User reviews

When I saw this TV adaptation I enjoyed it in its own right, not having read the novel, but having now read it I must say the additions in Andrew Davies' script, which hadn't offended me in themselves as they did some other viewers, now seem to me to be rather silly and to contravene Forster without improving on him. For one thing, Davies insists on the class distinction between the lovers, but Forster makes it clear that this is not so great: Lucy's family is unaristocratic and has only been admitted to better society by a geographical accident. Then, Davies insists on the homosexual inclination of two characters, which is not only to read between the lines but to go beyond what Forster wrote. He might or might not have seen that as a part of their make-up; it wouldn't matter to the story either way; but I think it's safe to say Forster's Rev. Beebe would never have gone looking for "action" in Italy as Davies' does (or as Davies himself does through the character), and in any case this is irrelevant to the aspect the character presents in the novel; and to use the descriptions Beebe and Forster's other characters give of Cecil Vyse as hints toward his sexual tendency is to misread them; Forster has a different and more interesting view of his nature, and leaves him in, one might say, a world all his own. Finally, the epilogue, which is derived from Forster's speculation on what might happen to the characters "after" the novel, is irrelevant for just that reason: it lies outside the scope of the novel, which is complete in itself.

I do think, however, that this adaptation has a couple of things in its favor, but perhaps not greatly in its favor, over the theatrical film. The novel is a comic novel--a comedy of manners, if the term may be applied to a novel--that reads lightly and trippingly, although it deals with the serious subjects of love and self-knowledge. Its happy idea is something like this: even a fleeting kiss can reveal essential truth and by its light expose all competing falsehoods. The first film was rather too grand for its source, like a vellum-bound gold-tipped limited edition; this version is more to scale. However, it too veers away from the comic, dropping much of the (apparently) trivial chatter while not only retaining but expanding on most of the (seemingly) more serious exchanges. Here Lucy, the character who receives wisdom, seems more accurately cast, being of more indeterminate class (and affections), younger, and more unworldly, though still not quite young enough and not quite the Lucy of the novel, since the script doesn't put her through all the paces Forster does. However, most of the secondary characters are miscast: Sinead Cusack might profitably have traded roles with Elizabeth McGovern, and Timothy West with Timothy Spall, and brought greater weight, as in the novel, to the roles of the mother and the spiritual mentor, making Lucy's changes of direction more credible. I think now that this adaptation, while enjoyable in itself, shared Lucy's condition: it needed a little spiritual guidance too.

I see that Elaine Cassidy has been tipped for the top. Her Lucy Honeychurch catches some of what Helena Bonham Carter missed in the Merchant Ivory film, without succeeding in eclipsing her. The main improvement is that she and a surprisingly unfoppish Laurence Fox look like a more realistic pair of lovers in this Andrew Davies adaptation than HBC and DDL and seem fated for different reasons. I wasn't quite so immediately convinced Rafe Spall had what it took to part them.

Sophie Thompson never disappoints and is a fabulous Charlotte, Mark Williams turns in another great piece of work as does Timothy West.

In fact, compared to the Merchant Ivory version, most of the characters have a little more nuanced colour in their cheeks, with the exception of Freddie and Mrs Honeychurch. What stops this taking off and flying is the lack of real vitality in the script and a lot of direction which tends toward the pedestrian.

Although, on balance, I think I still prefer the Merchant Ivory version, there's plenty enough here to enjoy.

First off I didn't really like the movie much. There wasn't much story in it though the introduction piqued my interest and made me expect something much better. After seeing the ending I wondered if there might be a second part because it ended so abruptly and so poorly. But what really upset me was the story's historical ignorance and it was a huge one. Consider that the story begins in Florence, Italy in 1922. Are you OK with that? Ten years later she finds herself in Florence with an Italian man she met when the story first began - 1922. Near this last scene we see the man the woman in the story married lying dead on some battlefield which would have happened certainly after 1922 and before 1932. She even tells the Italian she lost her husband in the war. What war was England involved in between 1922 and 1932? By the looks of the battlefield, it looks like the trenches of WWI but that war ended in 1918, right? Perhaps in the editing phase of the movie, whoever entered the date 1922 meant to enter 1912 instead? 1922 it couldn't have been. The movie was pretty bad anyway, so I suppose it really doesn't matter.

