Créatures célestes

Based on a true story that took place in New Zealand in the mid-1950s, "Heavenly Creatures" is one of those films that seems tame at first glance, but is full of explosive devices. Co-writer/director Peter Jackson (of "The Lord of the Rings" fame) crafts a highly-disturbing motion picture about two teenaged girls (Melanie Lynsky and Kate Winslet, in the role that put her on the cinematic map) who have a highly potent relationship that is based on their love for literature and their love for a conjured-up fantasy world. Their intense friendship borders the line on a deep obsession as the two become inseparable. Their parents believe that lesbianism may be part of the partnership. Even though there are dream sequences and undertones aplenty to point to that, the girls' friendship does not go that way in real life. As others try to separate them for good, the girls come up with a devious plan to destroy who they feel is the major culprit (Lynskey's mother, played by Kirsti Ferry). The movie goes into a dark place and its somewhat sweet candy-coating tries to hide the fact that this was a truly major incident in a time and place where things like this just did not occur. Jackson was going for something like Peter Weir's equally disturbing "Picnic at Hanging Rock", but ends up creating a film that runs rings around that disappointing work. Jackson's smart direction just enhances a really intelligent Oscar-nominated screenplay. Kate Winslet does truly steal the show from Lynskey who was meant to be the real focal point of the production. A good film that would lead to even better works for the major players involved. 4 stars out of 5.

Lesbian murderers ? I'm sort of guessing that I might not like this movie very much . No doubt we'll be seeing some polemical do gooder film maker with zero talent making a movie where anyone who gets murdered by the gay girls probably asked for it because they were a rabid homophobe

That was my abstract opinion of HEAVENLY CREATURES when it was released to some critical acclaim ten years ago , with much of the acclaim going to writer/director Peter Jackson whose previous gory horror comedies I'd enjoyed . Yeah the guy was talented I remember thinking , but in a liberal climate we'd no doubt be hearing a myriad of excuses via the film for the girls crime and it was this attitude that stopped me from watching the movie until it was broadcast on BBC 2 tonight

I was fooling myself if I thought Jackson was going to make a bad movie . This is another piece of heart melting , intelligent movie making from the Kiwi genius and I'm sorry for doubting Jackson for a moment . What Jackson has done has made a movie where it's difficult to think of the two protagonists as " lesbian lovers " , Pauline Reiper and Juliet Hulme are two teenagers who love each other full stop and the screenplay doesn't once make any excuses for anything that happens , we're not supposed to feel disgusted by their relationship , we're not supposed to feel that they are victims in any way and we're not supposed to feel that a conservative , homophobic society is to blame for what happened . Jackson deserves much credit for making an amoral movie without an agenda , it's up to the free thinking audience to make up their own minds on the case. Take for example the murder of Mrs Rieper who kindly takes the girls to a tea house then for a walk in the countryside . It's difficult not to notice that if she'd been an uncaring cruel dragon with absolutely no conscience the girls wouldn't have had an opportunity to murder the woman .

It's also a movie that captures the spirit of being a teenager in love . When for whatever reason you have to say goodbye to your first love it's the end of the world . You'll do anything to stop it happening - ANYTHING - and you won't forgive anyone who caused it to happen . Fantasy sequences similar to the ones shown here are also a staple diet of the teenage mind and if you disagree with me you're either being dishonest or you're under twelve years of age . Believe me this movie reminded me , perhaps a little too much , of my own teenage angst

Jackson also deserves credit for his casting Melanie Lynskey and ( A then totally unknown ) Kate Winslet as Pauline and Juliet . Neither of them can be described as strikingly attractive and you do have to worry who we would have got instead if this was a Hollywood production , but they play the star crossed lovers with absolute conviction , as indeed do the rest of the cast

HEAVENLY CREATURES is beautiful , haunting , thoughtful and incisive . With the exception of Martin Scorsese I rate Peter Jackson as the world's greatest living film maker and HEAVENLY CREATURES is the first movie that showed the true greatness Jackson is capable of

I was both really shocked and mesmerized at this film. The film is sort of an open-minded story about a real-life event, told in a fantasy genre. Peter Jackson's direction is simply phenomenal. The way he tells this story, he does not want it to be a regular thriller, or fantasy, he lingers in both. He manages to create a sort of scary, yet beautiful account of this event. The way he captures the girls' imaginations on screen is simply spellbinding. The characters themselves are brought to life so effortlessly, so magically realized, thanks to the magnificent screenplay. Melanie Lynskey and Kate Winslet are so great together. Their chemistry, their power together, it is so well captured. But it is Kate Winslet who shines more. This was her first big movie role, and I believe it is what started her amazing movie career. She is simply magnificent. She steals every scene she is in. She was robbed of an Oscar nomination for sure. The cinematography of the film is also what caught my eye. The camera-work is done differently than other films. It is so magnificent though, but it might annoy some people who like 'steady' shots.

