Rating: 
Summary: because we are too many...
Review: The packaging for this DVD would make the casual shopper think they are about to watch a warm and touching costume epic. What you get instead is a raw, bleak period piece that touches on emotional areas seldom seen in modern film.
Always engaging, never sugar-coated, well-acted (Winslet and Eccleston are perfectly cast), and stripped of most manipulative Hollywood tactics, this is a perfect rainy-day film, though certainly not for children.
Sensual but without overly-gushing romantic cliches, and with some very raw moments of pain and emotional collapse, I could not take my eyes off of this film.
Though I won't give away any plot details, there is a scene in a church where Eccleston begs Winslet to say she loves him, and I remember thinking there haven't been too many scenes like this which depict such desperate moments, played so well. Reaching a moment where it looks as if the characters may find peace, it instead plunges straight into the abyss, and ends in a painful moment where against all odds, Jude remains true to himself and his own feelings about what is right and wrong.
Solid on a technical level; good photography, music, directing, and with a story about two people the viewer can really care about, this is a film I will watch more than a few times.
Rating: 
Summary: Beautiful Film
Review: I'm surprised to see the not very positive Amazon.com review at the top. I've been waiting for this film to come out on DVD for what seems like eternity.I'm a feature film editor and have found this film to be one of my favorites. Although the film doesn't follow Hardy's novel precisely (like almost all films that are based on a novel) the sparse and stark portrayal of the characters is infectiously moving. It's a very beautiful film with exceptional acting, and I'd recommend it highly to the potential viewer. If you like "intense" films that are not overly dramatized to an unrealistic point, this film is for you. I'd also recommend Michael Winterbottom's other films.
Note: my real rating would be an almost perfect 4.5 stars.
Rating:
Summary: 2.35:1 Widescreen
Review: If you even know about this movie in the first place and are at this page on Amazon, it's probably because you know it's amazing so let's skip the praise. Doing some research, I was under the impression this region 1 DVD would be pan and scan, which normally would deter me from even the greatest films, but the movie had such a personal meaning for me I bought it anyway. Much to my amazement, the film is in glorious 2.35:1 widescreen, and the emotional devastation of the film really kills you now...The sound, BTW, is in dolby stereo. There is also a 3 second long featurette (which is pointless) and a trailer (the beautiful music in the trailer, BTW, is from Restoration by James Newton Howard). I wish Amazon would have given me this information before, so for those 2 people out there that know how amazing this movie is, the DVD is well worth the price (and since it will never be printed again, because it will never make any money, buy it now if you're going to buy it).
Rating:
Summary: Michael Winterbottom's Jude
Review: Over one hundred years ago, Thomas Hardy experienced critical backlash against his novel "Jude the Obscure" and never wrote another novel. This film version is also controversial, but definitely worth a look. This stars Christopher Eccleston in the title role as a stonemason who yearns for higher learning and a better life. Eccleston's portrayal of Jude is excellent in that he is no Hollywood pretty boy. His ears are too big and his face sallow, but his expressions and gaunt look help his performance immensely, especially in the latter half of the film. Too bad the audience is left in the dark about what exactly makes his character tick. Jude's cousin, Sue, is played by Kate Winslet. She brings a professionalism to her role that almost overshadows Eccleston. Every nuance of her work here does not seem calculated, but very natural. Jude's wife, Arabella, who leaves him, but keeps popping back into his life over and over again, is played by Rachel Griffiths. Her character is a major flaw in the film. Gothicism was fading in the time this novel was written; readers were experiencing more real situations in novels by the likes of Charles Dickens, or fantastic situations in novels by H.G. Wells. Arabella seems old hat in a period film. When she is introduced, the scene is full of sunshine and utopian bliss. Throughout the film, she appears in black widow's wear, striking a contrast against gray backgrounds and the forced happiness of Jude and Sue. This role screamed for a more intense actress along the lines of Nicole Kidman or Emily Watson. Griffiths does not have the presenced needed. Any other actress would have taken the part and sunk her teeth into it, but Griffiths comes across as a pitiful old maid without a thought in her head. In the beginning of the film, in her cutesy courtship with Jude, another actress may have appeared whimsical and innocent, Griffiths plays Arabella like a moron. The director is well known in British and art house circles. His direction is expert, and different from other adaptations of long English novels. Winterbottom uses filmed captions to let the viewer know where Jude's travels take him. The film opens during Jude's childhood, and Winterbottom shoots the entire sequence in black and white, evoking antiquated romantic memories of childhood. The screenwriter, Hossein Amini, and Winterbottom load the film with too much sex, after a while it almost overshadows the plot and characters. The musical score and set design are marvelous and i would highly recommend this film to others, but maybe not as a study aid for Thomas Hardy-reading high school students. The film has plenty of raw emotion (including the stinging fate of Sue and Jude's children), but Jude's character remains, pardon the pun, obscure. There is something great here, despite the flaws. This is rated (R) for physical violence, gore, female nudity, male nudity, sexual content, and strong adult situations.
