Jude

Life and love can be tragic and beautiful. The ways of society and the heart are not simple and can be quiet opposed.

Jude is a masterpiece as a novel and film. Yes, it is quiet the most painful story, but all lives worth living have pain and heartbreak, love and laughter. This is no sugar-coated romance, but a dark, dirty, tragedy. What affects me so is the timelessness of this story. Michael Winterbottom truly made a wonderful film - he did not write the story folks.

Christopher Eccleston is a master actor, he brings such a full-blown sense of the man "Jude". He really knew this character strongly and I feel that he has a level of intelligence and feeling that is rarely used in modern male actors.

Kate Winslet is a stunning actress. Hard to believe that she carried the level of passion and maturity in "Jude" as Sue Bridehead at the ripe age of 20. She is truly one-of-a-kind and deserves all accolades placed upon her shoulders.

I had no problem with the love scenes and nudity in this movie - although that could be because Chris Eccleston is so incredibly attractive. Isn't love-making crucial and appropriate for two people in love? I don't understand how some people commented poorly on that. It seems quite acceptable for me.

Don't look for mushy weepy romance in Jude. You will find power, grief, passion, love, and bravery. Jude and Sue possess more bravery than most people living today, the tragedy is that they risked everything for their love - which destroyed them and the lives of their children.

Masterpiece film making and acting. Bravo!

The adage "a great novel rarely makes a great movie" is not as true as is supposed, but I'm sorry to say it's true here. Director Michael Winterbottom and writer Hossein Amini fail here because they fail to understand the town of Christminster, the town Jude loathes and yet wants to be accepted by so desperately. The town functions almost as a character in the novel, but here you feel nothing from it, and therefore the context for everyone's actions is removed. And except for Sue and Arabella(well played by Kate Winslet and Rachel Griffiths, respectively), the characters are underdeveloped). It looks appropriately dark, and the other actors are good, but I felt at the end like there was something missing.

This pessimistic and rather brutal cinematic production is based on the nineteenth century novel Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy. A bowdlerized and altered version of that novel first appeared in Harper's New Monthly Magazine as a serial beginning in December 1894. Its original title was 'The Simpletons,' a title modern viewers of this movie might find appropriate considering how Jude and Sue round out their lives.

It need hardly be said that any motion picture, and certainly not one running only about two hours, can hope to do justice to Hardy's novel (his last, incidentally) which is about 180,000 words long (about 400 pages of dense text). An earlier TV mini series version made by the BBC that I have not seen, Jude the Obscure (1971), ran for almost four and a half hours in six episodes. But this is a pretty good movie anyway, highlighted by an enthralling performance by Kate Winslet.

The movie starts rather slowly, if picturesquely, until Kate appears and then the movie comes to life. I have seen Winslet in several films, including her first feature film when she was18-years-old, Heavenly Creatures (1994), an interesting film made in New Zealand based on a sensational matricide from the 1950s. She was very good in that film, her budding talent immediately obvious as the spinning, laughing, crazy teen who went off the deep end emotionally. In Jude, Winslet's sharp, confident and commanding style is given greater range and she comes across with a performance that is full of life, effervescent, delightful, witty, sly, clever, and very expressive, and she looks beautiful doing it.

The story itself, a naturalistic tragedy that in some respects anticipates Theodore Dreiser, et al., was considered immoral in its time. 'The Bishop of Wakefield, disgusted with the novel's insolence and indecency, threw it in the fire,' according to Terry Eagleton who wrote the Introduction for the New Wessex Edition of the book. Modern film goers will hardly notice the implied critique of marriage that offended Victorian readers, but they might find the scene where Arabella throws the pig's 'part' at Jude indelicate. Victorian readers found that scene most offensive. As a public service I want to warn any modern viewer who might be offended at seeing Kate Winslet naked to avoid this film. (Just Joking: Kate is quite fetching in the Rubenesque shot.) To be honest, though, this really is a tragedy that still has the power to offend some sensibilities. Certainly you don't want the kids to see it.

Christopher Eccleston plays Jude and does a good job, and Rachel Griffiths in a modest part plays Jude's first wife Arabella. Director Michael Winterbottom stayed spiritually true to Hardy's dark vision while tailoring the tale for modern audiences. There's a nice period piece feel and some charming cinematography. The denouement is well set up and so realistically done that we don't know whether to be horrified or outraged. I think I was both.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

You can't discuss this movie without discussing the novel of the same name. The movie stays remarkably true to the novel; from character to location. If anything, the movie enhances the novel--through Christopher Eccleston's fantastic performance we see in Jude the light of desire and the crush of defeat.

Though another review characterizes Thomas Hardy's depiction of females as misogynistic, I disagree. The character of Arabella is certainly a villain at her heart, but the character of Sue Bridehead is a mirror of our tragic hero, Jude. Through their interactions, we see not only a stunning performance by Kate Winslet, but also a relationship of equals in misery. Certainly, the males in the novel and movie are depicted at least as wretchedly as the females.

This movie draws the viewer in and gives you insight into Jude's world, from it's optimistic beginning to its tragic end. Definitely not a date movie, but absolutely fine film-making.

...but i loved it. i was at the library getting a movie for girls night and then i saw the jacket for this movie. first thing i notice it has kate winslet, its historical, and the tag line is really catchy so i check it out, drive to my friends house and start the show. instead of a cute feel good romance i'm confronted with a heavy movie of death, love, hate, and betrayal.

now i found this movie to be amazing. the story was very much true to hardy's novel (well up until the end) and while the film is dark it is wonderfully so. it is not a lighthearted period romance but rather a study on human behavior and how it can go terribly wrong when the heart becomes involved. it is obvious that they love each other, and the fact they are cousins is secondary... they had never known each other as children as most children know their cousins. they met as adults and fell in love as such. their story is an impassioned one of trail and error romances, exploring ones desires and drives, the burden of nonconformity, and what can cause as love to break down.

very good, very powerful, but a very abrupt ending with one of the best closing lines. ****/*****