User reviews

I'm not familiar with the source material, but the movie version of it, will not be everyones cup of tea. It feels like a drag and the pacing is slow to say the least. The characters seem to be stuck at a place where it'll be hard to feel something for them. Having said all that, the acting is superb and if you like your drama to be slow paced, but filled with dialog to make you think about, this could be exactly the one you were looking for.

It never did have the punch or the feeling that it could be something great to me, but that's always in the eye of the beholder and might feel different for people who know more about it (more familiar with source material) than myself. It also feels like it is way too long for its own good. While good, there are things that make this tough to watch ...

It's double-bill time, two movie adaptations of MISS JULIE, August Strinberg's play written in 1888, with 63 years apart. The 1951 version is made by Strinberg's fellow Swedish countryman, Alf Sjöberg. Shot in dashing Black and White, Sjöberg's film stars Anita Björk and Ulf Palme as the central pair, Miss Julie, the daughter of a Count (Henrikson) and her servant Jean, during the mid-summer night, they test the limit of seduction, passion and dignity between two incompatible classes, it shared the prestigious Grand Prize in Cannes with Vittorio De Sica's MIRACLE IN MILAN (1951).

Empowered by an impactful score from Dag Wirén, the film conjures up the pair's gender-and- class tug-of-war with a phantasmagoria of sequences narrating their dreams and past. The desire for falling versus an ambition of climbing from different starting tier concretes Julie and Jean as perfect specimens to explore their moral and emotional clashes. Outstanding cinematography creates amazing shots where flashback merges together with the present, imagination coexists with the reality. There is no win-win situation in the battle of sex, Miss Julie's paradoxical attempt to patronise her servant and at the same time to be sexually overtaken by him is a self-digging grave for her own undoing, and Jean's struggle between his sexual impulse and deep-rooted inferiority complex is the last nail on her coffin.

Anita Björk embodies a graceful mien of nobility emitting a whiff of recalcitrance that makes her portrayal of Miss Julie a distant, spoiled figure never truly reveals her true emotions, whereas Ulf Palme delicately betrays his insecurity and immaturity out of his pseudo-confidence and prince-charmant appearance. Among the supporting cast, Dorff's Kristin, the cook, takes a less prominent function than Morton in the 2014 film, and we also see a very young Max von Sydow giggling in his plain nature. Overall, this vintage oldie is a pleasant discovery, especially compared to the more lyrical but problematic latest version directed by the acting legend Liv Ullmann.

With a running time around 130 minutes (contrast with 89 minutes of Sjöberg's picture), but maximally axing the bit parts with three characters only (save the two-minutes opening sequence showing a young Julie rollicking in the forest), Miss Julie (Chastain), the butler John (Farrell) and Kathleen the cook (Morton), this austere version is set in Ireland, and is much more loyal to the text's original form with its take-no-prisoners' method to let the acting-trio wrangling in the turmoil with lengthy monologues and dialogues. It is a chancy choice, Ullmann invests a full trust in her cast, and is willing to take the risk of prolonging the takes to let the emotional repercussions permeate, even music is barely used as an immediate mood-mediator, only at times playing in the background with unobtrusive volume.

"The night is long and it is so tiring", the film becomes tedious as the same plot and twist blathering on and on; and "class is class", the invisible barrier strips them down to their inveterate bias and beliefs. However, the trio's whole-hearted devotion is the saving grace of Ullmann's labour-of-love. Morton, her Kathleen becomes a morally righteous yardstick to the scandalous affair, John is her beau, and Miss Julie is her mistress, her inward feeling is given a more detailed vent to show off, and Morton is always excellent to watch, modest in looks, but tremendously engaging. Farrell, portrays a quite different character from Palme, his John is more approachable to read, more pliable to manipulate, also more reprehensible to condemn for his cowardice, the explicit canary-murdering scene makes him more like a perpetrator than a foolish social-climber in the end.

