Almas Gêmeas

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.

In retrospect, you'd never know this is a Peter Jackson film. Not after becoming familiar with his recent work, anyway. "Heavenly Creatures" contains all the subtlety and nuances that his later work desperately needs - the graceful arc of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, despite its critical lauding, doesn't hold a candle to this film.

Melanie Lynskey plays Pauline, a young girl who, along with her best friend Juliet (Kate Winslet), often envisions herself in fantasy worlds and alternate realities. The two girls' parents become so worried about their fantasies that they separate the two girls - but, in a fit of rage, Melanie and Juliet plan a dreadful revenge.

Most shocking of all is that this story sounds like some lame supernatural thriller that would be on a made-for-TV special, in which the girls share some kind of psychic connection - but it's not like that at all. It's a true story, and it's handled quite delicately.

The performances are, for the most part, very good. Winslet shines in one of her earlier performances and displays raw talent.

Overall, watching this I couldn't help but be reminded of how talented Peter Jackson used to be, and how lately he has succumbed to making, for lack of a better description, Hollywood shlock. I liked "Lord of the Rings." I liked "King Kong." But this is better.

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)

I understand why teenage girls would like this movie--the thrilling rush of new found deep friendship tied together with nascent sexuality and all that comes with it...the defying of the confines of the world around them...the incredible power of unfettered creativity and self-delusional belief...

What's amazing is that a jaded thirty-something man like myself would consider it to be his favorite film of all time. Peter Jackson shows a deftness in handling interpersonal characterizations and blending in amazing special effects in a way that seems so natural...so fluid...that you while you're awed by what you see, you're not so aware of the process that you're distracted. The oh-so-1993 effect of "morphing" is used better here than any other film (save, perhaps, Terminator 2--but in that movie, the morphing WAS the film...when here, it is merely one element.)

The direction is exemplary. The cinematography is awe inspiring. The script is sharp. The acting...down the line...is superb. Melanie Lynskey delivers a brave performance--giddy, childish, frightening, sexual, clouded... She's everything Christina Ricci pretends to be. Kate Winslet--hyper-bright and wonderful...her performance here reminds you that her "Titanic" performance was "sunk" (sorry!) by the extremely poor dialogue she was given. Her character's overly cheerful demeanor is a mask that covers her disappointment in her parents--but it's extended so far that it no longer seems like a mask...it seems to be a force of nature that drags Lynskey's Pauline along for a dangerous ride...a ride that Winslet's Juliet is in no position to control. There are crisp performances from all of the supporting cast as well.

Jackson should be listed with Gilliam and even Lynch when it comes to directors who can achieve a glorious, if dark, vision. The fact that Jackson's movies (save for "Meet the Feebles") are mainstream accessible--in ways that Lynch, especially, could barely consider (although "The Frighteners" was painfully overlooked by the US market)--makes me wish that he'd try his hand at more mainstream material.

Imagine what a Peter Jackson "Titanic" would have been like...and compare that to what a James Cameron "Heavenly Creatures" would have been like and you get my point.

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.