User reviews

At a mansion by a lagoon nearly Geneva reunite (1816) various known characters as Lord Byron (Hugh Grant), the poet Percy Shelley (Valentine Pelka), his fiancée (Lizzy McInnery), her stepsister Claire (Elizabeth Hurley) and Doctor Polidori (Jose Luis Gomez), Byron ex-lover and secretary . The movie is situated in the time when Mary Shelley wrote her novel "Frankenstein". There happens mysterious events with appearance a fantastic personage trying to scare each other and then occurs unfortunate deaths . Meanwhile , Mary Shelley has fabled and hallucinatory nightmares .

This haunting film is based on real events about famous characters as the eccentric poet Lod Byron, , his secretary Doctor Polidori, Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mary Shelley . It concerns the deeds were inspired to write their classic Gothic novels , as Mary Shelley created ¨Frankestein¨ and Doctor Polidori wrote ¨The vampire¨. It's a romantic drama paced in slow-moving , enjoyable visuals and some nudism . It packs glamorous gowns by Ivonne Blake , Oscar winner for ¨Nicholas and Alexandra¨. Luxurious scenarios by Wolfgang Burmann , such as interior with lush palaces and breathtaking mansion from Venice (including a giraffe where resides Byron) and exteriors filmed in Norway , Venice, Veneto, Switzerland , Toledo , Asturias (beaches of Llanes), Spain. Colorful and brilliant cinematography by Carlos Suarez, director's brother . Stunning score with a sensitive leitmotif by Alejandro Masso , adding classical music by Bethoven , Mozart and Paganini . The picture was beautifully directed by Gonzalo Suarez who gives special treatment this interesting flick.

This story was formerly depicted in the ancient classic ¨The bride of Frankestein¨ by James Whale in which Elsa Lanchester played Mary Shelley . Subsequently in 1986 Ken Russell directed ¨Gothic¨ with Natasha Richardson as Mary , Gabriel Byrne and Julian Sands in similar characters and full of ordinary Russell's bag of tricks . And the same tale was told two years later by Ivan Passer who directed ¨Haunted summer (1988)¨ with Eric Stolz , Alice Krige and Laura Dern . But I think that ¨Rowing with the wind¨ is better than ¨Gothic¨ and ¨Haunted summer¨.

This film has promise that is never fulfilled. Curly-topped Hugh Grant as Lord Byron has to be seen to be believed. He wears the frilliest costumes imaginable. With long hair and chest bared, he looks like he's auditioning for a Lifetime biopic of Siegfried and Roy. One of the best (and unintentionally comical) scenes is Grant howling out on a boat. He is too fey and whimsical to make a credible Byron.

Another newcomer is a furry-browed, heavier set Elizabeth Hurley. She is beautiful. Yet, like Grant, she isn't ready for prime time. The scene where her sister, Mary, consoles her following a suicide is funny due to Hurley's exaggerated facial expressions.

The music labors on to new melodramatic Gothic depths. Music can enhance an atmosphere when the atmosphere is right. When it isn't, music only makes for another distraction.

The monster speaks in staccato. Due to editing, it's difficult to determine if he's a villain or victim. Sometimes it's difficult to determine if he even is.

After watching this film, I thought to myself that it was an interesting film, and there were individual scenes which were strong. However, the pacing seemed to be a bit off, and somehow the flow of the film didn't feel right. Then, I noticed that the version I saw was 95 minutes long, while the original version was 126 minutes long. That's thirty whole minutes cut! As far as I'm concerned, this is criminal! Obviously, Miramax re-released this film during early 1999 in order to cash in on Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley. In the process, they cut the film to shreds, and perhaps rearranged the scenes around to make it more "coherent."

Rowing With The Wind took an excellent idea from the life of Frankenstein's author, Mary Shelley. For anyone who is familiar with the life of Mary Shelley, this film will make more sense and be appreciated better. However, for the average movie-goer, this film will probably be of disinterest. Having said that (and for those of you still reading), I would have to applaud the youthful talents of today stars, Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley, who play Lord Byron and Claire Clairmont, respectively. This Spanish production keeps with European exposure in several nude scenes, most notably of Elizabeth Hurley.