Chastain stands at odds with Farrell and Morton's Irish accent, but her mercurial personae are wondrous to stare, this could be a tour-de-force if it was on stage, yet as a film, her labour (the same can to said to Farrell and Morton) cannot redeem the sluggish rhythm and a length overstays its welcome, in a sense, only true savant of stage play can luxuriate in it, for most people, the 1951 version is more superior.

Liv Ullman gets just about everything wrong in her slow, heavy, inert adaptation of "Miss Julie." The play needs white hot intensity; she kills its momentum with portentous silences. It needs the claustrophobia of its kitchen setting; she dissipates this by "opening it up" as you're supposedly required to do when filming plays, taking it down corridors and outdoors. It needs an atmosphere of raucous midsummer revelry right outside the windows, with the revelers at one point invading the kitchen; she lets us hear them, briefly, but otherwise the three characters seem to be the last people on earth. Instead of merry folk dancing, which provides an ironic counterpoint in the original, we get a string trio playing tasteful Schubert adagios. Jessica Chastain is well cast and, when allowed to come to life, very good, as is Samantha Morton, but Colin Farrell is misdirected; his Jean ("John" in this version) lacks the charm and sardonic humor that would make the character compelling. For no good reason the play is relocated to Ireland, a setting Ullmann makes no use of. (I guess it's to justify the actors' brogues.) Strindberg sets a clock going right from the start, so that the proceedings carry tremendous urgency; Ullman drains all the tension out of it so it plods drearily. The worst thing you can do in adapting any work is drape it in the deadening mantle of a "classic." There's nice decor, costumes and cinematography to gaze at, but don't let this be your introduction to Strindberg's electrifying play.

I had never seen her be this loud, this unabashedly theatrical. But, the character calls for it, and it all somehow works. Farrell doesn't have to go as big, and yet he's the one that comes across as unconvincing. The film only really comes alive when it gives Chastain the space to be as loud as humanly possible. It's not a terrible film, but it just seems like an excuse for such powerhouse acting showcasing, and in that respect it's tremendously glorious to witness Chastain's work. It could've easily gone off the rails with many actresses, but she still manages to surprise me in what she can achieve. Again, it worked for me, but it won't for everyone. Several people will absolutely loathe her (really, any performance of this nature is bound to) but I can honestly say she is probably better here than in Rigby, if only because the material allows it. In that way it's a hard performance to analyze, it's basically "here, watch Chastain ACT!" without really caring if we get the character. But it worked for the 2 hours, mostly.

Huge Collin Farrell fan with his range is beyond comprehension. To stay focused with such emotional scene after another non-stop and maintain character is quite impressive. This is a tough film to sort through but the dialog is magnificent. Tortured class struggle with love, lust and escapism. Alot of divisiveness with these reviews but clearly it is not for your average viewer. Very dense script and moves slowly but there is a payoff. If you have ever had one wild ride with your man or woman, this defines how crazy you become when that animal attraction bites you. I have only had one experience like this and that was plenty for a lifetime! Recommend for the subtle undercurrents of BDM, extremely well-portrayed by Mr. Farrell. Longer than required, Liv did some creative shots but otherwise distracted by dialog. Chastain's character was sumptuously dressed, colors vivid and clairvoyant.

I kept searching for a reason to care about these people and what they're going through. "It's a classic." "View it in the context of the time." Nothing. Nothing worked. A lot of the problem is how it was shot. At least on stage you can choose to watch the other character's reaction. But here, Ullmann keeps cutting to the person who is speaking, rarely cutting away. The repetitive style does not build tension, but monotony. Even great acting couldn't save it.

Even for a tasteless drama this movie was such a waste of time, money and efforts!

Much to critique both so called A-lister actors of this film. As I've never been a Jessica Chastain fan, after this film I was reminded WHY?! And as for the other actor, neither was Colin Farrel's performance as an unhinged valet with high degree of lunacy was convincing enough to make watching this movie tolerable! Lack of chemistry between the two was another subject on its own!

