Paul_message 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.

aspiring-star Now, *this* is what a remake of an adaptation should do! The best part about this version was the casting. Apart from Eleanor Lavish (Sinead Cusack/Judi Dench), there was no attempt to simply find actors who were similar to the first cast - the Spalls were especially good, with a little more earth and body than the '85 Emersons. I also prefer Laurence Fox's Cecil to Daniel Day Lewis's: the latter seemed a caricature. And I think everything Elaine Cassidy does is wonderful.I liked the flashback-framing-device. The Great War hadn't even happened when the book was written, and adding it in makes the rest of the movie more poignant due to the enormous social change it caused. Yes, it is awful to think that George died almost right after the main story ends - but that's the joy of an adaptation: you can combine the bits you like into the story, and throw out the ones you dislike. In a way, it's quite realistic.(If anyone thinks Forster would have blushed at Mr. Beebe with rent boys, they have not read Ragtime.)

galensaysyes 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.

goldenswim After having loved the Merchant Ivory film I was looking forward to this adaptation but something was OFF from the moment it began when Lucy goes to Florence alone, with a bob, in 1922, and says her husband is not with her. Then we go back in time and back again as she remembers her first time in Florence with a Room With A View when she meets George who is her soul mate. Why he is her soul mate or why anyone would want to be her soul mate is not fully developed at all. Neither of these romantic characters were well developed or appealing. Of course, they do fall in love, although Lucy proceeds to run away and get engaged to someone else. Eventually they find each other and marry/elope. About the only good scene is when she rushes to him when he is in the pond... but do we really believe this either? What I hated is we discover George dies and then Lucy appears to be holding hands with the Italian cabbie at the end of the film. Horrible. Why not leave this as a romantic story with the two of them together? Must see the other film version again now... to get this rubbish out of my head!