Overall, I cannot really out into words how extraordinary this film is. It is enough just to see it. It is probably one of the most memorable films of 90s. One of the most haunting. It is a must-see, and probably Peter Jackson's masterpiece(It is altogether more affecting than the Lord of the Rings)

When Juliet Hulme moves from England to New Zealand with her parents, she meets Pauline Rieper – a rather disaffected girl who is happy to have a friend. As they get to know each other, Pauline is pulled into the fantasy world of Royals and scandal that Juliet has written. However as the two fall deeper and deeper into the characters they have created, their relationship becomes ever more intense and their parents step in to separate them. Facing a geographical separation, the two plot to take revenge on the adults who seek to split them up.

At the time of release I remember thinking that this was an unusual film for Peter Jackson to have made given that he was more of a gore merchant as I was aware. Watching it not it still feels like a strange film for him to have done, but now it is for different reasons – that is, that he has made one of the biggest trilogies of all time™ etc! Ignoring his previous and later works, this is a great little film and it acts as a showcase for Jackson as it shows he can be imaginative and also sensitive when required – certainly coming to this on the back of Bad Taste, I had low expectations on how he would do it but he did it. The true story is adapted from Pauline's diaries and, while it must be impossible to see how they saw the world, the fantastic fantasy worlds we see here are better than the probably quite repressed world they had in mind – from this film I saw the two as being more insular and self defensive than the elaborate fantasy scenes would suggest. The film did well to depict their relationship, immediately having worrying signs but being the sort of thing kids do – and the killing hinted at by the film's opening is brutal and unpleasant – we are never allowed to side with these people.

The direction is great, creating normal domestic scenes with the same confidence as it uses full size plastic models within the fantasy sequences.

The cast also do well, in particular two great lead performances. Naturally Winslet gets all the kudos for her character is ott at times and spins wildly emotionally – a hard role to carry off but she does it very well and showed great promise (even if she looks too old for the role in my opinion). Lynskey impressed me much more as her role was more controlled and was delivered a lot better by an actress who looked like a shy, embarrassed little girl. Both were great for different reasons and they are a big reason this film works so well. Support from the likes of O'Connor, Kent and a few other well known faces are also good but there is never a question about their role within the film – they are supporting the main two.

Overall I imagine this film will get a audience boost now as lots of LOTR fans go trawling through Jackson's back catalogue to see what else he has done (boy are they in for a surprise!) and I'm glad more people will see it.

The direction is great and it delivers a complex story in a colourful and fanciful manner, but the main praise should go to the two lead actresses who deal with really difficult characters and do so in a confident and believable manner – even if the material means that many of us will want to find what they did abhorrent.

Perhaps the premier concern of modern filmmakers is locating somewhere in the film exactly where the film-making process is. This is often incorrectly called irony, self-reference or the odd construction of reflexivity. I call it 'folding' and it seems to be everywhere and often in rich and engaging forms. Moreover, it seem to be a central concern of the Australian performing arts community. I imagine it can be traced back to a single person in the seventies on Bennelong Point.

So much of what we have gotten from this tradition has enriched us all, not the least of which are the actresses who master folded acting. That's where we get a portrayal of a character and another simultaneous portrayal of an actor portraying that character. Sometimes the 'character' in these two portrayals isn't quite the same. Three mainstream film actresses today can do this. Two are Australian, and one is Kate.

This is her first film, and it is no surprise at all that the filmmaker has chosen to build a structure that is a representation and is about representation. The original, true story is about two girls, enwrapped in mutual fantasy, probably enhanced by the flush of sex, whose fantastic adventures get out of hand. From this, Jackson reshapes it all. It is now a film about films. Now the girls' fantasy world is a Camelot driven by forces in film. They write. They sculpt characters, based on film characters. Those film characters come 'alive' and form a world in which the girls live in parallel with the real world. So far so good.

But Jackson goes further. Some of the film prototypes are simple characters: Mario Lanza-like. Simple glamour with no pretense or irony. But there is the amazing Orson Welles also. Orson is not pretty, he is not direct, he is a folded prototype himself. The two worlds conflict, and that conflict is reflected in each world. In the Borovnian ('borrow'-nian) world, this is a conflict between two clay figures: the Welles and the Lanza, the winner getting to bed and impregnate both princesses. In the 'real' world, the conflict carries over to the two houses, and even within Juliet's house between the bookish metaphysical father and the sexy 'psychologist- but touchy-feely' mother.

Welles was the one who reinvented the ordinary flat world of film into a melange of folding techniques. The film world since the late forties has been a combination of struggles and syntheses between the forth world of Welles and the simple dramatic stage of Griffith.

Even the very young Kate surfs and exploits these levels with aplomb. Even as a teenager she gives us messages from each of these folds - not at precisely the same time as Julianne would later, but strongly nonetheless.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.