Every adaptation has things that are improvements on the last one. Such is the nature of human beings. This version has a much better chemistry between the two leads. They felt like a real couple and real people. Whereas I found the 1986 versos to be a bit stilted. I would say that almost everything else in this verson is not as good. Including the ending which, beyond what you think of it, was so tacked on I thought I missed a large portion of the movie.

A larger criticism of this movie / source material is that I don't think it tells a story for the ages. Whatever point it is trying to make seems to only really exist in Edwardian era Europe and thus does not perhaps have the staying power that one would like to see.

So basically it is a romance. Well, that is still a good thing.

I've rarely watched a movie that has had such a negative effect on my enjoyment of it in the last five minutes as this one did. Everything else about this was an absolute delight to me. I thought Lucy and George were cast perfectly and the actors played them with beautiful subtlety of emotion. The scenes of Italy were visually gorgeous. Thoroughly enjoyable until an utterly stupefying ending that was as unnecessary as it was nonsensical. You could literally cut out the last five minutes or so of the movie after the two lovers have gone to sleep in their hotel room and everything makes intuitive and emotional sense. For me It achieved with natural grace what too many movies only contrive to, yet instead of fading to the credits they tack on an ill fitting ending scenario that wearily negates everything that has happened in a way that is neither believable or logical. Did they change directors at the last minute? Was he just having a bad day on that shoot? I guess I'll never know. Perhaps a recut? It would be an easy one to do; snip off a little bit at the end from an otherwise great film and re-release it the way it should be.

I should start perhaps by mentioning that I'm quite fond of the James Ivory movies, including the one by the same title. And still, I find this much more faithful to the original book. It better reflects the spirit of the writer and the age. It has an aura of authenticity, a natural flow and a je ne sais quoi that have made it quite endearing to me from the very beginning. The names in the cast are perhaps lesser known than those in the other version, and it is precisely the reason why I find them better suited to this television / cinematographic adaptation. They seem to be natural human beings, and not the caricatures thereof, as some of their counterparts in the more famous version. Other reviewers have been rather critical of the final few minutes in the film. I would be inclined to be much more tolerant, as the new ending, although perhaps questionable in itself, is yet so respectful of the spirit of the author in his novel that I tend to welcome it. It is a much more romantic view of the story, and the music by Gabriel Yared significantly contributes to it all.

Oh dear. When it comes to remakes, or "re-imaginings" or whatever the current vogue is for churning out an old favourite with a new cast, Sir Michael Caine said it best: only remake the flops. It makes perfect sense: if you fail then everyone thinks one can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but if you succeed then it's bouquets all round.

But that remaking a classic like James Ivory's film of E. M. Forsters's novel of Edwardian manners is folly of the highest order was borne out last night with this limp and unengaging ITV drama.

Wrapping the action in a clumsy flashback device robbed the story of any freshness or spontaneity, and it quickly became a lot like watching a school play version of one of your favourite films.

There were some interesting touches - Mark WIlliams' closeted Mr Beebe picking up Florentine rentboys would have brought a blush to Forster's cheeks. Also amusing were Mr Beebe's blushes as George Emerson and Freddie Honeychurch shed their clothes for the famous bathing scene. But in order the find the gold there was a good deal of dross.

Comparing any actress to Dame Maggie Smith is unfair, but Sophie Thompson really came off badly - her Miss Bartlett nothing more than the same irritating ticks and tricks she always uses. There was no real person there. Laurence Fox's far-too-handsome Cecil Vyse seemed to be reading his lines from a cue card and far more interested in his clothes than in Lucy.