The film in a nutshell describes a visit to Lord Byron by Mary Shelley, her husband Percy Shelley, half-sister Claire Clairmont, and Byron's physician Dr. Polidori. According to history, Lord Byron challenged each of them to develop the most horrific story they could come up with. This is when Mary Shelley came up with the idea for Frankenstein, published in 1818. Oddly, Mary Shelley's biography was rife with a large number of deaths of those around her. Her mother died when she was born. One of her sisters died. Her husband's ex-wife died drowning. Ironically, her husband dies drowning.

She loses a couple of children. And on and on. She seemed so unable to escape death soon after the publication of Frankenstein. This film takes on the idea that her abominable creation is the cause of such deaths.

Kudos definitely go to whomever wrote the script for Lord Byron. Hugh Grant plays him brilliantly and in a very intelligently decadent sort of way. He's hilarious! Elizabeth Hurley and the other actors are good, not outstanding. But the film fails, despite its great plot creativity, when it hands out a quick and un-compelling revival of the evening in which Mary Shelley came up with Frankenstein. It gives far less attention than it should have, as I would have thought it a bigger turning point in the story.

With better direction and production (beginning of the film is a bit grainy), this would have truly made a compelling story. 5/10

You could stop this picture on any frame and have a beautiful photograph suitable for framing. That is the only good thing I can say about it. The acting is generally horrible (although I did like Mr. Gomez) and the former reviewer's description of the hilarity of Hugh Grant howling in a boat is spot on. I blame the writing and directing. Most of these actors are capable of much better when given decent direction and decent dialogue to speak. The female characters are not shown to have any talent of their own, as we know at least Mrs. Shelley surely did. On the other hand, the men don't display much talent, either! This whole film is a bit like a soap opera on TV, but the acting doesn't rise to that quality. Turn the sound off and enjoy its visual beauty.

This was amongst the worst films I have ever encountered. The cinematography was dull, with long tedious shots (like a camera on a tripod filming a stage play) interspersed with "dramatic" angles that made little sense to the content on screen. The editing was terrible, scenes matched together with the delicacy of a butcher. The plot hinged on the viewer being familiar with the historical night in which Mary Shelley wrote frankenstien. The acting was forced, with the type of character development that left you with an intense interest in seeing each of them die horribly (the sooner the better).

I've been seeking out a bunch of Frankenstein films after re-reading Mary Shelley's novel, and I count ones such as "Rowing with the Wind" to be part of that. It's one of a few semi-historical movies to self-reflexively be about the creation of the story, which itself is about creation. "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), "Gothic" (1986), "Haunted Summer" (1988), "Frankenstein Unbound" (1990) and "Mary Shelley" (2017) also feature the author of "Frankenstein." In this one, the creature of Shelley's Frankenstein comes to life, or rather to apparition, and haunts her through the deaths of those in her life, which is also what happens in the novel to Victor Frankenstein. None of the aforementioned films I've seen managed to accomplish such a feat: of integrating the fictional and historical myths, of the doppelgänger of creature and creator, and of placing within the milieu of 19th-century Romanticism.

This is the second unorthodox Spanish production of a Frankenstein film that I've seen, as well--the other being "The Spirit of the Beehive" (1973)--and while they approach the story in different ways and by different media (this one, by writing; the other through the 1931 film), they are both two of the most complexly layered and beautiful films to portray the monster. Even though, like others, I viewed the butchered Miramax cut, which reportedly eliminates a fourth of the film, "Rowing with the Wind" is a far more intelligent conception than the opium-induced madhouse of "Gothic," which offers only the simplest readings of the book and isn't even especially gothic itself. It was made at Gaddesden Place, which is of Palladian architecture, whereas the relevant scenes of "Rowing with the Wind" look as though they could've been filmed at Lord Byron's Villa Diodati. And even "Gothic" is better than "Frankenstein Unbound," which treats the Frankenstein story as an historical event and reduces Mary Shelley's authorship to that of a reporter taking liberties with the facts. "Gothic" reduced Mary's inspiration to her dead children, and while "Rowing with the Wind" is more encompassing than that, it even handles that part more poetically. The scenes of the monster approaching Mary's son William (also the name of Victor's brother) is one of the more haunting here--especially so for those who've read the book and seen the similar scene of the little girl in Universal's 1931 adaptation.

