Bloom

Sean Walsh has created a delightful, beautiful, and very accessible film of James Joyce's "Ulysses".

As a Joycean who has read Ulysses many times and has studied the novel, I realize the immense challenge in bringing this world-shaking novel to the screen. It has only been attempted once before, the 1967 "Ulysses" directed by Joseph Strick.

"Bloom" is elegant and captivating. It does great justice to the novel and is an honest and generally successful attempt to sort out the complexity of this book.

Acting is first rate, especially Angeline Ball (Molly Bloom). Cinematography is meticulous, providing us an historic glimpse of 1904 Dublin.

"Bloom" is more approachable than the '67 "Ulysses" and perhaps not as intense or artistic, but it nevertheless is a superb film and is highly recommended by this James Joyce fan.

Just saw it at the Seattle International Film Festival. I haven't read Ulysses (but I will). My wife read it 40 years ago. We both liked Bloom very much. Molly Bloom was great, as was all the acting. This is not a film for car chase buffs, but if you feel like a pleasant day in Dublin, and are not put off by sexual references, it's just the thing. We did not find it difficult to comprehend and the accent is quite intelligible.

There is a voice-over track which gives one a good feel for Joyce's language. It's great fun to watch the characters drift in and out of fantasies and memories. I don't at all think that one needs to have read Ulysses to have this film be enjoyable.

It's tempting to describe this film by listing all the things it is not. The earlier black and white version, by Joseph Strick in the Summer of Love 1967, starring Milo O'Shea, was too steamy for Ireland and Glasgow, where it was banned, but it was quite sedate and circumspect even by the mores of the time. There has been an excellent serial on BBC Radio, where good use was made of echo/reverb and stereo in depicting the various voices of guilt, regret, lust, fantasy, stream-of-consciousness. In a sense, Michael Winterbottom got closer to the show-off spirit of Joyce in 'Cock and Bull Story', but this production is its own movie. It certainly gets back to the 'cut and paste' feel of the book, and looks every bit as lubricious and smelly as it aught to. Dublin looks dark and damp as it is on the written page, albeit with a touch of filmier romance. The scenes of pure mad fantasy, on the other hand, are either under hardedged sit-com lighting or bathed in a 'Ridley Scott' fog. Most of the dialogue is slightly stagey - or it has the kind of distanced feel associated with post-synching, but only once does this mannerism jarr, when Dedalus (Hugh O'Connor) is spouting his opinions on life and art; so 'rehearsed' and declamatory that it could almost be seen as a deliberate nod to Joyce's category-jumping. Stephen Rea has just the kind of hang-dog look of regret, guilt and ineptitude you can imagine in Leopold Bloom; Angelina Ball as Molly is permanently redolent of warm bed. A neat trick with the structure was to begin with Molly's soliloquy,but otherwise, the overall framework follows the book; if we had been deprived of That Ending, who knows, riots could have broken out. As it is, the acceptance of human folly and the celebration of cerebral grandiosity in vile bodies forms a happy cloud round the exit. One to see again. CLIFF HANLEY

A total disappointment. I thought the Strick 1967 version was bad; compared to this, that version seems like "Citizen Kane." Where to begin?? The direction is far too facile & literal--much of the film is done in voiceovers, and in some scenes every literal reference finds its way on film. The filming of the "Circe" episode is the most wince-inducing, because we see as "real" what is for the most part dream/hallucination-induced. In addition, the actors are all wrong. Stephen Rea was brilliant in "Crying Game"; however, pushing 60, he's too old for the 38-year-old Leopold Bloom. The guy playing Stephen Dedalus seems like an adolescent and far too giddy for a guy who neither bathes nor has fond memories of his mother's death (never mind his trauma over having a Brit shoot up his domicile). The actress playing Molly __seems__ too young and is too physically fit. (In the book, everyone refers to her as being fat). The only enjoyable parts of the movie had nothing to do with the film production BUT everything to do with Joyce's writing. Read the book! Bob

1904, Dublin. Stephen Dedalus is an English poet in the service of the Catholic Church in Ireland; Leopold Bloom is a tragic figure who walks the streets of Dublin while his wife, Molly, commits adultery with barely the regard to try and conceal it. With the streets of Dublin as our colourful background, we take a journey into the lives and minds of these three characters.

Not being a cultured man I have never read Ulysses and the fact that it was 100 years since the day the story was set was not being to be enough reason for me to change that fact. However, being an uncultured man, I was very happy to watch a film version of that book and it was this that brought me to see this film on the 100th anniversary. Before the film all I knew of the main character (title character here) was that comedian Eddie Izzard had compared him to Scooby-Doo in that he was a tragic, cowardly character that we root for but I was happy to let the film show me the book (although I was aware that it was never going to be able to capture all of it). The story is very loose when considered on the level of a traditional narrative and at times it just seems to be so lost in itself that it is impossible to really care or follow. At best it is frustratingly difficult to get into and it never really feels like it has any structure apart from the start and the end. The start is a nice introduction but the ending only has structure in a rather pat attempt to give it a) some sort of ending that relates to at least one part of the film, and b) a happy ending to boot. It doesn't work and just seems to come out of nowhere even if the dialogue is great.

The film doesn't have an epic look but that is down to it's budget and, considering that, I thought they had done well with the shoot and managed to hide a lot of it's limitations with a solid shoot. In terms of dialogue the film has several occasional highs, which I can only assume come from the book either directly or with minor amendments. However the fact that it has a nice imagination and some good visual touches does not disguise the fact that it is very uninvolving as a film and lacks enough of its other qualities to really make it worth a watch.

The cast are mixed indeed. I thought O'Conor was pretty much absent without leave for most of his scenes and I never once got more than a vague understanding of his character and, judging by his performance, I would say that he had no better grasp than I did. Rea however is great – I had no preconception of Leopold so I felt that Rea did well to deliver a solid character in a film where almost nothing was solid. Ball may have little to do but she is also good value even if the film betrays her by making her the focal point of a happy ending having barely touched her throughout (unlike her men!). Some of the support cast are good but really the main reason I stayed with the film till the end was Rea's performance.

Overall this is not a great film, although I do not know how it compares to the book because I have not read it (but other comments on this site make it clear what they think!). It has occasional highs that include some poetic dialogue and an interesting visual imagination but mostly it is just frustratingly difficult to get into and offers no hope. It tries to structure a plot but it only seems to have annoyed fans by being simplistic and annoyed me by being a failed attempt at story. Maybe worth seeing for it's good points but not a very good film at all and certainly not one fans should come to.