dairwendan Basil, based on the Wilkie Collins novel, has little of the novel in it. In the novel, John Mannion is a man in his forties who is completely calm at all times and intrigues Basil, as a mystery. Basil's brother, Ralph, is an ambassador and quite a playboy. Clara is Basil's younger sister. The Julia character, called Margaret in the book, is an innocent, but spoiled girl. Basil has finished college and is of age. The agreement with Mr. Sherwin is to keep the marriage a secret for a full year. The book is generally regarded as a classic Victorian pot boiler. It may be, but I prefer the movie. I like the inclusion of Basil's imaginary masked man stories as a child. In having already exiled Ralph, we see clearly what the father will do if he finds out about the relationship between Basil and Julia. Mannion here is a worldly, genial friend to Basil, introducing him to smoking cigars and talk of sex. He seems to be Basil's salvation. Clara being a child taken in by Basil's parents rather than a sibling seems contrived only for one scene, but it doesn't detract that she is not his sister. Basil, being only 20, and still at college, makes it far more believable that he would not suspect those around him of being anything but honest and honorable. The idea that the relationship must be kept secret for only three months makes the story move along faster and is more believable. The incident Basil sees as a child, involving his father, makes his Father's talk of family pride ring false. In the book Basil insists that his father is a good man, though blatantly classist, and cold to his children. In the movie, we know that he is not as good as he wants people to think.Basil's having to do manual labor, and being shocked at the pittance he gets for it is still a social issue and one Collins did not address. The inclusion of the child shows Basil to be a much more honorable, moral and principled man in the end than his father ever was. It's an interesting movie, the acting is suited to a Victorian drama, and I enjoyed it very much.

Keith F. Hatcher To talk of the Victorian novel, and any film derived from them, generally imposes the theme of the sociological novel: these works were frequently what might be called a social critique, unbehest by the landed gentry of the times, ignored by the reigning sovereign, much encouraged by the publishing houses, lapped up by the intelligencia of the public at large, but in general lacking the more profound humane sentiments of, say, the Russian novel. The result is sometimes rather sanctimonious, at others preachy, not to mention parsimonious. Wilkie Collins embarked on such ideas, and found fame with his two most well-known novels - `Moonstone' and `The Lady in White'. However, his themes suffer from certain overladen stylism, absent from novels by his very good friend Charles Dickens. Thus any serious attempt at transposing such works to the screen is bound to bump into all kinds of problems; however, Radha Bharadwaj resolves most of them with a certain degree of panache, such that the end result in this film is more or less acceptable. There is that sense of proprietary so correct to the times in question which pervades the essence of capturing those times of social inequality, rule by power, the burgeoning heavy hand of the upper-class bourgoisie, the India-rich dwellers of mansions in London and the far-flung provincial counties. But it must be said, Wilkie Collins drove himself to his own despair, and this is clearly shown in his novels, though not so clearly perceived in this film. He tried the Russian technique, thus missing out on the Dickensian style - much more to the point - incorporating ideas which could only come to fruition a little later by such novelists as Joseph Conrad. If you like, he was the masculine equivalent of Virginia Woolf who also drove herself to despair and attempted suicide. But do not compare this film with the recent `The Hours' (q.v.), nor even with `The Portrait of a Lady' (q.v.), Jane Campion's exquisite film based on the novel by Henry James.Notwithstanding (how good that word sounds in Dickens' novels!) the film has its interest; not necessarily because either Christian Slater or Jared Leto have anything special to offer on which to comment, as they are both merely acceptable, nor for Claire Forlani's part, nor for yet another appearance by yet another member of the Bonham-Carter family - in this case Crispin, cousin to Helena. The film stands up for its merits as a carefully directed and produced period piece which is nicely photographed, within and without London. How much of the film is made in Cornwall or even Yorkshire will have to be guessed.An interesting film for its story-line, with not much real tangible evidence as to the Victorian scene, but which worked hard to transport the book to visual contemplation.

qbraco I watched this film at home this week. Made it through the whole movie without falling asleep. This film has the worst editing job I have ever seen. Really chopped up. The cast was good, the acting creditable, even the story line had potential but the directing was awful. Someone took a good story, some great actors and made a really poor movie. Too bad.

spacey-8 I must admit, Jared was the hook, but it was the story that kept me interested. Not quite 'Dangerous Liaisons' or 'The Remains of the Day', but this film was very enjoyable. Jared Leto and Christian Slater both did fine jobs playing Brits and I would recommend this film to anyone.