The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone

The movie was not the best and Martinez has always been a little weak in his films... (I could not except the fact that he was the the other guy to Diane Lane in "Unfaithful" over Richard Gere... I'm not gay or anything but Richard Gere is much more appealing than Martinez)... That being said... I'm 30 years old... and I hope my wife is that sexy and looks that good when she is over 60 years of age. Mirren was downright sexy and so appealing for a woman her age. I'm a huge fan of hers. God bless her and her continued sexiness. Her measurements have barely changed in over 40 years. How does she do it. Has she had plastic surgery or boob enhancements? Does anyone know any info about her?

This beautifully costumed and photographed update of the 1961 film is vibrant, honest, and wonderfully acted. Helen Mirren's performance as the aging actress is at times playful, as when she brushes off an old "friend" with a lie about having a tumor, and heart-breaking as when her eyes travel from the perfect body of her lover to her own arms and then breaks down. Unlike most Tennessee Williams' works, "Stone" relies more on silences than on dialogue. Mirren registers every step in Karen's journey from humiliated actress to grieving widow to woman in love to woman scorned. Anne Bancroft, as the Countess, is also dead-on. Her arch manipulation of Karen conceals a passionate outrage at her own poverty that pours out with devastating effect in the film's final moments. Martinez and Santoro as the two young men are also effective.

Tenesee Williams is marvelous, but this is really awful.I am a huge Mirren fan but she is miscast as an ageing fading "beauty".Olivier is' way too old at pushing 40 to be a young gigilo and I have real problems with his "acting" and not just in this movie.I have seen all his early French movies as well as his newer ventures into English.There is a harsh cold arrogance within him that yells male macho pig that lacks any depth or finer feelings.He seems always so stiff and unnatural,his acting is really wooden.( The scene where he lifts his hand to hit Helen/Karen had me in stitches ) The Santoro chap without uttering a word, was truly mesmerising and far more of a breathtaking hunk,one wonders what all the fuss over OM is really all about.The entire movie was wooden and forced.I truly loathed it.I am old enough to remember the original which was not that brilliant either, but knocked the socks of this sad re-make.I felt sorry for Mirren selling her huge talent up the river in this bilge and OM needs roles wherein he is and acts his 40 rather than this 'nonsense in this, and Unfaithful, of being a cheeky 23 year old which he patently is not.he looks his age.He seems very arrogant vain cold in all his movies..the French press call him the "Mannequin who wants to act".. which may be a bit harsh as they loathe him for his misogyinist treatment of their divine la Binoche..but grains of truth maybe.Given that I do admit as a TW fan this is the hardest story to get right on screen it seems..or maybe no-one can get the 'casting just right? Borrow it it is harmless viewing, but do not waste money buying DVD

I am old enough to remember when Vivien Leigh starred in The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone. Although I was a fan of Ms Leigh, I remember that I was quite unimpressed with the film. It was not particularly well-received. It was not one of Ms. Leigh's greatest roles. It is not a classic. This version of Roman Spring starring Helen Mirren and Olivier Martinez harkens back to the original novella by Tennessee Williams. The setting is returned to post-war Italy, and the story is told with great passion and drama. The plight of the Contessa and Paulo is much more understandable in that setting. The greatest difference is in the performance of Helen Mirren. In Mirren's capable hands, Karen Stone is shown as a woman who has known love but never real passion. In spite of her intelligence and common sense, Karen cannot resist Paulo, and her life changes irrevocably. In Mirren's performance, the transformation of Karen Stone is revealed in her actions, her clothes, and every nuance of face and voice. I think Tennessee Williams would approve.

Since the other users have provided details, ad nauseam, I will only say that Mirren seems to be channeling Vivien Leigh at times, especially in the last half. Many mannerisms are nearly identical to Leigh's actions in the 1961 studio version.

Also, strangely enough, I prefer the sound stage artifice of the 1960s. This cable movie was actually filmed on location, but in muted, boring colors. The 1961 feature has the wonderful Technicolor hues.

I found the actor portraying The Young Man/stalker to be far more sexy than Martinez's Paolo, even though he eats food off the ground, urinates in public, hacks up phlegm and never speaks.

Bancroft is fine, although I would have loved to have seen Sophia Loren take a stab at it.

And will you cable movie directors STOP overusing the "atmospheric" smoke machines?!! It looks like your entire film crew was smoking cigarettes during the interior scenes.