mark.waltz Karen Stone (Helen Mirren) is a beloved stage star; Beloved by her public, social group and especially her loving husband (Brian Dennehy), a Broadway producer who believes her to be ageless. So what does he do? Casts her as Juliet, that's what. The fifty-something actress is still a beauty, but Juliet is 16, so guess what: she looks ridiculous. She is reminded that actresses of many ages have played Juliet, but in post-war America, with the media thriving and TV in its infancy, she is a bomb. None of her friends even show up after the performance on opening night to congratulate her. With Dennehy ailing, she decides to retire from the stage, and they go to Italy where the inevitable happens. All alone now, Stone is ripe for the picking, and the evil contessa (Anne Bancroft) sets her sights on Mrs. Stone to set her up to be fleeced by her stable of gigolos. Oliver Martinez plays Paolo di Lio, who is reminded by Bancroft that he is aging and must make one final swoop so he won't be left desolate when his usefulness is done. At first, Mrs. Stone is simply cordial to Paolo, which makes him want her all the more; But once they fall into bed, this sets up the plot for more games by Bancroft and ultimate jealousies and cruelties between each of the two. A mysterious homeless man keeps an eye on Stone, his own motives unclear...What was original a novel by Tennessee Williams became a decadent 1961 soap opera starring Vivien Leigh and Warren Beatty, and 42 years later, gets a more adult treatment for cable. The sex is more graphic, and the atmosphere much more sinister. Anne Bancroft is like the witch in a Grimm's Fairie Tale, an evil woman who blames the aftermath of the war on the American soldiers, and takes it out on all of the Americans who visit the desolated country. Once a rich aristocrat, she is basically a "pimp" who will fleece every American she can. Watch her reaction when she is politely "thanked" for a social fopot by Mirren who has been hostess to her on several occasions. She makes the character originated by Lotte Lenya in the 1961 film a lot more grotesque. But just try and take your eyes off of her. Bancroft is brilliant.As for Mirren, she brings out Karen's insecurities until they are painfully written all over her face. She is not the old lady she claims she is, nor is she not lovely enough to find the type of love she deserves, but she has a lifetime of exploitation behind her so she has no way out. First exploited as an actress by her loving husband who was devoted to her, she is garishly used by the countess, and it is sad to see such a lovely character be destroyed by that evil. Mirren only has minor bags under her eyes, and her body (exposed in several scenes) is in beautiful shape. The silent self hatred this character didn't know about until she lost her husband is heartbreaking. As for Martinez, he gives many facets to the character of Paolo; It is obvious that he has major feelings for her in spite of what he was hired to do, but is so wrapped up in his own macho world, he can't face his underlying tenderness. It is interesting to note that the sex scenes seem to get rougher as the film goes on, indicating an anger inside him that is about to explode like Mount Vesuveus.Then there is Rodrigo Santoro as the mysterious homeless man. What his intentions are certainly never become clear, and this will give the viewer the opportunity to guess how things turn out. As a fan of Tennessee Williams' work, I saw a similarity with him and the character who represents death in "The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore" (movie title-"Boom"). Whether or not he is will have to be in the mind of the viewer. The original version (as well as this one) gave me hope that the obvious conclusion wasn't true, but then this leads to all sorts of other pondering as to how Mrs. Stone's life would proceed. Only a conversation between Mirren and Martinez about how similar situations have ended give indication what is in store for Mirren. There is also the inevitable comparison to the gay lifestyle as some of the sexual longings of Mrs. Stone and the need for young companionship seem to come from Williams' own view of the gay scene in his time.

Fisher L. Forrest Anytime you get involved with Tennessee Williams' characters, you are sure to find yourself at 3 AM in the dark night of someone's soul, when the last waltz has already been danced. But that someone is not necessarily a "real" person. Rather, it's a "creation" by an author whose own life was so "unquietly desperate" that reality had not much meaning for him, a fact which is reflected in his "unreal" characters. These "people" of Williams' certainly give and have given a number of actresses considerable work over the years, and Helen Mirren is surely one of the best. This novella is one of Williams' darkest tales, but should not be regarded as in any way a look at reality, unless you conceive that most of the people of this world are certifiably insane, a condition which Mirren limns admirably. Williams, I think, was intent on delineating a world, which he thought of as real, but which probably derived from his worst nightmares, waking or otherwise, could not actually be realistic. A look at this world is not necessarily an "entertaining" experience, and I doubt that Williams intended it to be. So why bother? Well, you can enjoy the work of the actors, if not the story, and you can speculate about the author as I have been doing. As he was a homosexual, I have considerable doubt that Williams can be taken seriously when he deals with women. Yet almost all his protagonists are women. I wonder why. Oh, I haven't even discussed the story, and I don't think I will, except to say it involves a woman whose actions will seem absolutely incomprehensible to us "normal" folk. My rating of 9 reflects mainly my admiration for Helen Mirren's work. Otherwise, the film offers many irritations, which you can select for yourself.

jpmcmu-1 By the middle of the movie, we decided to continue watching only for the costumes and the scenery. All of the actors are wooden except for Helen Mirren. Poor Anne Bancroft. Spmeone went to a lot of trouble to make a beautiful movie but skimped on the editing.There were parts of the movie that were intended to be dramatic, but we found humorous. Did people in the 1950s really walk around Rome eating pizza? I have to figure out if Karen Stone's fey senior friend was an original character or an allusion to Tennessee Williams himself. Was it really necessary to add a flamboyantly gay senior male to this production?

standman-1 There's much about this production that is very good. I think Martinez is much better than Warren Beatty, who was dreadfully miscast. Some things are better realized in the recent version, such as the young man who waits in the shadows. The camera work is outstanding and I think Mirren's wardrobe is better than in the earlier film.But I think there's a fatal flaw in the casting of Helen Mirren as Karen Stone, for the reason which I think made Vivien Leigh more suitable to the role. This goes to the heart of a major theme in Tennessee Williams: evil people bent on destroying those who are fragile and vulnerable.For all her greatness as an actress, there's nothing vulnerable about Helen Mirren. She's too strong and formidable a person to play a fragile flower. I always feel a sense of "Don't tread on me" when watching her.