All in all it makes one deeply fearful for adapter Andrew Davies' upcoming version of Brideshead Revisited.

At first I wasn't sure how I'd react to this remake because I used to think I enjoyed the original, but I was pleasantly surprised to find it much easier to follow the *story* and see the *characters* in this retelling. It was actually quite refreshing.

I didn't realize until I saw this version that the 1985 film is so self-consciously stylistic that it ends up being too clever for its own good. In the original, the intonation by the actors is so stilted that the dialogue feels like a series of non sequiturs. Every shot screams, "Look! Look at this gorgeous cinematography!" There isn't much chemistry between the two romantic leads, Daniel Day Lewis reduces Cecil to a tedious cartoon character, and Denholm Elliott overdoes his accent. Julian Sands, though interesting, seems more like a brother from another planet than a thoughtful subversive. In the Merchant-Ivory version, the story and the characters get buried under a layer of heavily vaselined romanticism.

Through this bittersweet remake, I finally saw the story and felt I better understood what Forster was trying to say in his book. You see the Emersons' working-class roots and how they stick out among the more genteel travelers in Florence. You get to really see Cecil as a good but flawed human being. And, most importantly, you see Lucy as a sweet but unsure girl growing into a bright young woman in spite of herself.

Director Renton keeps a light touch and doesn't spend any more time than is necessary on any part of the story. You see a dinner party, you hear a rough voice cut through the chatter, you see Charlotte put on the spot. That's the point of that scene, and it does its job with no extra fanfare. There is no inordinate amount of time spent on playing up some tennis game or skinnydipping episode. No one is allowed to chew the scenery.

As a result, I felt moved by the passion between Lucy and George in a way that I didn't when watching the original. I felt the pain caused by their predicament. The scenes between Lucy and George were more emotionally charged, especially when Lucy has her epiphany. In the 1985 version, every scene between the two leads feels like little more than comic relief.

And yes, I liked the ending in this version. It added gravity to the story and helped me feel the depth of Lucy's love for George. Kudos to Andrew Davies, Nicholas Renton, and especially to Rafe Spall and the beautiful Elaine Cassidy. They all did a brilliant job in bringing a terrific story to life. By the end of this version, I had forgotten all about the original and fell in love with these characters all over again.

I really like the movie and the cast was excellent!! I just felt the passing of her husband and her reminiscing of their courting going back to Italy was just strange?!! I loved the piano playing!! So expressive!!

Disappointing and unnecessary redo of the Forster tale. Elaine Cassidy doesn't come close to Helena Bonham Carter's charm and winsomeness and without that the whole enterprise is doomed from the start. The only actor to perform with any distinction is Sophie Thompson who makes a fine Cousin Charlotte, different from Maggie Smith but fun in her fluttery way. The other cast members, fine actors though they may be in other places, are adrift here dwarfed by the memory of classic performances. Even considered separately the production seems flat and airless with the scenes following one another but without a sense of cohesion. To top it all off the ending is disastrous. Really a one star affair, the second is for Sophie Thompson but she's not enough to save this wretched mess. Watch the far superior original instead!

I remember fondly the 85' version and thought worthwhile to see what could be done again with it. Alas I'm not much of a reader and so never read the book. As usual when I come here I enjoy and learn much out of other's comments. Doing so I found interesting to see a variety of comments about it sometimes contradictory but here quite united in the displeasure of the ending! I watched it on our Sydney now only commercial free channel and must admit I was generally pleased with the performance of the leading characters. Yes Maggie Smith was very much missing. Otherwise I was not too disturbed by few changes. Lucy worked well for me. As for the ending I thought it was a little bizarre and unexpected but I like to give credit for the producer for making their own choices even if sometimes I disagree with them. I understand though that there should be some kind of respect for the original work. Well I had a good time with it and don't regret the time it took to watch it as some suggested we should. Perhaps it's not always a good idea to impose on others one's feelings. But at the end of it there are just written words, not orders!

