Jude

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant and emotional
Review: The title character, Jude, is played by Christopher Eccleston, but it really is Kate Winslet (in her pre-Titanic days - when she made her best films) who is the star of this film. While both actors are brilliant she brings such life to her character you find yourself being constantly drawn to her. This movie is excellent, but certainly not pleasant to watch. It's about a man (Eccleston) who tries to follow his dreams, only to have them crushed by an unforgiving society; but on another level it's more about the love he feels for his cousin (Winslet), and the ultimate hopelessness of their relationship. I read the book before I saw the movie: I felt as though, three-quarters of the way through, without warning, someone had punched me in the gut, and then repeatedly kicked me until I died. Actually, the movie ends with more hope than the book, and that's really saying something. Think about the storyline this way: imagine the worst possible life that fate could lay out for you, and then multiple the pain factor by ten. But the acting is brilliant, the pain is real, and you can't help but be compelled by it all. This is my favourite movie apart from Last of the Mohicans.

Rating:
Summary: Do not expect a happy end
Review: This screen adaptation of the classic by Thomas Hardy (Jude the Obscure) stars Christopher Eccleston as Jude Fawley and a slim Kate Winslet as his cousin, Sue Bridehead. Strong supporting roles are provided by Rachel Griffiths, June Whitfield and Liam Cunningham.

The film starts like many American films: someone poor and disadvsntaged has a driving ambition to succeed. If this were an American film, we would be sure of a happy ending: Jude finds a well-paid job and lives happily ever after with Sue and the children. Anyone familiar with the work of Thomas Hardy will expect fate to intervene and somehow make it impossible for the protagonists to realize their dreams. If Thomas Hardy had been born somewhat later and worked as a screenwriter, I cannot help thinking he would have specialized in the film noir genre.

My main criticism is that none of the actors manages an authentic Dorset accent, with the possible exception of June Whitfield. Christopher Eccleston attempts one but invariably goes back to his Manchester accent. Rachel Griffiths produces something that sounds more like an Irish accent whilst Kate Winslet usually speaks like she does in Titanic.

The film contains a few very strong scenes: a pig being slaughtered and disembowelled as well as a close-up of Kate Winslet giving birth.

As a screen adaptation of one of the classics of English literature there is a lot of material, feeling pain and suffering, crammed into 110 minutes, so much so that I kept finding new meaning after four viewings. Perhaps those familiar with Hardy will prefer to read the novel whilst those who are not will find this adaptation slow and depressing. The highlight for Winslet fans may well be seeing her totally naked, but I doubt they would think it worth sitting through the whole file for those 15 seconds.

This is an excellent film, faithful to the Hardy classic. The highlights of the film are the excellent cinematography and the outstanding original score by Adrian Johnston. I would strongly recommend this film with the caveat that it may not be suitable for those without the stomach to take the scenes described above or those who would find a tragic story too distressing.

Rating:
Summary: Since I became a mother, I can't watch this movie
Review: This is has got to be the most depressing movie I've ever watched. I own a copy of the movie, and I have viewed it at least five times since purchasing it. My husband refuses to ever watch it, and there is no way I'd let my young children watch it. Honestly, I thought about getting rid of the movie, but I couldn't. So now, it sits in the back of our entertainment armoire. I can't even recommend it or loan it to friends as they will think I am off my rocker for watching such a depressing movie more than once.

But obviously, I can't part with it, and I have seen it more than once. So there is something magnetic about it. I think Eccleston and Winslet give great performances. . . Some say Winslet is better in her part, but perhaps it is the role of Sue that is supposed to sparkle next to the dull existence of Jude? Sue is the bit of brightness, and Jude is lured to her because of that sparkle. . . He is supposed to be stable and dull in contrast to her ever-changing whims of passion. I would not say that Winslet is the only bright spot in the way of acting in this movie. Eccleston does a stellar job (not over-doing and not under-doing, a balance, I'd say), and it's somewhat sad that he seems to be typecast into "evil" guy roles because he doesn't look like your run of the mill Tom Cruise or the next "hot" Hollywood guy.

