Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Purely Joyful Movie!

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

This is a pretty mediocre treatment of Nabokov's book, a favorite of mine. It reminds me of "A Beautiful Mind" in the sense that it is more about the personal life of a genius than his doings, and it sometimes feels mundane for that reason.As Turati and Luzhin were portrayed, it recalls greatly Capablanca and Alekhine, respectively, and their encounters. Alekhine the unstable but brilliant, the only world champion to die with the title, and Capa the smooth talker in a trench coat, rock solid.For all the film's shortcomings, the puzzle of the adjourned position, which doesn't occur in the book, was a really nice composition.

Alexandr "Sascha" Luzhin (John Turturro) is a former leading chess player attempting a comeback at an Italy-hosted tournament. His brilliance is unquestioned but his obsession with chess has stunted his growth in all other aspects of his life. Natalia (Emily Watson) is a beautiful heiress who has come to the same resort with her mother, Vera (Geraldine James) to scope out possible marriage partners. Vera leans toward a handsome count but, astonishingly, Natalia is more fascinated by Sascha, whom she met on a walk. Sascha, too, is taken with Natalia and proposes marriage at their second meeting. But, with the concentration that Sascha must give to the chess matches and, with other happenings in his past still causing problems, will he win the heart of Natalia? Oh, and can he become the chess champion, also? This is a lovely film, based on a novel by Nabokov. The acting is amazing, with Watson very fine as the beautiful little rich girl and Turturro utter perfection as the shy, awkward chess enthusiast. James gives quite a nice turn as the overbearing mother and the other cast members are wonderful as well. As for the look of the film, it could not be better. The scenery is of the put-your-eye-out variety, the vintage costumes are gorgeous and the cinematography is deserving of much applause. Yes, the story is unusual and told with the use of flashbacks, at times, making it a film not everyone will appreciate. Then, too, the ending is bittersweet. However, if you love romance, period pieces, great acting, knockout scenery, or the fine art of motion picture creation, don't miss this one. You will be defenseless in resisting its multitude of charms.

This is clearly a movie made by intelligent people with a sense for setting and costume, music and the right cast for the parts, interesting camera work and a fine ability to move back and forth in time and place without confusing us.The cast is just right - Turturro is playing a part quite similar to others he's played - the wildly eccentric intellectual misfit. (Think of "The $64,000 Question"). The lovely Geraldine James (most famous for the series, Jewel in the Crown - though I later saw her on stage as a wonderful Portia with Dustin Hoffman in The Merchant of Venice) virtually switches parts with her mother's character in Jewel in the Crown - archly conventional, upset at her daughter's unconventionality. (James had played that unconventional sweet hearted daughter in Jewel). Watson again (as in Breaking the Waves) plays a woman willing to sacrifice herself to the love she believes she has found. The problem I have is that the love story seems implausible. I suppose we need to see some flashbacks to Watson's character's past (not merely the reference by her father to her past) to understand why she would fall for this unprepossessing man. E.g., she seems to greatly enjoy the company of the charming handsome Frenchman who seems a far more likely candidate for her affection. Clearly we are not meant to think this love is merely rebellion against her parents - but there just isn't anything else to hang your hat on - to see WHY she is drawn to this man. Watson is a wonderful actress - the features of her face are extraordinarily facile - but her looks are so every-day English/Irish that it's hard to think of her as an aristocratic emigree. She has always struck me as looking like any young woman in the queue for the bus after a visit to the market, or arriving at the dance with her friends. She merges so readily into any crowd. (Cf.: most famous English actresses - from Julie Christie to Diana Rigg, from Margaret Lockwood to Vivien Leigh, Vanessa Redgrave or Madeleine Carroll, Catherine Zeta-Jones or Jacqueline Bisset, Claire Bloom or Catherine Zeta-Jones, from Greer Garson to Jean Simmons to Deborah Kerr or Elizabeth Hurley, Julia Ormond or Kate Winlet or Polly Walker, Natasha or Joely Richardson - they are all memorable looking, stunningly beautiful, generally tall, distinctive - none of this is true of Watson -- who is one of the finest actresses of the lot). I suppose that's to say that she has a VERY common look - though I don't mean coarse looking. There's simply nothing aristocratic looking about Miss Watson. In that sense, she has more of the appearance of the adult Hayley Mills or Rita Tushingham or Toni Collette. She fits more easily into the world of the shopgirl than the aristocrat emigree. So visually, I never DID think of her as a wealthy aristocratic young woman - despite the beauty of her and her family's clothes or the opulence of her surroundings. (Perhaps this is simply more realistic - in real life, I don't find the well-born any more aristocratic looking than the low-born, but in movie convention, they certainly are, and as a viewer, it's what I have come to expect). At any rate, I just don't believe the love story - Turturro does nothing to make me believe that this woman would fall in love with him. **** SPOILERS **** And the moral of the tale is an odd one - the parents strongly urge her against this marriage - they believe he's a terrible match. They believe he's mad and will bring terrible heartache. And bingo! They're RIGHT! He fails to show up at their wedding and commits suicide that very day. The movie makes it seem as if there will be no terrible psychological consequences to Watson's character from all this - yet we all know that there would be. So this is an odd romance - one where the ogre mother is proved right!! A daughter's refusal to listen to her parents has now brought on a terrible (self-inflicted) wound - and aside from the rather silly ending, has ended VERY badly indeed.Moreover, does the movie understand what it's saying with the tacked-on ending? Is it not vindicating the sickness of Luzhin by creating this silly ending? The fiancee unable to help her lover because she's unable to rid him of his obsessions - then shows he was right to have such obsessions? That seems confused. **** SPOILERS END **** I also had trouble believing that the villain would really spend the time and effort and energy and money to go to any length to stop the protagonist -- when they had not even seen each other for over a decade - and the protagonist had never inflicted any injury upon the villain. Like the love story, this remorseless villain just seemed - implausible. The motivation seemed lacking for both the love story and the villainy. All that said, this is a beautiful movie, with fine production values, good acting. Those who loved A Dangerous Mind, Hillary and Jackie, or Rush, or the sort of atmosphere of A Month by the Lake, Enchanted April, Up at the Villa, or Tea with Mussolini -- will probably quite like this movie.

Don't know how this missed award nominations. Great film. Certainly of the calibre of "Beautiful Mind" Great acting, photography, script and drama. I can't imagine anyone not being entranced by this film.