I am generally a fan of there being more than one adaptation of classic works of literature. it can be very enjoyable watching them back to back. this one however never should have been made. the acting is hollow.. wooden.. the levity is gone. and the dramatic is misplayed. it's like everyone was reading from a script with zero understanding of the source material (and honestly, of classic literature this isn't up there in the "difficult to understand " genre,)

the ending as other reviewers have mentioned is strange and out of place.. the over all effect is just. terribad.

make no mistake. this is a made for tv movie with all of the quality that generally springs to mind.

if you have two hours to spare, watch the 1985 version. it's just so much better. it's actually full of life. this is not.

I think Elaine Cassidy is extraordinary in this film. I saw this version before the earlier version, and perhaps that's one reason I have felt that no other Lucy Honeychurch could ever be as fully engaged -- and engaging -- in this role as Cassidy is. She has wonderful timing and intricate variety of expression for showing us what a character is feeling. She looks the part exactly! Her scene with Timothy Spall (George's father) in the cottage near the end of the film is mesmerizing, a great duet, one could say, between two actors of genius! The careful pacing of the director and every detail of speech and demeanor is perfect. I hope this scene in particular will become known to more and more people who can appreciate its artistry.

The whole cast is wonderful, and I feel we see three especially powerful performers in Cassidy, Spall, and a magnificently confused Charlotte! (A woman named Sophie Thompson, I believe; even Maggie Smith is not her equal in this role.) I feel the early scene in the pension is beautifully composed and full of interest, the humor delicious. I'm not so sure about the flash forward in the opening of the film, nor the ending, which casts a pall of sadness over the story which is not right for it. Lucy's run to the swimming hole is thrilling, but the fast cut to a certain later scene may have more to do with male fantasy (as to the directors of the film) than anything else.

Considering, altogether, Cassidy's deep impersonation of Miss Honeychurch. I wish I could see this actor in other serious and artistic films.

The 2005 mini-series Fingersmith can still be seen, and that, too, is a remarkable show, full of careful, expressive faces and images somewhat like certain French films of old. Cassidy personifies the strange and interesting character Maud Lilly to perfection! She seems to live her characters every step of the way, and so we live them with her -- simply the mark of a great actor, perhaps. I'm sure she's fine all through the current series The Paradise, but I can't get much involved in so confused a narrative as that. For those in London I'm sure it is good to see this actress on stage in Turgenev and other plays.

On the whole, I'm not sure this is a wonderful world for film actors, especially women actors, in these days of violence in movies, cops and robbers galore, ugly intrigue — as if this is all of human life that's worth portraying. E. M. Forster knew otherwise, as did Dickens, i. e., and most of our other great writers. I expect Elaine Cassidy also has this knowledge and will persevere in finding roles that have meaning for her. ##

For anyone out there with an old copy of ' Room with a View ' there is an appendix written by Forster himself imagining the loves of the two lovers in his book. George may well have died in his bed, but definitely not in the way that is presented here. James Ivory cannot be surpassed in his adaptation of the book and on top of that in my opinion the acting was much better. I liked Rafe Spall as George and he was right in showing up the class distinctions in the story and his real father in life Timothy Spall almost reached the heights of Denholm Elliot. That is not to say that Ivory was perfect; Daniel Day-Lewis in my opinion miscast and I have no idea why in both films both actors have to act in such stereotyped ways. Is it wrong to compare the two films ? I think it is when such a totally misconceived ending was tagged on to this film; over passionate when Forster and Ivory were reticent and absolutely absurd when Florence itself becomes clouded with intimations of war to of all the music available the weepy strains of what I think was Verdi's ' La Traviata. ' Not satisfied with that a return to Florence and a minor character comes in and takes over. In my opinion this version failed utterly.