Rating: 
Summary: Ultimately unconvincing...
Review: *The Golden Bowl* is, it would seem, a movie of potential. Indeed, the story, with its rather soap opera-esque plot points, would be quite entertaining--if, that is, it weren't for a few missteps. It hardly seems fair to say that it is because of the acting that the characters seem either lackluster or absurd. Thurman, however, seems to have some misapprehensions in regards to Charlotte's motivations. She sets a petulant tone, falls back on silliness, takes a turn as a confident seductress, and ends up something of a lovelorn martyr. If done right, it seems as though these traits could align themselves within one person's personality effectively, but that is not so here. As a viewer I care little for her personal pain and even less for her momentary triumphs. Northam is justifiable in his role; he is a truly beautiful man and completely believable in his passion, which he is hardly allowed to bring to the surface, though if he had it would have added some much needed feeling to the film. Many viewers have written his performance off due to his attempt at an Italian accent (and, I must say, it is odd that they have a man with a genuine British accent playing an Italian,) but I found it easy enough to ignore his speech in favor of his superior facial expressions. As for Nolte and Beckinsale, well, I must say that for a good deal of the film it seemed as though they were carrying out some kind of incestuous relationship. This may or may not be due to the way the actors conceived their characters to be, but it was unwelcome in my mind. They are so absorbed with each other that it is easy to forgive Charlotte and Amerigo their brief affair. In short, I believed in them as people not at all and therefore found it impossible to sympathize or moralize. I almost always play devil's advocate, but in this case it would have even been nice to call upon morals in order to feel anything at all. I have often heard that Merchant Ivory films are lavish, highly appealing to the senses, but if that is their trademark it is missing in *The Golden Bowl*. Northam is the most compelling thing to look upon, but then, you need not watch this movie in order to appreciate his good fortune. In fact, it would be advisable to watch *Emma* instead or, heck, *The Net.* Fans of period films should be able to appreciate the costumes and...and...Well, perhaps that's all. If, by some chance, you were to miss an opportunity to watch *The Golden Bowl* it would not be the worst fate to befall you. It is long and unconvincing and lacks the ability to stir any kind of response in the viewer.
Rating: 
Summary: "I want the bowl, without the crack."
Review: A magnificent medieval bowl, created from a single perfect crystal, has, despite its appearance, a flaw--a crack which reduces its value. Henry James, author of the novel on which this Ruth Prawer Jhabvala screenplay is based, uses the gilded bowl as a metaphor for love and marriage, focusing on two couples, whose overlapping relationships and marriages prove to be as fragile and damaged as the bowl. Produced by Merchant-Ivory and sumptuously filmed by Tony Pierce-Roberts on locations in Italy and England, the film brings the intensity of the psychological conflicts to life.
Italian Prince Amerigo (Jeremy Northam) is the impoverished owner of Palazzo Ugolini near Rome, unable to maintain the palace until, in 1903, he marries Maggie Verver (Kate Beckinsale), daughter of the first American billionaire, Adam Verver (Nick Nolte). The prince has previously had a secret affair with Charlotte Stant (Uma Thurman), a friend of Maggie. When Charlotte subsequently marries Adam, Maggie's father, both couples move to England, where three years later, Charlotte and Amerigo resume their passion.
The relationships among the four principals are explored with the same sophistication as in James's novel. Maggie's torment is fully revealed when she suspects an affair, and her determination to protect her father from this knowledge becomes an agonizing chore. Numerous symbols help to convey the trauma of the betrayal, from the history of the prince's castle, in which an ancestor found his young wife and his son in bed and executed them, to Maggie's dream of being imprisoned in a porcelain pagoda which has a crack.
Nolte shows surprising subtlety in his emotions as he suspects his wife's treachery, while Uma Thurman is passionate, reckless, and very seductive in her obsession with the prince. Northam explores the prince's character fully, moving from early passion for Charlotte to a more mature awareness of his love and respect for Maggie. Beckinsale, as the ingenuous Maggie, develops maturity and shows remarkable character as she works diligently to protect her marriage and her father. Supporting roles by Angelica Huston and Madeleine Potter further develop the psychological pressures by illustrating the characters' lives within the context of their frenetic, continental lifestyles.
