Possession

Rating:
Summary: Okay film version of A.S. Byatt novel
Review: Since I have not read A.S. Byatt's much admired and award-winning [Booker Prize, 1990] novel on which "Possession" is based, I can not compare the movie to the book. I suspect, however, that the film is only marginally successful in its translation. I know that it did not make me want to run out and buy the book.

This is the story of two scholars who join forces to solve a literary mystery. Roland [Aaron Eckhart] is an American [British in the book] who discovers a letter in a book in a London library. It implies that a 19th Century English poet, Randolph Ash [Jeremy Northam], always presumed to have been faithful to his wife, may have had a passionate affair with a poetess, Christobel LaMotte [Jennifer Ehle], long thought to have been a Lesbian. The impulsive, rebellious Roland steals the letter and shows it to Maud [Gwyneth Paltrow], an expert on Ash. Though shocked at Roland's methods, the stuffy, rather chilly Maud is intrigued. Together, they search for the truth. As the story of Ash and LaMotte's romance unfolds in flashbacks, our literary sleuths embark on a romance of their own.

The flashbacks are glorious, the highlight of the movie. Northam and Ehle have a chemistry onscreen which makes them quite believable. They also get to read some beautiful poetry. Paltrow and Eckhart also read poetry, but they sound more like fans of the art rather than great speakers. Their romance is less believable, as well as less important because the stakes aren't as high. This is a detriment because the story is more of a romance than it is a mystery.

The movie's pacing is quite languid. I enjoyed this tempo in the flashbacks but found myself getting impatient with the modern sequences. There is a time to pause and a time to get on with it. "Possession" is best suited for the most patient of viewers. At best, it is an interesting failure.

Rating:
Summary: Nice movie, but not engaging.
Review: This movie has a lovely plot involving love, intrigue, and passion. However, the two modern day researchers did not have the chemistry they needed to carry a movie. That story line in general, finding a lost letter and teaming up to find more lost literature, was weak. The movie portrayed the search as easy, and not very exciting. I just didn't care if Gywneth Paltrow's character ended up with her beau. However, Jennifer Ehle and Jeremy Northam were superb. Their characters each already loved another, and struggled through their growing attraction to each other via letters. Their final meetings and the resulting life changing subsequences were very well characterized. The whole movie was worth seeing at least once just to see these two go from meeting each other to...well, the end (so as to not give anything away). I ached for them, and wanted them to be happy. This movie was almost great.

Rating:
Summary: No one person can stand in a fire and not be consumed.
Review: I was consumed by this movie. A beautiful and touching story. Jennifer Ehle puts her whole heart and soul into her performance. She is mesmerizing to watch. Truly an under appreciated actress. Jennifer and Jeremy's story should have had more screen time than the modern day persons.

Rating:
Summary: Worth seeing, in my opinion...
Review: I went to see this film purely because some of it was shot where I went to university in Lincoln, England. However, I found the plot very interesting and didn't really notice the time go by!! Although some of the film was predictable, it was entertaining and complelling and worth seeing.

Rating:
Summary: Perhaps I saw it too many times
Review: I read the book when it came out, thought it exceptional and visually appealing and was excited/fearful at the thought of seeing a movie version. As I read the casting information, the prospect of seeing Jeremy Northam (epitomizing male sensitivity and sincerity) and Ralph Finnes as the male principles was thrilling. Unlike many others I disliked Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet (physically too lush, sly looking and cold for that character) but for conveying the character of Christabel, even though she did not (again) match the physical description, she was just perfect in her glances, her carriage, the cadence of her voice. I was disappointed initially at the change to Aaron Eckhart for the Roland Mitchell character, but as I watched the movie over time, that change grew on me. A couple of quibbles. The grave-robbing scene was cheesy-melodramatic and however did the director not catch the use of a portrait of an old woman (which was enclosed in the final letter of Christabel) as the representation of the daughter of Randolph and Christabel?? I should explain that I saw this movie several times while waiting for my teenager who works at the local movie house... Believe it or not, I cannot wait for the video release.

Rating:
Summary: Best movie you didn't see this year
Review: This was the best movie of 2002 that absolutely nobody saw. (There were better movies, but they all found their audiences.) The movie follows two stories -- the 19th-century romance between writers Randolph Henry Ashe (Jeremy Northam, "Gosford Park") and Christabel LaMotte (Jennifer Ehle, "Wilde") and the modern-day story of two researchers (Aaron Eckhart, "Erin Brockovich," and Gwynneth Paltrow, "Shakespeare in Love") who are trying to find the truth about them.

The two love stories are both really strong and have strange parallels, but are never presented in a confusing or inaccessible manner. Director Neil LaBute (Nurse Betty) told a very hard story in a very powerful way. Eckhart redeems his turn in the pathetically overrated "Erin Brockovich" and Paltrow yet again plays a Brit so convincingly you figure she's never coming back to America. Oh well -- at least she's good at it.

Rating:
Summary: Neil LaBute hits a home run
Review: Neil LaBute swings for the cheap seats, and scores a home run.

