Frenchman's Creek

I had really hoped to like this film, but I just could not. It is one of those films trying to make a "dark and gritty" version of a story, but only succeed in omitting all that made the story good in the first place. At a quarter of the running time, I was already in despair. At half, I found that I could not force myself to endure any more of this crap. I never finished, and I don't think anything could induce me to waste my time with the second half.

There were a few things I liked :

* Harry, who was portrayed rather accurately. * Rockingham, same. It surprised me. I thought that if they would botch a character it would be him. After all, how can you compare to any of Basil Rathbone's villains ? Well, you just can't. (I know, I am very biased towards Basil Rathbone ^^). But you can come very close, and I liked this one well enough.

Otherwise, the negatives :

* All the political and religious stuff, which distract from the main story without improving it. * The Frenchman : I found him awful. Really awful. He's not an artist doodling birds anymore, except one in a book which looks terrible. He's not witty, he's not charming, he's just annoying and full of himself. I couldn't feel anything between him and Dona. I didn't watch the second half so it might chang later, but I doubt it. None of the interactions between him and Dona are memorable or witty, but just two unlikable people snapping at each other. * Dona : As another reviewer wrote, she feels more like a street tart than a lady. She too lost all the wit she had in the book, and is frequently rude and mean-spirited instead. The prime example being how she deals with unwanted attentions or people who annoy her : "If you come near Navron I'll set the dogs after you !". And basically every conversation she has with... mostly everyone. And although she talks about her children, it didn't feel as though she was very fond of them. * Henrietta : Oh dear, she was just terrible. In the book and 1944 version, she is too young to have much personality, and it's fine, because it is not her story. In this film, she just felt like she was written in order to make a point about religion making people worse. * William : Another character drained of charm and wit for this movie.

If you liked Daphne du Maurier's original novel, avoid this like the plague. Large elements of the plot (including the period setting) have been changed. I was incredibly disappointed with the result - it seemed to alter the whole mood of the novel.

I love pirate movies especially with lots of galleons and period houses (1600s) set in ethereal far away places. This is probably my favorite movie but I prefer the 1944 version with Olivia deHaviland and Arturo Decordova.

I thought Anthony Delon was very credible and played his part sensitively. I am always grateful to the casting directors when they use native speakers or real musicians in a film. I am very sensitive to manufactured accents and someone whose fingers are flying all over the place hitting high notes on low keys and vice versa. Mr. Delon pacing was nice, I found myself becoming lost in his character but the shots were so short I frequently lost the connection. But he was quick to recover it and take you along for the ride. That's good acting.

I was disappointed in Lady St. Column. While Dona was used to the gaming houses she didn't like the company; this portrayal did not show Dona as a lady but closer to a street tart. When it came time for her to care about her children you didn't believe her; this portrayal was too cold and, in some instances, mechanical; I thought I was watching a stage play rehersal. I think Phoebe Cates would have been a better choice; she can act up a storm and she would have been an inspiring counter to Mr. Delon's efforts.

Also, "William" was flat and left me feeling uncomfortable. Support roles are just as important as the leads; they provide the credible ground to launch the other characters. (Look at Mathew Broderick in LadyHawke; with all of the heavies in that picture, he walked off with the show.) All I could think of was the butler from the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Also, I think the character of Henrietta was allowed to get away from the overall control of the picture; because she was so strident, too much so for her age, she was upstaging the picture and it was annoying.

Penultimately, I would like to see a version where Dona goes to sea; I'm tired of politically correct; let's have the real ending.

I am glad to see, though, that there is still an interest in this story. I am always glad to watch this tale being told again and again.

I really enjoyed this film. Beautiful locations, well-acted & perfectly cast (esp. Ms. Fitzgerald). Only once did it feel like a TV movie; most of the time it felt like cinema. In fact, I wish I'd had the opportunity to see this in a cinema. I'm not one for mushy romance, so men -- fear not. Rent this one, find your sweetheart and curl up for a wonderful film. Thanks to everyone who worked so hard on this movie! *applause* This was far better than recent Hollywood fodder.

The Cornish views and setting of the Creek and the Estuary are wondeful .Mostly well cast but sadly Anthony Delon asaaa the epoymous Frenhman is just not convincing. He is not reaslly ruthless enough, he is after all a pirate who kills people and robs them for a liivng. Comes over as soppy and a rather mechanical actor. Tara Fitzgerals was very convincing as the spoilt and self absorbed Dona The boats are obviously beiig sailed by people who know what they are doing.. Best to just read it and imagine your own Frenchman. Sir Harry is well cast . The Cornish manor house is a bit too grand, but film makers always overdo it ,