, it seems untrue and far-fetched sometimes. Antonio Banderas was fine but this wasn't the right movie for him to shine. His character is a hook for the biased political portrait I mentioned and to create a love story that makes everything else more digestible. Glenn Close was more unlucky, however. I never understood the purpose of her character, whose permanence on screen is brief and doesn't bring many changes to the plot. Jeremy Irons dominates the film. He was excellent, toasting the audience with an exceptional work, worthy of an Oscar. In fact, with so many stars, it's surprising how the film went unnoticed.

Technically, the film also seems irreproachable. Good cinematography and an excellent soundtrack, which remained in the ear for some time after the movie ended. Of course, I really loved the choice of shooting locations, and I found it funny to see the Portuguese Army participating in the film although I wonder who paid for them, after all they are not paid to do figuration and would be very serious if that money came out of the taxpayer's pocket.

This is a very good film, with a star-cast working hard to please us, beautiful sets and costumes and an appealing love story. In general, it will surely worth our attention.

Although the story is fictional, it draws from the reality of not only the history of latin american countries but all the third world. This is the true, pure and raw recent history of these countries summarized concisely in this novel / film. The offbeat supranatural stuff, lightens up the intensity of historical events presented in this movie. After all the supranatural stuff is a part of the culture in the third world. Although is not critically acclaimed (probably because of the supranatural stuff), This is an excellent movie, with a great story and great acting.

Follows the lives of a wealthy family in right wing Chile. Irons is the rich landowner who marries his great love, Streep and they have a daughter, Ryder who falls in love with rebel, Banderas.

The focus here is on Irons, who is excellent in his portrayal over a lifetime of a desperately proud, arrogant and ultimate stupid man who risks losing everything. His extraordinary love for his wife amidst all his callous and pointless acts of hatred and revenge are oddly quite moving. Streep as the ethereal, clairvoyant wife is less convincing in a strange role, but Ryder seems spot on as the strong willed but caring daughter.

Not without it faults - the spirit stuff does jar on occasions and Irons' almost nazi like approach to life just seems near to taking everything over the top. It is though a moving, albeit at times unbalanced epic and well worth catching.

The House of the Spirits is a gripping tale of family intrigue, South American politics and super-natural powers. Meryl Streep, Glenn Close and Jeremy Irons bring Isabel Allende's novel to life with all its passion and suspense. This, in my view, is one of the best films of the 1990s. Jeremy Irons as Esteban Trueba ages and mellows very believably, while Meryl Streep in the role of Clara maintains her gentle, loving warmth throughout her relatively short life. Winona Ryder and Antonio Banderas make a handsome couple struggling for family acceptance in a racist culture. Glenn Close, as Esteban's sister, gives a very moving performance. The countryside of Portugal is a reasonable substitute for a non-tropical Latin American country. Settings of Clara's home and Esteban's ranch are effective and the period US cars add nicely to the post-war atmosphere.

"the house of the Spirits" based on Isabelle Allende's novel is done with style and conviction. OK, most of the actors don't bother with accents, this is usually a pet peeve of mine, but if you're willing to overlook that, a big if I know, you'll be rewarded with a intriguing, compelling film.

the story of the Trueba family spans generations. At the forefront is Esteban, played by Jeremy Irons, though poor he aspires to marry the daughter of a aristocratic South American family. But she dies, nonplussed he makes his fortune, venting his sexual frustration of a poor peasant girl, and marries the mystical Flora, played by Meryl Streep. Their daughter Blanca is raised in luxury be loves the poor farm worker Pedro, played by a young Antonio Banderas. his bastard son, played by Vincent Gallo, tries to cause trouble and Esteban does all the wrong things. Political and family upheavals ensue and Flora leaves him taking Blanca away. But in his old age and with his family in jeopardy Esteban finally realizes nothing is stronger than love.

The aging of the characters in the film is very well done, seldom have I seen so convincing a performance as Jeremy Irons here. Streep is well cast, after all Flora is something of a witch. Winona Ryder plays Blanca well, esp with the suffering she endures at Esteban Junior's hands. Glenn Close is Esteban's virginal and repressed sister Ferula and she is very, very good in her scenes.

The film doesn't pull many punches, there is violence and nudity, but only when called for and the film is never gratuitous. The music by Hans Zimmer is ethereal and haunting. The mystical aspect and esp the message that sins have a price is well-handled. Ultimately its a very uplifting film.

I'm surprised at how brutal the critics were to this film, just another example of how wrong they can be. I always heard this was awful and yet found myself engrossed and never, ever bored despite is two hours plus running time. There are heavy themes here, but they are handled with subtlety and grace. I thought all the actors did a good job. "The house of the spirits" may not be great, but its very good and worth watching. Note, some viewers expressed problems with one scene that has Blanca, as a girl, and Pedro playing by the water. Huh, what was wrong with two children playing? Watch this with your heart and you'll like it.

Isabel Allende's magical, lyrical novel about three generations of an aristocratic South American family was vandalized. The lumbering oaf of a movie that resulted--largely due to a magnificent cast of Anglo actors completely unable to carry off the evasive Latin mellifluousness of Allende's characters, and a plodding Scandinavian directorial hand--was so uncomfortable in its own skin that I returned to the theater a second time to make certain I had not missed something vital that might change my opinion. To my disappointment, I had not missed a thing. None among Meryl Streep, Jeremy Irons, Glenn Close and Vanessa Redgrave could wiggle free of the trap set for them by director Bille August. All of them looked perfectly stiff and resigned, as if, by putting forth as little effort as possible, they expected to fade unnoticed into lovely period sets. (Yes, the film was art directed within an inch of its life.) Curious that the production designer was permitted the gaffe of placing KFC products prominently in a scene that occurs circa 1970--years before KFC came into being. Back then, it was known by its original name: Kentucky Fried Chicken. Even pardoning that, what on earth is Kentucky Fried Chicken doing in a military dictatorship in South America in 1970? American fast food chains did not hit South America until the early 1980s. "The House of the Spirits" should have been the motion picture event of 1993. Because it was so club-footed and slavishly faithful to its vague idea of what the novel represented, Miramax had to market it as an art film. As a result, it was neither event nor art. And for that, Isabel Allende should have pressed charges for rape.