Overall, playing with an old house may prove to have more entertaining value than this disaster of a movie which frankly a score of 5.5 is way too generous for!! 👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼

Jessica's Chastain in particular is brilliant. But really I'm writing this review to say this movie made me hate men forever.

I'd have to agree with a few others- the acting is brilliant (I'd expect nothing else from this bunch) and the idea is there, but the pacing was painfully slow (no, I do NOT prefer action movies over dramas and yes, I LOVE period pieces). Even though it's over two hours long, I didn't feel connected to any character, which I believe is because of how it was filmed, not the actors, because again, they were committed and believable. All in all, not a total waste of time, but I won't be watching it again and will likely forget about it fairly soon.

Adapted from a play, the film does have a very theater-like mood, portraying just three characters, besides a dog (well, and a yellow bird) and an unseen mob (and an unseen and unheard baron), with dialogues that not always fit naturally. The first 40 minutes portray an intriguing cruel game between the daughter of the owner of the estate and a servant, a game where passion, class, deeds, appearances, everything are interwined. However, although the film kept that very uncomfortable atmosphere, the duel became quite inconsistent, and consequently less engaging. Except for the nice lines of his fiancée, at 1h30, characters behave in too contradictory ways, which make no sense in my opinion even considering increasingly appearant madness of Miss Julie. Despite all those problems, I cannot help but mention that Jessica Chastain has a powerful performance in very different moments, in a broad range varying from femme fatale to lunatic.

Movies based on plays often have a particular - peculiar - feel. They take place in one or two rooms. There are only 2 or 3 castmembers. It takes places over the space of a few hours. Now - if you're riveted by that sort of microscopic examination of 3 characters' neuroses on one L-O-N-G night, then you'll LOVE this movie. If you're the type who would say, "Yeesh, get over yourselves already!" you'll hate it. The pointlessness of this is astounding - but I'm not big on watching train wreck personalities.

The actors put their hearts and souls into this, but my wife and I found ourselves so bored with the toiling dialog about 30 minutes in that we just started to fast-forward until it looked like (via the frames at the bottom of the screen - thanks Netflix) something might actually be happening. Some of the emotion was laughably over-the-top, and the film was simply way too long. Not being familiar with the play, I have no idea how the film compares, but for me, the relationship between the two main characters in the film needed some background information to pull the viewer in. As presented, you wondered what drew the two together, as they seem to have no chemistry. I would give a higher review simply to reward the effort of the performers, but that would skew the score upward, and I don't think the film itself deserves it. Obviously, would not recommend.

No chemistry between anybody. Turgid waste of time

Jessica Chastain and Colin Farrell are superb. Although the critics seem to hate this movie, lauding it to be nothing like they imagined the play to be, nonetheless, having not ever seen the play or read it, I had nothing to base my preconceived ideas on. Therefore, this was something of a masterpiece. Incredible performances from the actors, painful, and actually a treatise to the hideous mores and codes of its times, despite being adapted by Liv Ullman, the over-riding theme is astonishing when you discover that the original play was written in 1888, and depicts the absurdities of human belief systems and caste systems. In this day and age, they would have had a rollick one night, said goodbye and avoided each other's eyes in the hallway whilst getting the heck on with their lives! A story of a very lonely, overly sensitive young woman who has no idea what life is about, and the sanctimonious serving maid who thinks that Jesus will save her, and how ultimately, a poor boy has a turmoil of stored hatred and vindictiveness toward the gentry, albeit rightly so, yet turns that into a crime that is inconceivable. An utterly brilliant work. Kudos to Liv Ullman. If you want action, no dialogue, and joy, this movie might not be for you. But if you want to take a good, long look at how evil the natural function of humanity is made by an unnatural society, this is a winner.

