wordsmith_57 Not having read the book, nor having viewed the original Welles version, I watched The Magnificent Ambersons based on it being a period piece. I was also slightly intrigued that it was supposed to be a remake of what is considered a Welles classic. I watched the movie and found it stood well on its own. I was surprised to find it aired in 2002, as it is avant garde in form and has a fresh creativity, and even a daring in its approach that I would expect only of more recent films. The assembled cast is brilliant: Bruce Greenwood is the upbeat, returned prodigal, accompanied by his equally winsome daughter Gretchen Mol; James Cromwell is the patriarch, and Madeline Stowe is the many layered woman torn between her old flame and her ever present love for her son, Jonathan Rhys Meyers. Jennifer Tilly as the spinster aunt adds to the ensemble quite nicely. This was at times painful to watch, since Rhys Meyers's character, George, is so absolutely obnoxious in his arrogance, but this is can be overlooked as George's behavior and personality is what makes the piece tick. Some have criticized Rhys Meyers, yet I found it a very convincing performance. As the uncle put it, "Georgy, I've always been fond of you, but I haven't always liked you." I couldn't stand George, yet there was something that almost made me root from him. A long movie, 150 minutes; however, good acting,creative filming, and a fascinating plot make it worthwhile viewing.

mitchabramson I had watched Welles' original more than a few times, and so approached this 'made-for-tv' attempt with much apprehension. I was pleasantly surprised at the lush cinematic treatment and the superior acting. The treatment of the mother to her spoiled child gave just the right hint of their unhealthy and unconscious Oedipal situation; the mother even lying in bed in a black nightgown. I remain confused as to why the majority of bad reviews. Half the critics indicate the story is a "downer," but that IS THE STORY! You can see why Rys is tapped for the lead in Woody Allen's Match Point years later, and I recommend this film for anyone capable of enjoying objectively a well-made piece of film, and not pining away for the "happy ending" you've been taught to expect.

ohiomom I haven't read Orson Welles' book or have seen the 1942 movie, but have seen this A&E adaptation of The Magnificent Ambersons. This movie was almost painful to watch. Even though this was an all-star cast, I only felt that Madeleine Stowe (Isabel Amberson Minafer), Bruce Greenwood (Eugene Morgan) and James Cromwell (Major Amberson) were a credit to this movie. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (George Amberson Minafer) and Gretchen Mol (Lucy Morgan) may have looked their respective parts, but little else. Both Rhys-Meyers and Mol tend to overact their parts to a fault and Jennifer Tilly (Fanny Minafer) is outright hilarious, and not in a good way.This movie adaptation has been butchered in the worst way in that I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone. It's one of those movies that you see and tell yourself, "Well, that's 2 hours of my life I'll never get back.."

pea_flea One would think that, given the way A&E was touting "The Magnificent Ambersons," the actual film might be something to sit back and take note of and maybe enjoy just a little bit. The truth is, I've had bikini waxes that were more enjoyable, if only because they didn't last for three hours, like this incessant piece of drivel.The film is marred by five lackluster performances. The unfortunate thing is, they also happen to be the ones with the most screen time. Madeleine Stowe is supposed to be the intriguing, haunted heroine Isabel Minafer, but the only thing that haunted or intrigued me was wondering how much Collagen she must inject to make her lips looks so pouty all the time.Jonathan Rhys Meyers, as Isabel's spoiled son Charlie, is over-the-top and extremely annoying, a little rich boy run amok. His performance also runs amok, to the ruin of the film. You not only want to slap his character for being such a little snot, you want to slap Rhys Meyers for acting so poorly.His obnoxious character makes you wonder why in God's name Lucy Morgan (Gretchen Mol) would even be interested in him. After all, she's the spunky daughter of a self-made man and plays hard to get with all the other boys. But that's about it. Mol gives the character little depth or spark. It's not that she's as bad as Rhys Meyers, but like all of the other performances (save the glaringly bad ones), she's just forgettable.The same could be said for Bruce Greenwood's work as Lucy's father, entrepreneur Edward Morgan. As the man who falls in love with Isabel, Greenwood certainly looks dashing. He's a handsome inventor working in the automobile business, which stick-in-the-mud Charlie thinks is just a passing fad. The forbidden love between Isabel and Edward is supposed to evoke pathos and haunt our souls, but passion never ignites, and though the actors make googoo eyes and send each other love letters, which are ridiculously read straight into the camera by the characters, they never really convince you that they are madly in love.I thought Jennifer Tilly's turn as spinster Aunt Fanny Minafer might provide a respite from the other boring performances, but all she does is further annoy you, if only because of her obnoxious squeaky voice. Aunt Fanny, played by an actress of greater ability, could have been one of the more complex of the film, as she has led a disappointing and unfulfilled life. But like the rest of the character, you find you really couldn't give a rat's about her, either.It seems that Booth Tarkington meant for the title "The Magnificent Ambersons" to be ironic. While they may have loads of money and live in opulence, the Amberson/Minafer family are by no means interesting, exciting, intelligent, or worthwhile, much like most of high society today. They fall from riches to insolvency, while the entrepreneurial class represented by Morgan gains prominence and wealth, which only emphasizes the irony of this title. It seems that Tarkington may have meant his novel to be a commentary of the constant state of flux in which societal structures often are found. But then again, that probably didn't cross the director's or the actors' minds. The film never delves deep into any of these issues.There's nothing magnificent, even mediocre, about this film. It is a waste of time, and A&E is probably realizing, a waste of money as well.