A younger boy falls in love with a tragic girl who flirts with, and manipulates, her older suitors in 1800s Russia.A younger boy falls in love with a tragic girl who flirts with, and manipulates, her older suitors in 1800s Russia.A younger boy falls in love with a tragic girl who flirts with, and manipulates, her older suitors in 1800s Russia.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 1 nomination total
James Fox
- Old Vladimir
- (voice)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
All Forgotten is a period drama, set in 1900's Russia and starring Kirsten Dunst and Nick Stahl. Stahl's character falls in love with next door neighbor Dunst, but she's too busy toying with much older suitors. The men fall at her feet and she loves it, teasing them endlessly and without shame. Stahl as Vladimir loves his dear Zinaida (Dunst) but is emotionally hindered.
There's a second story in the film concerning a young woman with a small son whose husband is away in the war.
I could not tell where this film was supposed to be set for a while because although the names were Russian, everyone spoke with a British accent. The costumes were lovely, and the landscapes beautiful (filmed entirely in the Czech Republic), but Dunst and Stahl, and everyone else is essentially wasted.
None of the vibrancy Stahl brought to his role in Man Without A Face was evident here in his Vladimir. It was almost as if he were simply walking from mark to mark, delivering his lines woodenly and moving on. He looked very preoccupied. Dunst conveyed the airs of a spoiled young girl who had been given too much too soon, but I found it difficult to really care about her. Although Vladimir is is love with Zinaida, there is no chemistry whatsoever between the actors so the characters are always distanced emotionally.
This is a nice film to watch on a very rainy day, but overall it's a disappointment. The plot never really took off, and I found myself at the end of the film still waiting for the film's point to be made.
There's a second story in the film concerning a young woman with a small son whose husband is away in the war.
I could not tell where this film was supposed to be set for a while because although the names were Russian, everyone spoke with a British accent. The costumes were lovely, and the landscapes beautiful (filmed entirely in the Czech Republic), but Dunst and Stahl, and everyone else is essentially wasted.
None of the vibrancy Stahl brought to his role in Man Without A Face was evident here in his Vladimir. It was almost as if he were simply walking from mark to mark, delivering his lines woodenly and moving on. He looked very preoccupied. Dunst conveyed the airs of a spoiled young girl who had been given too much too soon, but I found it difficult to really care about her. Although Vladimir is is love with Zinaida, there is no chemistry whatsoever between the actors so the characters are always distanced emotionally.
This is a nice film to watch on a very rainy day, but overall it's a disappointment. The plot never really took off, and I found myself at the end of the film still waiting for the film's point to be made.
This film is very strange. It looks picturesque. It moves at the pace of a snail. It mimics great Russian epics such as "War and Peace", but no-one will take credit for the screenplay. Who wrote the story? Is it an original screenplay?
Kirsten Dunst is a Russian Princess who collects a crowd of fawning sycophantic admirers who salivate over her every motion and jostle with each other for her favours. Nick Stall is the youngest and fawns the hardest. He discovers that his Dad is the one who is sampling the ladies intimate delights and tragedy looms. There is never any explicit revelation of exactly what everyone is doing and no confrontation or conflict. Consequently there is no excitement and the story struggles to hold the viewers attention.
The period, incidentally, is mid 19th century Russia at the time of the Crimean War and not Britain as stated in the plot outline. Don't blame the British just because the film is slow and boring!
Stahl looks such a twit in his ensign's uniform with a hat that is seven sizes too big.
Kirsten Dunst is a Russian Princess who collects a crowd of fawning sycophantic admirers who salivate over her every motion and jostle with each other for her favours. Nick Stall is the youngest and fawns the hardest. He discovers that his Dad is the one who is sampling the ladies intimate delights and tragedy looms. There is never any explicit revelation of exactly what everyone is doing and no confrontation or conflict. Consequently there is no excitement and the story struggles to hold the viewers attention.
The period, incidentally, is mid 19th century Russia at the time of the Crimean War and not Britain as stated in the plot outline. Don't blame the British just because the film is slow and boring!
Stahl looks such a twit in his ensign's uniform with a hat that is seven sizes too big.
Yes, this is a period piece -- pre-WWI Russia, to be precise. I only caught the last third of the movie or so, but it was enough to captivate me. The characters were interesting; the music poignant, the scenery stunning. The acting is top-notch with the notable exception of Stahl, who never reflects the agonies and the ecstacies of growing up; he never lets the struggles of the character make their way to his countenance or his actions, and so appears as a painted-face marrionate simply reciting lines and moving about from place to place. The problem is that the retrospective English narrator is used in place of acting; while it's well done and appropriate, it is used to suture up the devestation caused by the poor acting of Stahl instead of complimenting him. But anyhow, enough on that topic. Again, it captivated me, and not many films can do that. Either there's too much trash, or the characters are stupid, unbelievable, or unheroic. This doesn't feel like a cheap Hollywood throwaway flick, and that has something to do with the source material -- Anton Chekov! There is a human warmth about it all and an artistry that is all too often abandoned in pursuit of a quick dollar. Now this isn't to say that this film is the best thing ever put on a reel. But it is enough to make me want to go watch the whole thing, and that is a rare thing.
Visually beautiful with pretty characterisations and some fine acting particularly from Julie Walters. But I had more interest in the love triangle of the serf's that I did of the aristrocracy. It really doesn't come together, but could have been quite a compelling drama if the story had peaked and resolved itself a little more poignantly. I wouldn't spend the two hours of viewing time to sit through this again because it seem's to have been directed by someone with the emotions of granite. Pity because it's so pretty and romantic in a visual sense. Too few scene's from Ms Walters. The character portrayed by Ms Dunst (Zinaida) irritated the hell out of me. Pity I had to wait until the end for her exit !!!!!!!
I really liked this movie a lot. The acting was good from Kirsten and Nick. The scenery was beautiful. I enjoyed the whole film. There were a few parts where I was confused, but only a few parts. I know a lot of people didn't like this movie but I didn't see a problem with it. The music was good. I would recommend this movie to anyone loves a good drama movie. Especially on that takes place in the eighteenth century. I recommend this movie to anyone who loves Kirsten Dunst or Nick Stahl.
Did you know
- TriviaFilmed in the Czech Republic, doubling for Russia.
- ConnectionsVersion of The Wednesday Play: First Love (1964)
- How long is Lover's Prayer?Powered by Alexa
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content