Director James Ivory inserts old kinescope films and newspapers of turn-of-the-century America into the film to illustrate the on-going contrast between life in America and life in Europe, a constant James theme, as Verver builds his new American museum of European treasures. Lovers of Henry James will find this film faithful to James's intents, while those less enamored of his convoluted literary style may be inspired to read him because of the psychological sophistication of this plot--and this film. Mary Whipple
Rating: 
Summary: Moves a bit langorously but the acting and scenery pays off
Review: Based on a Henry James novel that I haven't read, The Golden Bowl moves at a leisurely pace but the acting and, especially, the scenery and costumes make the movie well worth your time if you are fan of this genre. The movie was made by the team of Merchant Ivory, who also made the well received Howard's End and Remains of the Day, both starring Emma Thompson and Anthony Hopkins. The Golden Bowl stars Uma Thurman as an American named Charlotte who had an affair with a poor Italian prince named Amerigo and played by Jeremy Northam (Emma and An Ideal Husband). Amerigo breaks off his relationship with Charlotte because he is marrying her rich American school friend Maggie played by Kate Beckinsale (Pearl Harbor). What completes this quadrangle is that Charlotte eventually ends up marrying Maggie's billionaire, art collector father played by Nick Nolte. So the quadrangle is set up with Amerigo and Charlotte having a relationship they try to keep hidden from Maggie and the ensuing results. Another good character in this movie is played by Anjelica Huston who played matchmaker by setting up Maggie and Amerigo. I won't go into more detail about the different interplay of relationships but the movie plays them all out very well. Plus, the movie takes place in the early 1900s and has very sumptous costumes and scenes that take place in castles in Europe. I enjoyed this movie the most because of the scenery and costumes but I also enjoyed the acting and character studies of the two relationships. The movie is a bit long at 2 hours and 10 minutes but well worth the time especially if you liked movies like Howard's End and it unfolds in much the same pace as a good classic novel.
Rating: 
Summary: Miscasting
Review: How disappointing to have the role of Amerigo, an Italian from Rome, played by British actor Jeremy Northam with a phony Italian accent. It strains credulity to watch him. I'm sure there are plenty of Italian actors who could have given more believability to this role. Northam's casting is the only major flaw in this otherwise excellent movie.
Rating:
Summary: Not so Golden
Review: I agree with the reviewer from Cambridge, MA. The only actor I had a problem with was Uma Thurman, who carried no weight or presence in her role. I didn't know who she was or how I was supposed to feel about her, yet the crux of the movie rested on her shoulders. As a result, the movie seemed tepid and dull.
Rating:
Summary: The Bowl is Cracked!
Review: I bought the novel by Henry James who I think is absolutely wonderful but never finished the book. I cheated and rented the movie and I enjoyed it well enough. At times Uma Thurman got on my nerves but it is not her fault as much as the character she portrayed-sneaky, manipulative, deceptive and unfaithful. I was kept on the edge of my seat throughout though-trying to figure out how this tangled weave would become unspun. Happily, I was quite pleased with the outcome. It appears that morals stood up -or at least to a degree. It is hard to truly understand what James had its characters really thinking and feeling throughout the movie. What was lie and what was truth, but it gave me more of an incentive to pick up the book and finish it to get better character analysis and insight. I loved the movie "Portrait of a Lady" and enjoyed Kidman more than Thurman. Nonetheless, this is a good movie to rent when snuggling in on a winters eve! Then again, that is just this reviewers opinion!
Rating:
Summary: This time, the Merchant/Ivory/Jhabvala team misses the cut
Review: I discovered James in college and read all his full-length novels before reaching age 30. The only one I had real trouble with was The Golden Bowl.
I recently reread the novel and reveled in its elegant complexity. (It would be nice to think that the passage of 20 years has brought wisdom and insight that made me a better reader, but the credit belongs to Dorothea Krook's helpful discussion in The Ordeal of Consciousness in Henry James.)