The mood is as hopeless and dreary as Hardy's original novel thanks to cinematography and the musical score. . . Was Hardy really so down on women and life as it is?

I'm not sure it's a good thing or a bad thing, but this movie leaves me feeling unsettled in a dreary sort of way.

This is not a lighthearted movie, and it makes 'Titanic' look like a comedy. So if you're out to get this to see Kate Winslet in the buff in it, you are going to be very disappointed with seeing her giving birth with a "prosthetic" birth canal and all. This is not for the faint of heart or those just in search of a "love story". It's very graphic. . . children hanging, hogs butchered, hearts broken, baby's being born. . .

Rating:
Summary: Why tamper with a classic?
Review: Excellent performances and lovely cinematography, the film sometimes catches the power of Hardy's novel, but why tamper with the book's ending? Similar to the blight that is Demi Moore's "Scarlett Letter," do studios and directors believe that melancholic finales have no place in movies? The tale as originally told continues to be popular for a reason....

Rating:
Summary: Depressing!
Review: Really, if you're feeling down do NOT rent this movie. Jude is one of the most depressingly bleak and pessimistic films I have ever seen yet curiously I couldn't tear my eyes away. Christopher Eccleston is excellent and sparks the right amount of chemistry with Kate Winslet, who is superb in her own right. I found it refreshing that they didn't cast the typical pretty boy actor-type in the role of Jude, instead substituting box office assurance for quality acting. Winslet proves consistently that she is one of the most talented actresses of her generation - who else could make you forget Titanic's godawful script? - and as Sue she is no exception. For those who like her in this film I suggest her role as Ophelia in Hamlet (1996) which was criminally overlooked by the academy awards board. Unfortunately, whilst this pairing keep the movie from drowning in its own dark tone, towards the end you'll be feeling extremely disturbed. One to experience once but not time and time again.

Rating:
Summary: Fallen Angels
Review: Christopher Eccleston and Kate Winslet star in this grim british drama based on a Thomas Hardy novel. The story focuses the relationship between Jude (played by Eccleston) and his cousin/lover (Kate Winslet). Basically a love-story-gone-wrong, "Jude" manages to focus subjects such as incest, knowledge, life choices, ambition and the nature of passion. Director Michael Winterbottom offers an impressive cinematography with many beautiful shots, and the acting is not below excellent and realistic. Unfortunately, the plot never quite works, going back and forth for the most part but in fact never gets anywhere too interesting. There are some good scenes here, mostly due to the convincing acting, but the pacing and plot are too rushed and muddled. The movie also runs longer than it needs to, and a couple of sequences just drag on and on. Although it was promising, "Jude" is a missed opportunity and a failed effort that never manages to engage and become something memorable. Poignant and moving at parts, still too cold, dry and distant as a whole.

Not a keeper.

Rating:
Summary: Jude the Obscure - English Novel Brought to Life
Review: In this 1996 adaptation of Thomas Hardy's novel, Jude the Obscure, a sad, archetypal story plays itself out across the rainy English landscape, helped along by brilliant acting and directing alike.

Though the film is admittedly incredibly bleak, and the ending sad beyond words, it is all-told a brilliant, classic film.

After a short opening sequence introducing us to the young Jude, the viewer is quickly drawn into the parameters of Jude's adult world. Almost at once, we begin to feel his pain, his longing, his hope, and his persistence. We understand well what is driving him in his journey through life. This is a novel brought to life, a story in motion.