A beautiful movie, very emotional drama... Meryl Streep and Glenn Close are in another level of acting! 🙏

Not as moving as the great novel by Allende. Of course, when commenting this as a movie, one has to take into consideration the limits of cinema compared to a novel. But one easily gets the feeling that the events of the saga come one after another as if they were 'ready-made', but not as logical and inevitable consequences of the narrative. Probably, the story is too much heavy for cinema despite the fact that August drop a whole lot of (interesting) events frome the original story. The casting is ok. But nothing special; no one does any exceptional job. But this is an enchanting work.

Saw 'House of the Spirits' for two primary reasons, regardless of its less than great critical reception. One was for Isabel Allende's incredible book that it is based on, one of my favourites for its richness and emotional impact, did have my concerns as to knowing how difficult to adapt it would be. The other was for the cast with some immensely talented actors and actresses. Did think to myself, it is hard to go wrong with Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Jeremy Irons, Vanessa Redgrave, Winona Ryder and Antonio Banderas.

Didn't think that 'House of the Spirits' was that bad, but it should have been so much better. It is severely underwhelming as an adaptation, with so much left out, so much simplified and with changes that don't make sense, confirming my worries of it being one of those books that should be left alone and doesn't translate well to film. It would have been much better as a mini-series of at least 6 one-hour parts. Actually also think though that one doesn't need to have read the book to be disappointed, as 'House of the Spirits' has noticeable flaws on its own terms.

There are good things here. 'House of the Spirits' looks fantastic for starters. Especially the majestic scenery and elegant interiors of the family home, all gorgeously photographed. The costumes are evocative enough and the make-up is more than convincing, with Irons especially unrecognisable as an older man. Hans Zimmer's score fits beautifully with a haunting main theme that's still in my mind. Found the last forty five minutes, with the portrayal of the revolution and the brutality it brought, or so both harrowing and moving, it is also the portion of the film where there are the most signs of a plot.

Of the cast, only Banderas passes as a Chilean in terms of how they look and speak and the accents waver from trying too hard (Irons) to not even attempting one (Ryder). Regardless of that, most do their best with what they have and do capably. Irons especially as the most, and only, properly interesting and richly drawn character gives his all and dominates the film, maybe too much to the point of hamminess in some of the earlier portions of the film where Esteban is pretty much irredeemably detestable (much of the time he is chilling). But when older and more repentent he is much more subtle, whether speaking or conveying a lot while saying little to nothing, yet manages to be authoritative and oddly affecting. On a side note he reunited with director Billie August twenty years later for 'Night Train to Lisbon', did find that a better film and preferred his performance in that despite the character being less complex, am writing this much about him because there is also much to say about Esteban and in a way he is the main character.

Streep is graceful and epitomises pathos as Clara, especially later on and although they didn't create the same magic as they did so well in 'The French Lieutenant's' Woman' her chemistry with Irons is sincerely done. Close has too little to do but is appropriately sympathetic yet stern. Banderas is dashing and Redgrave and Armin Mueller-Stahl make much of their limited screen time. Vincent Gallo is chilling in his small role and Grace Gummer (real life daughter of Streep) and Sasha Hanau are adorable without being saccharine as young Clara and Alba, Hanau especially.

Excepting the final forty five minutes or so where she is quite powerful and some nice chemistry with Irons, Ryder for me was the cast's weak link as she came over as out of place and too modern in looks and how she spoke (which tended to be too much of one-note)

Although as an adaptation 'House of the Spirits' is too short, the book doesn't translate too well as a two and a half hour film. Somehow the film, and it is the storytelling that dooms the film, feels dull with too much of a pedestrian pace and dramatically it feels anaemic and thin and uneventful in spots with any emotional power only coming out in spurts. With the abrupt jumps in time and the disjointed feel of the scenes and events following on from each other and so many plot strands and characters, 'House of the Spirits' can be very jumpy and hard to follow. Even telling who was who was confusing at first, especially for those who have read the book.

Found the character development bland to barely there, only Esteban shows signs of developing and believably. The character interaction is not always natural and could be static, particularly in the early parts, much isn't gone into anywhere near enough depth and the dialogue is trite and stilted. Particularly early on and in the heavy-handedly handled political-oriented moments. August took on an ambitious task and it proved to be too over-ambitious, he succeeds when it comes to the visuals but he fails in making the drama compelling or emotionally investable. For so much content crammed in for two and a half hours, 'House of the Spirits' did feel oddly bloated, despite so much left out and simplified, and like it tried to do too much.

Concluding, watchable film but underwhelming considering the amount of potential it had. 5/10

This movie is based on the novel of the same title by Isabel Allende. It tells the story of the Trueba family over a span of 50 years. Jeremy Irons plays the passionate yet harsh patriarch of the family. He is a man of contradictions-in public and with his family, he is proper. Behind closed doors, he has many secrets-affairs, brothels, and a bastard son whom he utterly neglects. Time and fate make him confront these demons and he ultimately learns the blessing of forgiveness. Meryl Streep plays his psychically touched wife like an angel-she is so ethereal she seems of the spirit world. Glenn Close plays her love-starved sister-in-law;she conveys her desperation so adeptly. Meryl Streep treats her as a real sister and showers sisterly affection on this poor creature. It is a spellbinding tale and one that has relevance to all families.