This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

How sad is this?

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Now I must admit I've not read the book, but I cannot believe that it can be this bad. The dialogue is awful. At the beginning of the film the lead (totally out of her depth) speaks like a 21st century adolescent. What child in Victorian times would have spoken to her mother like she did, stomped off, slammed her bedroom door and not come down to dinner? I was amazed that she didn't switch on her I-Pod. A totally unsympathetic character - gauche is probably a compliment. And the literature she was supposed to be producing? Gothic rubbish (see Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey for a put down of this tripe)? The outcome of the relationship with her husband was totally predictable - oh, how ironic at the end! What a waste of Sam Neill and one of my favourite actresses, Charlotte Rampling. Tyntesfield looked good though - mind you, in these days of 'global warming' we don't get snow in Wraxall anymore.

I know this is a movie based on a romance novel, so I wasn't really expecting much. I imported it because I'm a huge fan of Michael Fassbender and figured there's at least eye candy. That said, I don't think I've ever seen a female lead character as unsympathetic as Angel. It's not Romola Garai's fault. In fact, I have no doubt she played the part perfectly. The problem is that the part is written to be so selfish, stubborn, contrive and all-in-all annoying that I can't imagine anyone putting up with her at all. Sure, it's a movie; but there is suspension of disbelief, and there's just plain unbelievable, like the character interactions in this movie. The production values are great. I really liked the vivid colors, the contrasts and the whimsical travel sequences. But whenever the movie stays on Angel for any prolong period of time, I find myself wanting to smack her silly and wondering if I can stand watching more of her. If only they'd re-tuned the script to make her a little less abrasive. That's probably against the director's intention for the movie, but I think it would definitely have made it more enjoyable.

This movie is rubbish. The only good aspect was that my wife won our tickets, so we didn't have to part with good money to see it.Nothing worked for me. The characterisations were poor. Sam Neill (as always) played Sam Neill and even Charlotte Rampling (for whom I have great admiration) couldn't save the film. I can only compare it to Titanic - not the movie but the ship.Who was Angelica? I know she had something to do with Paradise (which was shown in reverse over the gate of the house right at the beginning, but the right way around for the rest of the movie), but, as a character, she wasn't introduced. Was this edited out, or was I in a coma at the time and missed it? What went wrong with the background shots? Alfred Hitchcock did a better job of them in the 60s. How can it be that, with all the modern technology, it was so obvious and poor? I quite simply did not believe any of it. One man after the movie came up to my wife and myself with a bemused smile on his face and asked, "What was that all about?" He said he was expecting Angel to wake up and find it all a dream. My comment in reply, "Mas more like a nightmare" The only thing I found even remotely interesting was the way Esme used the wheelchair Angel gave him to hang himself from. This gives some idea as to how boring I found the rest! I suffered the movie expecting my wife to say that she found it moving (i.e. I thought it had to be a "chick flick" that only women can enjoy). Meanwhile, Barbara sat through it thinking that I must have found something "arty" about it. If we had only known, we could have walked out and not had to endure the torture.I could not, in all consciousness, recommend this movie - even to a person I hate.None of it worked; none of it inspired; none of it entertained. It was even too horrible to be amusing.

What a disappointment. It's hard to know what attracted Ozon to Elizabeth Taylor's fantastic source novel as his adaptation is misjudged on a number of levels. Although he slavishly sticks to Taylor's plot, Ozon has real problems with - or chooses to ignore - the very things that are at the heart of the novel. Taylor's ironic, often cruel wit is missing. Characters are softened in the way one would expect of Hollywood, but not of French cinema. He doesn't seem able to master Taylor's irony at all - the audience at last night's London Film Festival screening were very confused about where and when they should laugh. It was impossible to know what the director felt about the characters. Almost entirely missing was Taylor's exceptional portrait of class - one of the major themes of the novel. The film felt like a classic Europudding - rootless in an implausible world. There was very little sense of being in Edwardian Britain.The film is overwrought and out of control. If I hadn't already read the novel, I would have been completely puzzled by what I was watching and how I was supposed to respond or feel.