As a die-hard fan of Kate Winslet, I have to say that this film one of my Winslet favorites. In my view, 1997's blockbuster Titanic was not only a success as a box office triumph or well-loved film in its own right, but also because it opened the world's eyes to the talent of this young British actress, whose consistently fine performances and willingness to break through barriers as an actress have brought the world great joy on the silver screen, and will surely continue to do so well into the new millenium. In Jude, Winslet is charismatic and beautiful (as usual), and plays Sue Brideheard to a tee. Introduced to her in a small, well-loved photograph, we soon come to understand what Jude sees in her. Her beauty, her intelligence, her promise of a better life. Her laughter still echoes in my head, like the flashbacks in the film. She is youth, she is carefree, she is unattainable, she is a vision, a memory, love.

Eccleston is perfect for the role of the ever-yearning Jude, his face a landscape of green hills, rain, cobblestone streets and stone carvings, and green hills yet again. There are shadows in his eyes, in his face. The depth of his feelings is well-conveyed. His tall frame is so strong and able in one way, so thin and aching in another. We walk with him, cry with him, and love him as we must love ourselves when fate comes crashing down upon us.

P.S. This was my introduction to British actress Rachel Griffiths, who went on to star in Hilary and Jackie, and is currently starring in Me, Myself, and I. Although her role is smaller than Eccleston's and Winslet's, and her character perhaps less likable, she also does a fine job.

Rating:
Summary: A shattering example of filmmaking as art, not entertainment
Review: This is a film that was unfairly destined not to receive the recognition it deserved, because there is nothing uplifting or hopeful in its story. It is perhaps one of the five most depressing films ever made. That said, however, it is beautifully written, gorgeously filmed, powerfully acted, and packs an emotional wallop few if any films can match.

Kate Winslet and Christopher Eccleston may be the best actors of their generation in their ability to completely inhabit a role and make you believe in a character. No other actors can convey so much through mere facial expressions, and these two bring Hardy's mercurial Sue Bridehead and hapless Jude Fawley to brilliant -- and heartbreaking -- life.

While the compact script, which omits some characters from Hardy's book and minimizes others, muddies some of the plot points, the main themes of Hardy's novel -- people of good will destroyed by an irrationally judgmental society -- remain intact.

This nearly flawless rendition of the most controversial of Hardy's novels is frighteningly timely. If you think that what America needs is a return to Victorian values, to "shame", and to quasi-religious institutions telling individuals how to live their lives, watch this film and then think again.

This film will tear apart your very soul.

Rating:
Summary: Why tamper with a classic?
Review: Excellent performances and lovely cinematography, the film sometimes catches the power of Hardy's novel, but why tamper with the book's ending? Similar to the blight that is Demi Moore's "Scarlett Letter," do studios and directors believe that melancholic finales have no place in movies? The tale as originally told continues to be popular for a reason....

Rating:
Summary: A passionate, lively interpretation of a depressing tale
Review: Michael Winterbottom's Jude tells the tale of an impoverished British youth (Christopher Eccleston- the dead husband in "The Others) who self-educates and aspires to be a scholar. Along this quest, he impregates a fling (Rachel Griffiths of Six Feet Under fame) moves to a college town, works as a stone mason, and falls in love at first sight with his cousin Sue (Kate Winslet). The main reason to see this film is for the chemistry between Eccleston and Winslet. Eccleston makes you feel sympathy for Jude from the moment we see him onscreen as a young man, vital since so much of the novel "Jude the Obscure" was about making us root for this considerate, intelligent man only to put him through utter hell as to illustrate the unfairness of the British class system. Eccleston's heartfelt and sincere performance exposes the vapidity of most Hollywood actors and is genuinely inspiring for the craft of acting. As Sue, Kate Winslet proves again, after Heavenly Creatures, Sense and Sensibility, and yes Titanic that she is one of the most fetching, watchable actresses of her time. It's not hard at all to see why Jude is so hopelessly in love with her. In fact, this film contains one of the best onscreen romances I've seen in a while. The passion of these two characters are so vivid that when the hard unredemptive ending happens, I had to convince myself that it was a fictional story to gain peace of mind. See it and be moved.