Very cleverly written, and rock-solid direction. Could have used some tightening, but that's a minor quibble. A good first act, a slightly saggy second act, a very strong third act and a nearly flawless ending.

Jeremy Northam was perfectly cast, and is absolutely mesmerizing, as Randolph Henry Ash, and I could not tear my gaze away from the radiant Jennifer Ehle as Christabel LaMotte. Gwyneth Paltrow is also luminous (as usual) and this is probably the first time I've liked Aaron Eckhart in any film (I'm not a big "Erin Brockovich" fan).

One of the best romantic films I've seen in a long time, probably since "Chocolat."

Rating:
Summary: Another Title that Makes Little Sense
Review: Yes, I think that when I have to think TOO MUCH about what the title means, it was poorly chosen. For instance, Possession = that the researchers played by Gwyneth Paltrow and Aaron Eckhart are all too keen on possessing the key to the mystery of the Victorian Lovers? Or does it refer to the other researchers who will resort to opening a grave to find what they seek? Does it refer to Jennifer Ehle's lesbian lover who tries to hold onto their relationship in the face of Ehle's new love affair with Jeremy Northam? Or something else entirely? Nope, dunno which, if any.

Now, my friend Norma had already been cool on this film, not thinking much of it, so I was forewarned that I might not like it. Contrary to some other reviewers, I wasn't put out by Gwyn's performance or her sham British accent; she'd done it before in "Sliding Doors" and "Emma", after all. She was SUPPOSED to be a cold woman who has to warm up, so her being standoffish was fine. I liked this Aaron guy too, whom I'd never seen before. If he plays his cards right, he'll have a career much like Harrison Ford's ahead of him, romantically-speaking. I even thought Jeremy as the Victorian loverman was good, which is more than I usually do as concerns him. Miss Ehle was the sticking point this time round. I'm vastly fond of her, based on her excellent work in "Pride and Prejudice" some years back. I thought she thew away some talent by appearing in the very abyssmal and cheap-looking "Sunshine" a year or so ago. This time, it's a much better picture, rather like "French Lieutenant's Woman". But by golly, what's happened to her looks? She looked TERRIBLE! Oh, dear! Is that her real hair color? Pre Raphaelite red? She looked like Botticelli's Venus on steroids, brassy and bloated especially in that scene when her lover is painting her portrait. I just couldn't get past it! of course, her acting is always superb, no matter where she turns. up.

The other problem I had concerned how some props were treated. Here these two are supposed to be researchers, right? Well, just take a look at how they keep handling supposedly precious documents! They think nothing of handling sheer letters without gloves, stashing them in cruddy notebooks, reading them next to open flames, you name it! Why is it despicable that the OTHER researchers will bust open Jeremy's grave, but it's okay for Gwyn and Aaron to look thru the contents, that's cricket? As a docent in a Victorian historic house, this just really got my goat, how disregardful they are of these priceless things. Inconsistent, that's all.

Still and all, "Possession" is a pretty good parallel love story, and you are well within the possibility of liking it. My own quibbles are idiosyncratic (the research stuff) and dislocated (couldn't get over JE's changed appearance). If you're not ME, well, then, you might even give it five stars.

Rating:
Summary: exceedingly good
Review: If you really loved this book, you may well resent the movie. I probably would. But I remember the book imperfectly, and I love the movie. It is a romantic story, visually beautiful, uniformly well acted, and sharply intelligent.

Possession contains two love stories, one set in the present and one in the Victorian era, with Roland Michell and Maud Bailey English professors researching the poets Randolph Henry Ash and Christabel LaMotte. Each time has a distinct look, with the Victorian scenes characterized by rich colors and flowing fabrics, and the contemporary ones by more muted, grayer tones and cleaner, even severe lines.

Each of the love stories has a distinct emotional tone as well. Randolph Henry Ash and Christabel LaMotte, played by Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle, spend much of their time together with what looks like barely suppressed joy, of the kind that shades easily into despair, playing around the edges of their lips. It's a different notion of repression than we usually associate with the Victorian period -- though they are quiet and polite and undemonstrative on the surface, the surface is a very thin layer on top of enormously deep and strong feeling. Roland Michell and Maud Bailey, played by Aaron Eckhart and Gwyneth Paltrow, are in fact more fully in control of their feelings. Often they appear to be holding back something they want to say, but the emotion underlying it is better hidden, deeper beneath the surface.

I found both love stories moving and convincing. The Victorians have the grander passion and greater certainty, but the contemporaries' very uncertainty lends depth to their story, making them more than echoes of or mere hangers-onto the earlier story.

This is a thoroughly enjoyable and well-crafted film.

Rating:
Summary: Ms. Paltrow sadly miscast
Review: Everything in this movie was GREAT --- cast, sets, costumes, script, story, etc. --- except Ms. Paltrow, unfortunately. I loved her in Emma, in Shakespeare in Love, etc. but this time I actually found myself *cringing* at her phony British accent, and thought perhaps she just didn't get the character's subtle sense of humor and maturity. The rest of the cast didn't let it stop them from doing a superb job ... Jennifer Ehle was as beautiful as ever, Jeremy Northam a true romantic hero, Aaron Eckhart also superb. Alas.