To me, this movie is perfection.

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Possession is a romantic and mysterious film based on the novel of the same name by A. S. Byatt.It film tells the story of two scholars, Roland Michell and Maud Bailey, who investigate the affair of fictional Victorian era poet Randolph Henry Ash, described in letters between him and another fictional poet, Christabel LaMotte.The movie stars Aaron Eckhart,Gwyneth Paltrow,Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle.It is written and directed by Neil LaBute.While the film probably won't leave you swooning, it is at least an earnest love letter to its transcendent source.It consists of quality of the acting, and the Brits -- Northam and Ehle -- invest their forbidden love with centuries of fine repressed English tradition.Despite the fact that Gwyneth Paltrow and Aaron Eckhart lead the cast, their performances as modern characters rank second to Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle.Unfortunately,what is supposed to be a deep examination of the transcendence of love and art and poetry turns into another shallow film about how repressed the British are.Aside from acting,there is nothing else about this film as it pass as either an After School Special for adults or a Love Story for the new millennium.Or worse,a closeted comedy.

Stories that center on relationships (such as romances or character studies) must be developed carefully and delicately. Done right, they can be fascinating to watch. Done poorly, they can quickly become boring. Unfortunately, despite it's acclaimed art-house director and cast of well-known actors, "Posession" falls firmly into the latter category.A graduate student of Victorian-era poetry named Roland Mitchell (Aaron Eckhart) has stumbled onto a potentially fascinating discovery: two famous poets, Howard Ash (Jeremy Northam) and Christabel LaMotte (Jennifer Ehle) may actually have been lovers. Now Roland, along with another expert, Dr. Maude Bailey (Gwyneth Paltrow) are on their trail. Along the way, they are developing a romance between themselves."Posession" does more things wrong than it does right. The biggest problem is the underlying story. I haven't read the novel by A.S. Byatt, but judging by the film, there isn't much story to begin with, certainly not enough for a 102 minute film (and it's not especially interesting). Either that, or the screenplay is worse than it already is. Plot holes abound, subplots are started and left unfinished, and more importantly, there's no balance between the dual tales.The performances by the actors don't help much. Gwyneth Paltrow and Aaron Eckhart are the biggest names in the cast, but unfortunately they're the ones we have to spend the most time with. Both are good actors (Paltrow won an Oscar, though undeservedly, and judging by Eckhart's climb to fame and versatility, it's only a matter of time before he gets a statue), but they have no chemistry. At least Eckhart, a Neil LaBute regular, makes a game try. That's more than can be said for his co-star, Gwyneth Paltrow. I've never been a big fan of Paltrow; she's always a little whiny and seems off. She can muster a decent British accent, but that's only the surface. As Maude, she's pretty boring, and for someone whose sudden romance is the unofficial beating heart of the film, she has no chemistry with Eckhart. The 1850's lovers, Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle, aren't exactly better, but they have chemistry, which makes them more appealing.The film isn't a total loss; it looks great, and I always have a special place in my heart for historical mysteries (even poorly done ones). But honestly, "Posession" isn't worth your time.

After watching the movie, I now want to read the book. I am a fan of Gwyneth Paltrow. She reminds me of Catherine. This is a great romantic movie that has great flashbacks between 21st century and 19th century England. Great plot. I think the main character played as an American worked - somewhat out of his depth when playing against the the Maud Bailey character - but it seemed natural that they were attracted to each other. Just as Jonathan is attracted to Catherine, and yearns to be close to her, so Roland's and Maud's desires surface and cannot be denied. The story unfolds with elements of mystery that keep you wondering. And, what makes this move for me is that, at the end, all the main characters in the story have "happy endings"... this is what I feel makes for a great romantic movie. If only it was so in real life.

I would have given this movie 6 stars if it hadn't spent so much of its time on the boring modern day researchers in the story. I have twice tried to read this book. The first time I returned it to the library almost entirely unread after losing patience with it quickly. The second time after being pressed to try it again by a friend who admired it, I tried harder but still gave up quite quickly. Frankly, I found it boring, wordy, and tedious in spite of an interesting theme. The writer just couldn't hold my attention.I like period drama which is partly why I watched the movie, the other reason being the actors include three favourites of mine, Jeremy Northam. Trevor Eve and Toby Stephens. Regrettably, Stephens' potentially very interesting part as a villain, though starting well, ultimately is small and towards the end more or less forgotten. Eve similarly. Northam playing the Victorian poet would be expected to have a major amount of screen time along with his beloved, but this doesn't happen. The director concentrates on the most boring characters in the book, the two dreary modern characters plugging away interminably at their research and sparring with each other until one hardly cares what they find out or what they feel about one another as they simply aren't exciting characters.I think my reaction clearly indicates this movie isn't as good as it could have been. A good movie should hold the attention even if not featuring all that much the actors you came to it for. So who's at fault - the story, the actors playing the modern researchers, or the director? I think the director. He had the opportunity to make a better adaptation of the book or to divide attention more fairly between the characters, and chose not to.But of course it depends on your point of view. I've no interest at all in the modern researchers. Others may feel the Victorian story is a minor issue and the emotional interactions of the two modern researchers are all that really matters.