I also like the beginning shots of a boat in an icy sea, which recalls Captain Walton's search in "Frankenstein" for the Northwest Passage, but also through a recitation of Lord Byron's poem "Darkness" situates this film's beginning in the Year Without a Summer of 1816--when by Lake Geneva, Byron, Mary, her then-lover-and-would-be-husband Percy Shelley and John Polidori decided to compete in writing ghost stories. From that night, Polidori wrote "The Vampyre" and, more famously, Mary began the creation of what would become the novel "Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus." Percy Shelley's "Wake the Serpent Not" is also later recited, and the film is full of allusions to the Romantic era in which Mary wrote her masterpiece, including in the classical and romantic musical score and, most impressively, the cinematography, especially of nature. Such lush photography of natural landscapes is especially appropriate given the volcanic winter of 1816 and later Romantic settings--complete with the sailing motif. Even the interior views, including the giraffe in Lord Byron's Venetian residence, and the costumes--Elizabeth Hurley in a men's suit, for instance--contain sumptuous visuals.

Although Elsa Lanchester and Gavin Gordon will probably always remain by favorite film Mary and Lord Byron for their one scene in "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), Lizzy McInnerny and Hugh Grant do well here. Certainly, this is a much more developed Mary than I've seen in the other versions, and Grant affects Lord Byron's limp well and provides a more refined variation on the caddish roles he'd later become well-known for. This is also the best Percy I've seen, although, of all the things Miramax could've cut out, they seem to have left in (at least I hope so) all of the many foreshadowing references to Mr. Shelley's inability to swim. The English Polidori, however, seems out of place as played by a Spaniard. And, one of the least interesting things to me regarding this film is its place at the beginning of Grant and Hurley's real-life romance.

I don't care much for the slow speech delivery of the creature, either, and the picture does appear somewhat dull and disjointed at times--likely as a result of the Miramax cuts. Someday, I'd like to see the complete version, but even as it is, this is Romantically gorgeous and an intelligently self-reflexive integration of two stories of creation and horror. In one scene, after facing so much death already throughout her life, Mary states, "I do not want to see a creature born that is destined to die." In the case of her novel's creature, this wish has been fulfilled. Like the one in "Rowing with the Wind," Shelley's monster has taken on a life of its own. Surpassing its 200th anniversary in 2018, it remains very much alive.

Badly acted, with a sense of a lack of direction, the only saving grace for this film are the wonderful settings and the score.

One would not recommend this movie to anyone other than fans of 'early Grant and Hurley', but one wonders how many of them there are!

The script is the biggest hurdle. While it contains wonderful references and allusions to the most interesting lines spoken by the historical personages, and does indeed contain some of the words of the poets, the script fills padded out with unnecessary archaisms at best and drivel at worst.

What is most strikingly dull about the work is the character of the monster. Whilst the monotony of the voice is supposed to give us certain Gothic impressions, we are left in fact with only a sense of horror at the poor delivery and rather senseless decision to characterize death and foreboding in this way.

Although the story of how Mary Shelley came to write her famous horror story FRANKENSTEIN is a familiar one that has been touched on in quite a few movies, there is always room for a different viewpoint and probably there is the germ of a good idea here but something went horribly wrong. It could be a case of too many cooks which often happens in these international co-productions. It has obviously been heavily cut but I don't think the edited scenes would have helped any, we would have just been bored for longer that's all. The acting is generally poor and the actors are miscast especially Hugh Grant as Lord Byron who has none of the brooding qualities one associates with the poet and who also looks downright ridiculous in some of the costumes even they may be historically accurate. There are one or two rather pretty scenic shots but that's about it.

The whole thing ends up as so boring I would suggest it as a cure for insomnia but the music is so inapt and irritating is would probably have the opposite effect.

One to avoid.

I disagree with most of the critics, I think it's an excellent film. Camera, music, colors, everything is an harmonic combination. The only possible critic might be, the film can be a little be pretentious, but I would never describe it as tedious. You like it or hate it, I am fortunate ones.

I disagree with most of the critics, I think it's an excellent film. Camera, music, colors, everything is an harmonic combination. The only possible critic might be, the film can be a little be pretentious, but I would never describe it as tedious. You like it or hate it, I am of the fortunate ones.