Rating: 
Summary: Modern view of oppressive traditional Chinese way of life
Review: I remember reading Pearl Buck's "Pavilion of Women" as a child and loving it. I've forgotten the details of the plot long ago. But I do remember it was about Madame Wu, a wealthy Chinese woman who, on her 40th birthday, decided to stop marital relations with her husband and find him a young concubine. At that time 40 years old seemed very old to me. Now it seems quite young.This 2001 adaptation of the novel is set in 1937 and was filmed in China and partially financed by the Beijung Film Studios. The Chinese actress Yan Luo not only stars as Madame Wu, but also helped write the screenplay and produce the film. She's beautiful and stately and gives a fine performance. Willem Dafoe is cast as a village priest who runs a local orphanage. They are attracted to each other and the inevitable happens. But that is only part of what the story is about. Basically, it's about the oppressive world of the old-fashioned traditional Chinese family. And the future promise of communism. I read the book a long time ago and don't remember such a strong emphasis on communism. But this film is, after all, produced from a modern Chinese point of view. Many critics hated this film, called it too slow and too romantic. And all of them objected to the fact that the characters spoke English. I usually would agree with all those objections. It IS an overblown soap opera after all. However, I found watching this film a delight. I loved the opulent world of pre-communist China that I remember so well from Pearl Buck novels, including the acceptance of the concubine. And I liked the fact that the bedroom scenes were much more explicit than what was hinted at by Pearl Buck. I just relaxed and let myself be part of this fantasy world for a little while. And even though the film was a full two hours long, I never was bored. Taste is personal, of course. And even though I can't understand why I enjoyed Pavilion of Women so much, I do recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Modern view of oppressive traditional Chinese way of life
Review: I remember reading Pearl Buck's "Pavilion of Women" as a child and loving it. I've forgotten the details of the plot long ago. But I do remember it was about Madame Wu, a wealthy Chinese woman who, on her 40th birthday, decided to stop marital relations with her husband and find him a young concubine. At that time 40 years old seemed very old to me. Now it seems quite young. This 2001 adaptation of the novel is set in 1937 and was filmed in China and partially financed by the Beijung Film Studios. The Chinese actress Yan Luo not only stars as Madame Wu, but also helped write the screenplay and produce the film. She's beautiful and stately and gives a fine performance. Willem Dafoe is cast as a village priest who runs a local orphanage. They are attracted to each other and the inevitable happens. But that is only part of what the story is about. Basically, it's about the oppressive world of the old-fashioned traditional Chinese family. And the future promise of communism. I read the book a long time ago and don't remember such a strong emphasis on communism. But this film is, after all, produced from a modern Chinese point of view. Many critics hated this film, called it too slow and too romantic. And all of them objected to the fact that the characters spoke English. I usually would agree with all those objections. It IS an overblown soap opera after all. However, I found watching this film a delight. I loved the opulent world of pre-communist China that I remember so well from Pearl Buck novels, including the acceptance of the concubine. And I liked the fact that the bedroom scenes were much more explicit than what was hinted at by Pearl Buck. I just relaxed and let myself be part of this fantasy world for a little while. And even though the film was a full two hours long, I never was bored. Taste is personal, of course. And even though I can't understand why I enjoyed Pavilion of Women so much, I do recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Modern view of oppressive traditional Chinese way of life
Review: I remember reading Pearl Buck's "Pavilion of Women" as a child and loving it. I've forgotten the details of the plot long ago. But I do remember it was about Madame Wu, a wealthy Chinese woman who, on her 40th birthday, decided to stop marital relations with her husband and find him a young concubine. At that time 40 years old seemed very old to me. Now it seems quite young. This 2001 adaptation of the novel is set in 1937 and was filmed in China and partially financed by the Beijung Film Studios. The Chinese actress Yan Luo not only stars as Madame Wu, but also helped write the screenplay and produce the film. She's beautiful and stately and gives a fine performance. Willem Dafoe is cast as a village priest who runs a local orphanage. They are attracted to each other and the inevitable happens. But that is only part of what the story is about. Basically, it's about the oppressive world of the old-fashioned traditional Chinese family. And the future promise of communism. I read the book a long time ago and don't remember such a strong emphasis on communism. But this film is, after all, produced from a modern Chinese point of view. Many critics hated this film, called it too slow and too romantic. And all of them objected to the fact that the characters spoke English. I usually would agree with all those objections. It IS an overblown soap opera after all. However, I found watching this film a delight. I loved the opulent world of pre-communist China that I remember so well from Pearl Buck novels, including the acceptance of the concubine. And I liked the fact that the bedroom scenes were much more explicit than what was hinted at by Pearl Buck. I just relaxed and let myself be part of this fantasy world for a little while. And even though the film was a full two hours long, I never was bored. Taste is personal, of course. And even though I can't understand why I enjoyed Pavilion of Women so much, I do recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Love the movie!
Review: I rented this movie because Pearl S. Buck (the author of the novel for which the novel is based on) is my favorite author.
I read Pavilion of Women about 10 years ago and I still remember the plot and characters of the novel. I love it so much. I was skeptical when I rented the movie because I was afraid the movie couldn't keep up, but I was wrong. Even though reading the novel will give you intimate details, the movie entertained as well.