The Golden Bowl is the last, the most demanding, and the most rewarding of James's novels. Even its immediate predecessors, The Ambassadors and The Wings of the Dove, do not reach its deep examination of the mixed motives, the tangled good and evil, that drive human action and passion. Although he presents his characters' acts and much of what goes on in their heads, James manages in such a way that while Krook believes Adam and Maggie are on the side of the angels, Gore Vidal (who introduces the current Penguin edition) b!elieves they are monsters of manipulation--and (as Krook acknowledges) both views are consistent with the evidence.
Much--too much--of these riches of doubt and ambiguity is lost in the Merchant/Ivory/Jhabvala translation to the screen. The movie has some good things, but it could have had many more. Extraneous material (like the exotic dance), heavy-handed symbolism (the exterior darkness on the day Charlotte and Amerigo find the golden bowl), and needless oversimplification (Amerigo's talk of "dishonor" to Charlotte, which exaggerates his virtue and his desire to be done with her) give the sense that nobody involved in the production read the novel with the care that it requires and rewards. Had they done so, their version could have been really fine--both as a movie and as an invitation to the novel.
Rating:
Summary: a portrait of a marriage
Review: I found this movie fascinating. I have not read the book, though I have read much of James. In the movie, at least, it is not at all clear that Amerigo would rather be with Charlotte, and is marrying Maggie only for the money. It seems instead that he is marrying Maggie in hopes of a happy life (which yes, includes money) but that he allows Charlotte to think he still loves her so she can save face. Charlotte chases Amerigo all through the movie and though she finally manages to seduce him, it's true what the Colonel says to his wife, that he doesn't really care for her. He admires her and is attracted to her but he doesn't love her. In contrast, he clearly does love Maggie and his son. He doesn't admire her until he first hears her say she doesn't like someone; at that moment she becomes more interesting to him, and when she confronts him, he falls in love with her. Somehow this all made perfect sense to me. In some way by Maggie pretending not to see she also let him think she didn't care. When he realizes what his choices are, there is simply no contest. It didn't seem to me that Maggie was manipulative in getting her father to take Charlotte away, although I suppose she was-- but it also was kind. Anyway, maybe it's just that I saw this after the Sopranos finale (!) but I thought this was one of the most nuanced depictions of the levels in human relationships, particularly in marriage, that I've ever seen captured on film. it's also beautiful to look at. A fascinating film in every respect.
Rating:
Summary: a portrait of a marriage
Review: I found this movie fascinating. I have not read the book, though I have read much of James. In the movie, at least, it is not at all clear that Amerigo would rather be with Charlotte, and is marrying Maggie only for the money. It seems instead that he is marrying Maggie in hopes of a happy life (which yes, includes money) but that he allows Charlotte to think he still loves her so she can save face. Charlotte chases Amerigo all through the movie and though she finally manages to seduce him, it's true what the Colonel says to his wife, that he doesn't really care for her. He admires her and is attracted to her but he doesn't love her. In contrast, he clearly does love Maggie and his son. He doesn't admire her until he first hears her say she doesn't like someone; at that moment she becomes more interesting to him, and when she confronts him, he falls in love with her. Somehow this all made perfect sense to me. In some way by Maggie pretending not to see she also let him think she didn't care. When he realizes what his choices are, there is simply no contest. It didn't seem to me that Maggie was manipulative in getting her father to take Charlotte away, although I suppose she was-- but it also was kind. Anyway, maybe it's just that I saw this after the Sopranos finale (!) but I thought this was one of the most nuanced depictions of the levels in human relationships, particularly in marriage, that I've ever seen captured on film. it's also beautiful to look at. A fascinating film in every respect.
Rating:
Summary: Nothing Golden here.
Review: I kept waiting for a twist in this movie that never came. Maybe I just didn't get it. This is my second Henry James novel to movie that I have watched and not enjoyed. The other movie, Turn of the Screw, has a rather disturbing ending. Golden Bowl just ended. I found Nick Nolte's line delivery to be more like he was reading from cue cards. Northam and Beckinsale are the only redeemeding factors in this film.
|
