dglink Victoria, a young orphan in late-19th-century New Zealand, enters into an arranged marriage with a wealthy older man; when she comes of age, she leaves the orphanage and goes to live with her husband, who is little more than a stranger to her, and finds married life difficult to face. Her new husband is loutish and chauvinistic, but he has a handsome sensitive younger brother, which complicates the young girl's life. A romantic triangle, tragedy, and mystery ensue; when Oliver, the husband, becomes ill, the cause could be the chemicals he uses to exterminate rats or something more sinister. "Mesmerized," which was originally titled "My Letter to George," is a tidy did-she or didn't-she supposedly based on true events. Co-written and directed by Michael Laughlin, the film may be too slow for some; events unfold at a leisurely pace, but those attuned to PBS dramas or Merchant-Ivory productions may find it to their liking.Jodie Foster both co-produced and stars as Victoria, the orphaned child bride; her cool impassive demeanor suits the role of an unwilling wife in a loveless marriage. However, her iciness extends a bit too far, and little heat ignites between Foster and Don Shor, who plays the younger brother, George, which undercuts their supposed attraction. John Lithgow breathes life into Oliver, the grizzled insensitive husband; he has some good moments, and his character is more vibrant and alive than that of the cold Victoria. Harry Andrews also does well as Oliver's equally loutish father.A delicate score by Georges Delerue enhances the period film, and the script, co-written by Jerzy Skolimowski, is well written and literate. A short, well intentioned movie, "Mesmerized" is no classic, but better than average, and boasts a good performance by Lithgow, a fine score by Delerue, and an enigmatic fade-out that will leave viewers pondering, "Did she? Or didn't she?"

George Escalera My Letter to George, a.k.a., Mesmerized, has all the right parts for a very good movie. As it is, it only confounded this viewer.The performers are well cast and all very good in their roles. The music, the sets and costuming along with the stars all seem committed to relating a very interesting tale based on actual events. In my opinion, it is the ham-fisted editing that sinks the movie. It is possible that the script was not working and a last ditch effort to save the movie in the editing room leaves us with the convoluted release.We find Oliver Thompson (John Lithgow), to be a man comfortable only in the universe he created for himself and seems to have invited his child-bride, Jodie Foster's Victoria, into that plan only to emulate his domineering father with the child she was to bear. In this version, Oliver's younger brother George Thompson (Dan Shor) comes off as a lesser character. With more time on screen for development we might we might be able to see what attracts Victoria to him other than merely being a seemingly better option to her circumstance.There have been some negative comments about the grainy cinematography however I should think that was a deliberate decision on the part of the filmmaker to keep the setting from looking romantic which would have worked against the story. The Jodie Foster character was living in a world that was hardly kind to women. A pretty countryside, nice clothes and home did not make it a wonderful life for Victoria.Worth a look and should be of interest to students of film.

anthonyinaction "Mesmerized" follows the story of a young woman Victoria (Jodie Foster) in New Zealand 1880 who is put on trial for killing her husband Oliver (John Lithgow). Victoria is virtually forced into marrying Oliver, who just shows up wanting to marry her.The story is very intriguing and, at times, keeps you on the edge of your seat. Unfortunately, the story also appears "broken" (e.g. why does Oliver suddenly show up out of the blue wanting to marry Victoria?) and the cinematography is sloppy and the acting extremely poor. If you want a film with entertainment, this is not the film to watch.1 star - don't bother.

moonspinner55 One of Jodie Foster's post-Yale disasters (she flailed about in the mid-'80s, trying to find her footing before "The Accused" in 1988 got her on the right path). Young woman at the turn of the century arrives in New Zealand as the arranged bride for a man who turns out to be demented (and with bad teeth); in the second act, the husband dies and the wife stands accused. I have rarely seen a film that looked so unlike what it was trying to capture, with ugly, dulled-out color, poor lighting and ungainly costumes. Foster is a beautiful young woman, but she's hidden here behind an unattractive coif, speaking in a tuneless monotone. John Lithgow plays the unfortunate husband, but there wasn't much (if anything) the actor could do with this villainous rotter, the part being so pre-conceived. The sequence involving the extraction of Lithgow's teeth is excruciating and should clear a room faster than a fire alarm. An ungodly bore, "Mesmerized" was surprisingly co-produced by Foster, who later blamed the whole mess on the careless post-production editing. NO STARS from ****