Rating: 
Summary: Captivating story with luscious backdrop
Review: The year was 1938. China was on the brink of war with Japan, & communist was gradually gaining its headway with the Kuomintang. Among these backdrops was the story of a Roman Catholic priest (played by William Dafoe), who was also a doctor & a Sinologist (who spoke & wrote Chinese) that had been sent to China to convert Chinese into Christianity & managed an orphanage. By accident, he met the female Chinese interest of this story, a 40 years old lady from a well-to-do family. She had enough taking care of her good-for-nothing husband for almost 30 years. She decided to buy a young girl from the countryside as a mistress to replace her so that she could do her own things then. Upon arrival, the young girl met the son of the lady & instantly, they fall in love with one another. Alas, it was not meant to be considering that the young girl would soon enough become the son's second mum. As the thing went for the wealthy family, English lesson was regarded highly & thus, William's character was employed to teach the son English & other complementery subjects as long religion wasn't discussed. Soon after, the lady & the mistress joined the son for the lesson & gradually, they broadened their knowledge, learnt of their individual rights. As time went, both parties warmed up with one another. The climax came when the mistress attempted to commit suicide for not being able to be with her lover (ie. the son), the son decided to leave the family household to join the Communist to liberate the Chinese people, the lady decided to leave her husband to be with William. Just like many endearing love stories (Madam Butterfly was actually mentioned in the movie itself), an unthinkable incident occurred. What would happen to those characters? It's for the readers to find out. The title of "Pavillion of Women" signified the low status of women during the Chinese heydays, of women spending almost their entire life within the house compound. In the movie, you would observe that the girl from the countryside wasn't been given a name by the family but rather been called a derogatory "liability", jeered at for having a big foot; the decadent lifestyle which allowed the husband marry more than one wife, the norm of prostitution; the significance of preserving face in the Chinese culture; the recluse lifestyle which the rich & famous people lived & thus, them losing touch with the downtrodden ordinary people; the importance of family hierarchy rather than individual rites (as the son put it succinctly in the movie: the sun is his grandmother, the earth being his father whilst his mom is the moon always clinging to the earth but revolving around the sun). A very well done Chinese movie (joint venture between Beijing Film Studio & Hollywood) with superb acting by all actors & actresses combined & beautiful scenery & cinematography (possibly taken at ZhouZhuang with those canal houses as depicted by Marco Polo centuries ago).
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful people, glorious photography, and romance.
Review: This film is one of those movies you like to watch with your better half on a rainy Saturday afternoon with a large couch and a bowl of popcorn. Don't expect a lot from this particular movie (loosely based on Pearl Buck's book). It would never win an Academy Award, but not every movie is made for such shallow recognition. The Chinese women characters are stunningly beautiful, the location photography is breathtaking, and even Willem Dafoe is pleasant enough to watch in this film. This is one of those movies guys love because it has enough story to keep the girls interested, and enough slow periods where you can get a lot of hugging and kissing in. For that reason alone, I should have given this movie 6 stars!
Rating: 
Summary: Distorted
Review: This would have been an excellent movie for anyone who hadn't read the book but, Mr. Wu's character was completely distorted. He was a kind, gentle man who went along with all of his wife's suggestions even though he wasn't really willing to take a concubine. The rest of the movie followed the book very well but a lot was missing. The charaacter of Father Andrew was fairly accurate up to a point. I would reoment the book to everyone. I really enjoyed it.
Rating: 
Summary: Forgive them Father Andre, they know not what they do !
Review: Unbeliavably bad. Wiliam Defoe was hired to add prestige. Guess it would have been too much of a giveaway if they'd gotten Richard Chamberlain. But even Defoe (one of my favorite actors, btw.) cannot rescue this grotesque unintentional parody of Pearl Buck's classic. It's like Disney filming a musical version Moby Dick from the whale's point of view, or The Three Musketeers as an X rated movie about the homosexual bond between French soldiers, or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington--and machine gunning The Senate at the end, or--well, you get the idea. Jumping Li Po! Has ANYONE who gave this travesty of Buck's masterpiece a favorable review actually READ the book? If the plot has any resemblance to the novel, it's purely accidental. The characters are not only changed, they're caricatures--to call them one dimensional is to accord them one dimension too many and the theme of one of the most moving and subtle works of fiction is reduced to the level of a bumper sticker. My favorite scene is a toss up between the sprained ankle in the rain when the hero carries her off to the hayloft and begins to make love as the camera cuts away; Reminiscent of a grade B 50's flick and a Harlequin Romance paperback, and the happy couple in communist uniforms reunited on top of a hillside at the end, as the music swells triumphantly. It's Mao Tse Tung meets The Sound of Music.
Rating: 
Summary: not on par with other recent chinese movies
Review: While the two lead actors performed admirably, the rest of the cast, as well as the screenplay, musical score, and editing, was done in such a way as is insulting to the audience... it appears as though the story was "dumbed down" for American audiences. What was perhaps most disturbing was the use of English rather than, say, Mandarin -- the mix of American and less-American accents is more distracting than reading subtitles... The musical score was over-dramatic and didn't quite fit in with the plot (e.g. western choral music on a chinese film?)... To spoil the few good points of the movie, the last scene appears to be a poster for communist china. All in all, very little will be missed if you fail to see this movie. It is definitely not on par with a number of other well-crafted chinese movies that have made their way to these shores in recent times.
| 
