Julesecosse I liked this film; and had no concerns whatsoever about watching it, despite the relatively low financial return, which I don't understand and also, the relatively mediocre percentage on Rotten Tomatoes, which I also don't comprehend - the latter of which I generally check before watching a movie, the former to see whether it's an indie or not.I guess that this genre is not for everyone; to me it's a Jane Austen with added intrigue or a sophisticated Dan Brown with less intrigue.There is lots of innuendo and suggestion, which unfortunately is generally bluntly explained shortly thereafter; it would possibly have been more interesting to keep it more mysterious and therefore make the viewer think longer than a few seconds.I enjoyed it overall and would recommend it to those of a literary bent, it's not a popcorn flick.

leonblackwood Review: I quite enjoyed this intense drama about about 2 scholars who are looking for the missing pages between 2 secret lovers, which are worth quite a lot of money. The storyline goes back and forth in time which makes the movie easy to follow because every is explained with real actions in Victorian times. I found the storyline interesting and quite touching because the 2 lovers found themselves in an impossible situation but they couldn't stop feeling for each other. Basically, it's a tamer version of National Treasure, without the action. The love story between the 2 historians was a bit corny, but it's a watchable movie which stays interesting throughout. Watchable!Round-Up: Aaron Eckhart and Gwyenth Paltrow was a great choice for this movie because they seem to pull out emotional performances with ease. The chemistry between the 2 characters was believable and I was impressed with Paltrows English accent. The Victorian scenes were also portrayed well but once you know the whole plot, it's not the type of movie that you will be watching again in a hurry. Judging by the gross of the movie, it was well received by audiences which is a shame because I have seen worse.Budget: $25million Worldwide Gross: $15millionI recommend this movie to people who are into there dramas about a couple of scholars who are looking for the missing pages of a Victorian poet and his lover. 5/10

moviesleuth2 Stories that center on relationships (such as romances or character studies) must be developed carefully and delicately. Done right, they can be fascinating to watch. Done poorly, they can quickly become boring. Unfortunately, despite it's acclaimed art-house director and cast of well-known actors, "Posession" falls firmly into the latter category.A graduate student of Victorian-era poetry named Roland Mitchell (Aaron Eckhart) has stumbled onto a potentially fascinating discovery: two famous poets, Howard Ash (Jeremy Northam) and Christabel LaMotte (Jennifer Ehle) may actually have been lovers. Now Roland, along with another expert, Dr. Maude Bailey (Gwyneth Paltrow) are on their trail. Along the way, they are developing a romance between themselves."Posession" does more things wrong than it does right. The biggest problem is the underlying story. I haven't read the novel by A.S. Byatt, but judging by the film, there isn't much story to begin with, certainly not enough for a 102 minute film (and it's not especially interesting). Either that, or the screenplay is worse than it already is. Plot holes abound, subplots are started and left unfinished, and more importantly, there's no balance between the dual tales.The performances by the actors don't help much. Gwyneth Paltrow and Aaron Eckhart are the biggest names in the cast, but unfortunately they're the ones we have to spend the most time with. Both are good actors (Paltrow won an Oscar, though undeservedly, and judging by Eckhart's climb to fame and versatility, it's only a matter of time before he gets a statue), but they have no chemistry. At least Eckhart, a Neil LaBute regular, makes a game try. That's more than can be said for his co-star, Gwyneth Paltrow. I've never been a big fan of Paltrow; she's always a little whiny and seems off. She can muster a decent British accent, but that's only the surface. As Maude, she's pretty boring, and for someone whose sudden romance is the unofficial beating heart of the film, she has no chemistry with Eckhart. The 1850's lovers, Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle, aren't exactly better, but they have chemistry, which makes them more appealing.The film isn't a total loss; it looks great, and I always have a special place in my heart for historical mysteries (even poorly done ones). But honestly, "Posession" isn't worth your time.

T Y Two scholars chance upon some documents that reveal more about the relationships of a clutch of impossibly uninteresting historical figures. The two eras are cross-cut to strike sparks that generate no heat. I really love the idea that a movie might be about two scholars (you know... adults!), but this is listless and suffers from too many unlikable leads (Eckhart, Paltrow, Ehle). Eckhart is miscast and really adrift as a sensitive man right out of some woman's most delirious 'romance novel' fantasies; a buff stud/research assistant. But nothing scholarly that comes out of his mouth sounds remotely natural. He talks about events in the lives of poets like he's doing color commentary for the big football game. He's just all wrong. And Paltrow seems to have taken this part on a dare, to prove she could be even more chilly and insufferable than viewers found her previously.Clearly this is a movie aimed at female ticket-buyers, but from Neil LaBute? ...it's sooo clumsy! There must be a moment when you're filming this as you watch the dailies, that you realize your stars have no chemistry and the movie has no momentum, even within the woefully tired and inert romance genre. Porn for women. Awful.