Rating: 
Summary: Be Careful
Review: If you have a tender heart toward children, then do not watch this film. All other elements aside, what ultimately happens to the children in this novel made me drop to my knees in front of my television and weep. When it was over I proceeded to have my worst night of sleep for the year. True, the character studies are excellent, including that of the oldest child, and the faithfulness to Hardy's vision is sufficient. There is a gratuitous nude scene involving Kate Winslet that was, nevertheless, nice to have to endure (the nakedness of her character, I suppose, is meant to reflect the nakedness of emotion between the cousins during that moment of their consummation, as well as their naked position in society with regard to social taboo). Ultimately, however, I do not like graphic depictions of children suffering violence, and I do not recommend this film for that reason.
Rating: 
Summary: Superb Acting Though a Grim Tale
Review: Those familiar with the bittersweet, obsessive, compulsive aspect of Thomas Hardy's so-called romantic novels will instantly know that this film is not apt to leave one with a warm fuzzy feeling by the last reel. Certainly it is not recommended that one read the novel, Jude the Obscure, before viewing. How many films have failed to live up to the expectations of the literary adaptation? Why would this be any different? Jude is a man of humble birth who strives to rise above his allotment in life. Rather than approaching the subject as a modern fairy tale where dreams do come true, the standard treatment in cinema, there is a grim realism which reflects the destructive nature of impractical and unnatural compulsions. Jude attempts to fly in the face of social convention in a headlong flight of self-destruction which at times has the horrific fascination of a slow motion train wreck, one is disturbed by the sight but unable to turn away. I knew nothing of this film save that the title characters were played by the extremely talented pair, Kate Winslet and Christopher Eccleston. That was sufficient enticement for me and as always I was not disappointed by the performances. Despite the current trend to degrade the "Masterpiece Theatre" production style actors and directors of immense talent breath life into even the dullest works. Dull this film isn't but grim it certainly is. Only a brave director would tackle this kind of project. How much easier it would have been to soften the hard edge to make the viewing more palatable. There is much to be gleaned from witnessing in all its ugliness the past stigmatization of relationships we now accept as commonplace. If one comes away from this film with nothing more than an inkling of gratitude or awe for the sacrifice of those who attempted to effect social change then this film is worth the viewing.
Rating:
Summary: Don't let the kids see this
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: ow!
Review: i think it is important to note in reading this review that upon seeing this movie i had never read the book.
having said that i found this movie thoroughly engrossing. it peeks around corners and through windows giving you the feeling of a vouyeur spying on this mans life as it hits bottom after bottom. the effect of this feeling is that you become involved
in the story in a more emotionaly realistic way. i for one did not realize how involved i had become until halfway through when things actualy looked to be going well for the characters it is of course then that they are thrown a shovel and new lows are discovered leading to the crushing final scene that left me with one conclusion... this movie hurts.
i imagine would only hold true for people who have yet to read the book and are generaly unfamiliar with the story
Rating:
Summary: Too bad there is no negative scale...
Review: If there were, I would give this movie a perfect -10. Not only this movie reduced the novel to three colorful copulations and one as wonderful birth scenes, but it doesn't even stand as a work by its own. In fact, the person with whom I watched this movie, who didn't happen to read that particular Hardy's novel, couldn't understand of anything what was going on. Just a jumble-mumble of episodes, play with movie color, terrible acting, horiffic character development and so much more that I could write a whole novel, just on how uninventive this movie was. Thankfully, I don't have too; instead just a pick the original novel by T. Hardy, "Jude the Obscure" and you will have the chance to experience the utter tragedy of Jude's life dreams, demonizing Sue, of Phillotson's destroyed life and of the ultimate life's winner: Arabella. When Hardy's wrote that novel he got such an angered reaction because of its realism and unconventionality, he never wrote any novels again. Let's hope that that the director of this picture will never have a chance to shoot any more movies, but for the different reason: stylized, heartless and cold movies disguised under such a prominent novel could be and should be forgotten.
Rating:
Summary: excellent adaptation of Hardy's novel
Review: I read the novel before watching the movie and have to say that the movie captures the spirit of the novel. my only complaint was that the movie didn't show Jude's death scene at the end of the novel...Jude laying dead on his floor on a university graduation day..very symbolic of Jude'd unfufilled dreams. Of course, Winslet is both beautiful and an intelligent actress that lights up any screen..and Eccelston is also very good..both make a fine match....
|
