laceykat The problem with most of the reviews on this is that they are trying to like a movie that does not exist. It is the old problem or reviewing the movie you wanted to see, not the one on the screen.This is a beautifully shot movie with consummate actors all doing their job. The dialogue is good, the filming and direction is good, and everyone brings their A game no matter how small their part. In fact, brevity is the order of the day. Whole backstories and motivations are given in one line or throwaway comment. This is the consummate theater we all want. With all of this, the only thing the story is missing IS a story.The other reviews will give you more of the plot, but basically, Miranda Richardson plays Ruth Ellis, the last women to be hung in England. It is post World War 2 and she is a woman who has made a lot of mistakes in her life. Rupert Everett plays the epitome of British Aristocracy in the 20th Century. He has the title and deference, but no money. Ian Holms loves Miranda also, but we never really know why. "Ruth" is drop dead gorgeous, and now a "B" girl at a local pub. Her dysfunctional relationship with "David" pushes he over the edge and she kills him (no spoiler and irrelevant to this film). This is not a look at the social pressures and changes of post-war Britan. It is not a look at the changing role of women in the 1950s or of the problems they faced. If you would like to see a good series addressing that then I would suggest "Call the Mid-Wife." "Ruth" is no feminist icon that has been done wrong by some misogynistic society bent on holding her down. The killing is NOT the last act of a desperate, abused, woman. In the end, you are left with a "Ya, so" attitude of the events. Which is a shame because until then you had the makings of a really good movie. My only guess is that they ran out of money and had to rush the conclusion of the story, or never had any real reason for telling it and did not realize that until they had too much invested. Even a trial scene might have given "Ruth" some empathetic moments but in this film you only think that this is a woman who made a lot of mistakes and squandered every opportunity she was ever given. You don't feel anything for her because she was never any type of sympathetic character. In fact, other than being stunning, she is no character at all.I like actor-driven movies and this is a good example of one. Everyone came to the set ready and willing to do a good job. The faults of the film are not theirs. There just was never a real story to tell.

Kirpianuscus a destructive love story. the right cast. the wise way to explore the consequences of a dependence who reminds more a Greek tragedy than a "50 real case. Miranda Richardson does more than a great job . Ian Holm is the perfect choice for the role of a protector, full of good intentions and incapable to stop the fall of his mistress. and Rupert Everett, yes, he is the real surprise . young, immature , rich, his character is the right image of the cynical butcher . a film about obsessive love. about the impact between different worlds. about the lost of sense of a mother who believes in the seduction of a dangerous illusion.

kenjha This drama recounts the true events of a love triangle in early 1950s London. Richardson, inexplicably made up to look like Marilyn Monroe, plays an unstable prostitute who is obsessed with a rich, abusive race car driver played by Everett. Holm is a kindly fellow who wants to take care of her but she is not attracted to him. This is basically a dull soap opera with uninteresting characters. Richardson gives a terrible, mannered performance in her screen debut. She delivers her lines in such a weird accent and so rapidly that 90 percent of what she says is incomprehensible. Unfortunately, English subtitles are not available for this film.

Niro Billing this as the tale of "the last woman who was executed in Britain" sorta lets you know up front that Miranda Richardson's widescreen debut is going to end badly.Director Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral) pulls gut~wrenching performances from his leads, Miranda Richardson, Rupert Everett & the always~underrated Ian Holm, in this fascinating fact~based story about utter sexual obsession.Set in the dark '50s.Ruth Ellis (Richardson) runs and lives above a nightclub/brothel frequented by several of London's wealthy gadflies. She's platinum blonde, all brass and ummm... well~liked by the local gentry.She also has a young son named Andy, about to enter school, who turns the blindest of innocent eyes to Mom's lifestyle.Enter David (Everett), a sullen alcoholic rich boy and LeMans auto racer wannabe who's taken in by Ruth's wiles within moments of seeing her for the first time ~ after being introduced to Ruth and her "club" by his equally well~heeled close friend Desmond (Holm).What unfolds is the single most riveting ~ and more importantly, believable ~ love/hate relationship film I've seen. There have been tons of movies about obsessive lust (and I'm not talking about the flix they rent behind that door at the back of your video store whose "A" section takes up three aisles) but this one is a real treat.David, you see, is seriously involved with another woman when he meets Ruth... yet beds the latter in quick fashion. The other woman (eventually his fiancee) is the rub. As is David's penchant for getting drunk and simultaneously developing still a third wandering eye.Still, it's Ruth he wants. To the point of showing up at the oddest of times to woo (or just rant drunkenly, incoherently at ~ or just to hit) her. All the while winnowing his way deeply into Ruth and her son's hearts and lives.Meanwhile Desmond stands stoically by until nearly the bitter end, supporting Ruth during LeMans~boy's long absences and sustaining her each time David fails to live up to his promises, which is pretty much always.The "fights betwixt the leads" scenes are the best, the most creatively acted and directed.After a while, Newell yanks you into the almost~triangle between the three and one begins to attempt to choose sides. This proves to be impossible, as none of the characters are particularly sympathetic.IE: this ain't a Hollywood movie. Each character has flaws which are well~defined, there's no happy ending and (are you listening, Jim Cameron?)... no sequel.Richardson is simply astonishing in her premiere. Each note she plays, screaming or smoldering, is just right (hence Miranda's Rights).Everett's superb as the sociopathically obsessed lover.And Holm is, well, brilliant. Color him unrequited with a vengeance.9 of 10 Niro~Stars