It's 1890 Ireland. The people are out for the Midsummer Night's Eve celebration. John (Colin Farrell) is a valet at a country estate. He's in love with the cook Kathleen (Samantha Morton). While the Baron is away, his daughter Miss Julie (Jessica Chastain) is the mistress of the manor. She keeps pushing herself onto John despite his relationship with Kathleen.

This is a 19th century Swedish play put on the big screen. It's got three great actors who are bringing their all to this thing, accents aside. While these actors are trying their best, the movie is mostly empty inside. There is nothing more than a play being thrown onto the big screen. The characters don't get much set up. It's hard to get inside the morality of the times. It's hard to feel for these characters. There are things lost in translation in time and space. One can admire the acting but it's hard to care about this movie.

I tried to give this movie a chance and then even a second chance. However, this movie is painfully boring.

What a hideously drawn out film. While there is a touch of class in the casting of the three characters (and the dog) as well as amazing set designs, this Anglo-Irish Dub of a million recycled 3-person plays (featuring one man caught between two diametrically opposed characters till he is "forced" to choose a side... and usually sticks with the path of least resistance to save his own neck above all else despite various grand and annoyingly dragged out monologues) was a fright to behold.

The team in charge of lighting dropped the ball as well. Despite verbal references to day and night and the random lighting of lanterns throughout the film, the entire thing takes place in very bright lighting, lending no actual sense of the passage of time, which is, theoretically, Midsummer Night and the wee hours of the ensuing morning.

Characters: The plain and sensible no-nonsense cook who lives and thinks within the confines of her means, the abundantly blessed waif -- wealthy, educated, and spoiled beyond all measure to compensate for her mother's passing and her elderly father's constant absence -- running wild in fits of idleness, and the valet/liveryman -- seemingly worldly but trapped between the sensible and the insane.

Plot: While her father is away, Miss Julie takes advantage of the solitude and runs wild about the vast household to amuse herself in whatever way she feels suitable. On Midsummer Night (aka, summer solstice -- see Shakespeare's classic, Midsummer Night's Dream or Lincoln Center's Midsummer Night Swing and similarly-themed productions designed to reflect the mad revelry of the British holiday), Miss Julie takes her flighty tendencies too far. (No Spoilers.) The rest of the psychological plot unfolds from there.

Setting: A very lavish estate set in 1890s Ireland -- mainly the kitchen, with clips of four other spaces (servants' quarters, the garden-facing picture window, part of a master bedroom and two hallways) as well as some scenes filmed outdoors. (All very pretty, and I'm quite jealous of the kitchen and fabulous natural lighting. WOW.)

Costumes & Props: The designs are all SO on point and accurately denote the traditional distinctions of social class in the jewel-toned colors of Miss Julie's gowns, the bedspread in the master bedroom, everything down to her father's little money satchel.

The cast, sets and costuming really make you WANT to love the film, which unfortunately falls flat. If you see a 10/10 rating it's probably the parents from a member of the cast and crew cheering on their kid's work.

This film tells the story of the daughter of a baron, and her valet in the mansion, who tempts and manipulates each other on the night that the baron is away.

The film only has three actors, set in a single location. The story concentrates on the dynamics of the three individuals in the mansion, and the balance of power constantly changes. It reminds me of other similar films such as "Carnage" starring Kate Winslet. I am not a fan of this kind of film, because the fundamental flaw of such a plot is that characters can withdraw themselves from the situation, but they just stay on a forebears spiral until everyone is hurt. If not for the big names in "Miss Julie", I would not have even watched it It's a boring film.

Just a pointless remake of a reasonable movie of source material that is better suited to the theatrical stage for which it was written. Why anyone thought it was necessary to churn out another version of this is beyond belief - but not as much as the fact that someone else decided to throw money at producing and distributing it. Colin Farrell is no Peter Mullan and, as his is the character which carries the piece, this dooms it to inferiority immediately. The comparison between Jessica Chastain and Saffron Burrows in the eponymous role is thus rendered superfluous...

I had to stop watching as I was lulled into sleep. I do wish I had the large kitchen island.