correllblair I can't tell if I am naive to the point of a child or such a hopeless romantic as Catherine herself. I never doubted Morris for a second, and I was so taken aback by the last 20ish minutes of the movie that I thought that I had to be watching a new movie. I honestly felt tricked. There were no allusions to his actual intentions until the very end, and by then I was wholeheartedly rooting for them to succeed. By the end, nothing was resolved and I was confused. I don't suggest that I am a genius of reading between the lines, but shouldn't it have been the least bit obvious that he was duping this woman? And how had she not caught on when she was clearly not as weak-minded as her father professed her to be? I'm just a girl who wanted a nice, attractive man to fall in love with an awkward, introspective girl.. Is that too much to ask Henry James? Truthfully, I fell in love with this movie like many other romantic period pieces, (such as Jane Eyre 2010, The Young Victoria, A Royal Affair, The Widow of St.Pierre, The Piano, and P&P 2005) and I literally stayed up until 5 in the morning to finish this movie because I was so enthralled, but the ending killed me. I am writing this review from the grave. Already I am rewriting and editing the ending to fix my own selfish purpose settling my whiplashed mind. Had that scene in the rain ended differently, I would be dreaming soundly in my bed at this early hour instead of writing this review with a heavy heart and bunched up nerves. I give this movie a three for the sake of the beginning, but I am so distraught that a three is all I could muster. Hopefully those interested in a movie of amazing and fresh historical romance and drama will skip the ending and make their own after reading my review.

LouE15 (** no serious story spoilers **) This is a very sexed-up dramatisation of the great Henry James' original novel. However, the novel is a masterpiece of nuance and understated psychological drama, and for once I freely forgive director Agnieszka Holland for taking daring liberties: I think it's a better film for it, even if it's not a better adaptation. Ben Chaplin's beautiful 'hero' is ideally cast, a man with just a hint of vain menace to his passionate approaches. And Jennifer Jason Leigh gives an excellent, quietly confident performance as the plain, unloved Catherine Sloper, which will always make me admire her skill and bravery; plus the tension and even heat she helps generate in her scenes with Chaplin feel very real and powerful.In "Washington Square", Catherine Sloper, only surviving child of the formidable, rich and widowed Doctor Sloper, attracts the attentions of a young, handsome and clever man, one Morris Townsend. Catherine falls in love with Morris, and a battle of wits ensues as Catherine's father attempts to expose the young man as a fortune-hunter, and Morris attempts to secure Catherine without paying too high a price for her; while Catherine's dreadful aunt Penniman (wonderful Maggie Smith) meddles everywhere. The battle escalates and the stakes turn out to be painfully high for them all. To begin with, this is Chaplin's and Finney's film, lingering over their witty and pointed exchanges. Finney is masterful in his dry, clever, laconic performance as Doctor Sloper, carrying out beautifully, and to a perfect pitch, the amused detachment of the elegant and rather cruel man in the novel. (For an early Finney performance, check out 1970's "The Gumshoe".) But as the story develops, Catherine's growing confidence and dignity are a marvellous contrast to the increasing bafflement of the once assured and urbane Doctor. This exchange, late in the original novel, between the Doctor and Catherine's kind aunt, Mrs Almond, shows something of the metal of both their characters: "At first I had a good deal of a certain genial curiosity about it; I wanted to see if she really would stick. But, good Lord, one's curiosity is satisfied! I see she is capable of it, and now she can let go." "She will never let go," said Mrs. Almond. "Take care, or you will exasperate me too. If she doesn't let go, she will be shaken off--sent tumbling into the dust! That's a nice position for my daughter. She can't see that if you are going to be pushed you had better jump. And then she will complain of her bruises." "She will never complain," said Mrs. Almond.Any girl who's ever felt ugly, unloved and underestimated by her family or friends, should I think draw moral support from this film. It's very sad, very poignant and real, but manages to deliver out of the rather dismal ending of the book, a really quite positive message about survival, and that rather old-fashioned sounding (but nonetheless important) concept – moral courage. If you enjoyed this intense and well-cast film, I'd highly recommend your reading Henry James' extraordinary and deep novel to fully flesh out the nuances of the story.

glencominc I do not know who is to blame, Miss Leigh or her director, but her performance as Catherine is almost impossible to watch. Ben Chaplin on the other hand does a superior job - against all odds as far as I am concerned. His character is entirely too charming and appealing. but certainly not shown as greedy enough, to put up with Leigh's character's silliness. Chaplin appears bemused by what cannot possibly be understood as Leigh's shyness and lack of grace, but rather her orthopedic unsteadiness. There has to be some element of believability to his interest, but as played it is incomprehensible. The performances do not jibe. Maggie Smith and Albert Finney are, of course, wonderful despite any effort to derail them. The supporting cast is also a pleasure to watch. What a pity, too, the leads don't work together because the production is lovely to look at.

style-2 This adaptation, like 1949's *The Heiress*, is based on the Henry James novel. *The Heiress*, starring Olivia de Havilland, remains as a well-respected piece of work, though less true to James' original story than this new remake, which retains James' original title. It is the story of a awkward, yet loving daughter (Leigh), devoted to her father (Finney) after her mother dies during childbirth. The arrogant father holds his daughter in no esteem whatsoever, and considers her, as well as all women, simpleminded. When a young man (Chaplin) of good family and little fortune comes courting, the Father is naturally suspicious, but feeling so sure that his daughter could hold no interest for any man, is convinced that the young man is a fortune hunter and forbids her to see him. Leigh is a controversial actress – most either love her or hate her – and she always has a particular edginess and tenseness to her style, like she's acting through gritted teeth. She's not bad in this, and she handles her role relatively deftly – it's just an awkward role for any actress, making the audience want to grab the character by her shoulders and shake her until she comes to her senses. While the character garners a lot of sympathy, she's not particularly likable. The very handsome and immensely appealing Ben Chaplin (previously seen in *The Truth About Cats and Dogs*) plays his role with the exact amount of mystery required to keep the audience guessing whether he is after her fortune, or is really in love with her. Maggie Smith is one of the finest actresses alive and raises the level of the movie considerably with her portrayal of the well-meaning aunt. Finney is marvelous, of course, as the father who threatens to disinherit his daughter for her disobedience, but the daughter is willing to risk that for the man she loves. But does her ardent suitor still want her without her fortune? This is only one instance where *Washington Square* differs from *The Heiress*. Another instance is the ability to stick with it. It is a handsome movie that is as tedious as a dripping faucet, offering too little story in too long of a movie.