blanche-2 "Oscar and Lucinda," made in 1997 by Gillian Armstrong, stars Ralph Fiennes and Cate Blanchett in the title roles. The film starts out one way and becomes something else, and then something else again - it's quite a saga, and very beautiful to look at.Fiennes plays an Anglican minister, Oscar, who is a compulsive gambler. On a ship to Australia, which he took explicitly to get over his problem, he meets Lucinda (Blanchett), a free-thinking businesswoman who owns a glassworks factory. She, too, is a compulsive gambler. The two get together and start gambling, Fiennes justifying it by stating that faith is a gamble as well. After all, one stakes everything on the fact that there is a God.The two arrive in Sydney, and Oscar finds himself down and out before he even starts. When he and Lucinda are caught playing cards, his ministry goes out the window. If Lucinda weren't so wealthy, she'd probably have to leave town, but she's tolerated. Upon arriving in Sydney, Oscar promptly wrecks his ministry before it even gets started when he's caught playing cards with his new friend. Oscar then makes a bet with Lucinda that he can deliver a church - made of glass - to her minister friend Hinds, which means it has to travel across the continent. If he can do it, it will be proof that he loves Lucinda.The vision of the glass church going down the river alone makes this movie worthwhile - truly stunning.Blanchett gives a beautiful performance, very organic. Fiennes is very good, just not quite as impressive as Blanchett. The narration is given by a great-grandchild of one of them - I won't say which one.I found this an odd story, full of symbolism, and what a credit to the director that she was able to pull of the elements together. The very last scene in the film pulls it out of what could have been a real downer.I can't say I loved it, but there are some wonderful elements in this movie. If you have a big screen TV, it is a glorious watch.

Kara Dahl Russell This film is simply perfect. It is extremely rare for me to feel this way about a film. Acting, story, costumes, casting, cinematography, sets (which include the amazing glass church). Perfect. Flawless. Every single aspect works in support of the whole.This is not to say that this is one of my favorite films. It is not. It is a dark story of introverted characters with obsessive, compulsive behavior. The fullness with which this is explored, in the complexity of family history, religious influence, the restraint of both social construct and insecurity, make this a remarkable gem that deserves the overwhelming word of mouth that this film has accumulated.If this type of film (period piece, character studies, off beat story and characters) is not your cup of tea, don't waste your time. If this IS your kind of film, don't waste any time - see it now!Amazing film story telling.

thesilversamurai This movie was truly awful. I don't know what movie the rest of you watched. But I found the acting atrocious, the plot trite, the characters incredibly clichéd and the lack of drama depressing. This was a low budget "character-driven" flop. Since I don't want to post spoilers I can't comment on specific scenes. But...there were so, so many scenes that just didn't work. Scene after scene, piled on top of each other. One bad directoral decision after another. And the actors were not -that- bad. But they weren't -that- good either. I watched this because I was looking for something 'Victorian'. And as a historical recreation piece it wasn't bad. In every other way it was god awful. And had one of the worst endings ever put in a movie. In summary? I hated, hated, hated it. There was not a single redeeming feature. Not a single scene in the last 45 minutes had an iota of believability. It was...jarring and rushed and poorly constructed. I gave it a 1.

tedg This is one of my favorite movies. Regular readers of my comments will wonder why I elevate it to my "must see" categoryPart of the reason I want you to see it is because of how well it pairs with Cate's masterpiece, "Heaven." Now, that film can stand on its own as a transcendent cinematic experience. It easily shifts us from a "real" world into one more magical and over the course of the experience that distance increases. It took Kieslowski's notion of cinematic distance and added the journey to that distance. It is one of the most important successful experiments in cinema and it owes much to the collaboration of Cate.That reflects on this. A smaller project. A less ambitious director, but still with an affecting emotional directness. A pre-existing story that has literary strengths that become cinematic defects. And yet there is that same collaboration with the creating of an alternative magical reality fueled by obsession.There is that same smooth slide from here to there. There is that same equating of wilderness (a Herzogian river) to the internal landscape. The same trigger of the gamble. And also, there is the remarkable glass chapel. One shot has it moving down the river, but it seems as if it is floating through the trees. You are dead if that does not stick with you for years.Alas, not much is made of a central image in the book — the tensed glass tears that explode when gently traced at their origin.The major flaw is Fiennes. Both brothers have a sort of forehead acting style which unravels much of the subtleties of Cate's acting by breathing. But she is so breathtaking an actress in both these films, even though she is only the referent in the last part of this.See the two films in one night. Any order.Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.