Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

mmunier I remember fondly the 85' version and thought worthwhile to see what could be done again with it. Alas I'm not much of a reader and so never read the book. As usual when I come here I enjoy and learn much out of other's comments. Doing so I found interesting to see a variety of comments about it sometimes contradictory but here quite united in the displeasure of the ending! I watched it on our Sydney now only commercial free channel and must admit I was generally pleased with the performance of the leading characters. Yes Maggie Smith was very much missing. Otherwise I was not too disturbed by few changes. Lucy worked well for me. As for the ending I thought it was a little bizarre and unexpected but I like to give credit for the producer for making their own choices even if sometimes I disagree with them. I understand though that there should be some kind of respect for the original work. Well I had a good time with it and don't regret the time it took to watch it as some suggested we should. Perhaps it's not always a good idea to impose on others one's feelings. But at the end of it there are just written words, not orders!

gilliann CASTING: A+ -- I thought that George Emerson in this production had a down-to-earth sexiness that was much more appealing than Julian Sands' version. The class differences were emphasized to very good effect in this one -- by comparison, Sands' Mr. Emerson seemed like an aristocrat, which made it harder to see the family's class objections. Lucy and the other characters were all played very well also -- the only character I didn't love was the elder Mr. Emerson, who was too much of a broad caricature for me here -- I preferred him in the original version, where he was my favorite character altogether. (I must admit that since Harry Potter, I can't see Timothy Spall without ears and whiskers -- he will be Peter Pettigrew/Scabbers forever in my mind).PLOT-CHANGE: F- This actually ruined the whole thing for me -- it made me furious! I never read the Forster novel, so after watching Davies' ending, I assumed that this must have been Forster's original ending, and reasoned that the Merchant/Ivory version must have been re-fitted with a false happy ending, because who would ever do the reverse? However, as I cried for fifteen minutes after the program ended, I knew that I definitely preferred the happy ending, manufactured or not -- the tragedy just seemed WRONG. How much angrier I was when I found out that Forster's novel DID have a happy ending! Good God! (Is that who Andrew Davies thinks he is?!) I've never heard of adapting a novel by changing the ending into a tragedy -- it doesn't fit, it subverts the whole point, and it ruined my evening. Andrew Davies, get over your pseudo-artistic self -- that stupid, ridiculous ending was a travesty. If Davies wanted to get attention for originality, he certainly did -- and from the reviews I've seen, it's overwhelmingly in the form of disgust.

Dewhistle I enjoyed the Helena Bonham-Carter version of this film far more. It captured the humor and romance of the story. It had some light in it. It was alive as any story should be. Even with its flaws, as in the rather lethargic portrayal of George by Julian Sands, it still made you feel more than this version.Now to this newer film... The actors tried, you can see that. But it was as if the characters, scenes, music, and plot points were all pieces from some kit that had been assembled without instructions and with some special touches meant to make it prettier in the eyes of the assembler. The mood was dark, scenes that should have been funny were serious, scenes that were serious were either clumsy or Stygian in their gloominess. Conversations were awkward and forced. Explanations were few and both plot and character development were hasty and scanty as a result. All to make room, no doubt, for the artistic vision of the director or writer, whoever we have to blame. For, as others have said here, we have as our constant companion an older Lucy who is not living life to the fullest as the movie tries hard to discuss at one point, but revisiting places where she did her living. The places are dark, changed, almost black-and-white in their mood. The familiar "indoors in the daytime with the lights switched off" feeling is present. And if the place had been bright and full of people it would still have been poor Lucy remembering how she got her husband who... ah, here's a spoiler for you...The romantic ending arrives but leaps, mind you, from Lucy running into a pond thinking to save a drowning George (who apparently was just having a nice float face down in a murky pond) straight to a sex scene in Italy which is just long enough to make you cry, "Good grief, they're nude!" before it cuts to the "after" sequence which always involves people laying under white sheets, chuckling to one another. And once they have you in full apprehension of a joyous happy ending (in spite of making no effort to explain the process of it), a quick artsy-craftsy shot of the beautiful sky outside fades, amid strains of wailing operatic soprano, to a shot of a stone dead British soldier lying, face frozen in a last look of horror, on the edge of a trench as the night flashes with bomb blasts. Yes, it's George, who after all that grinning which seemed to be his main job in the film, has fallen prey to the warmongers and left his Lucy to mourn.If they were thinking to bring poignancy to the story I think they overdid it. There was too much bitter for the sweet to compete. And to save time for such rubbish, they made sure we hardly got to know the characters, and as a result, much of the plot, since their motivations drove the story as is usual with Forster's books.The only good thing I can say about it is that I don't think there was anything in it that was so good that it was wasted in a bad movie. It all pretty much tanked.

pawebster I'm not sure why they made this version. The 1985 film had covered the ground well and been a big success.This version has its good points, however:* It gives a much more powerful feeling of the class divide and the tyranny of delicacy and propriety in the Edwardian period. This is mainly due to Sophie Thompson, who fearlessly makes Charlotte unlikeable in her embarrassed fussiness - even going a little too far in this. In the previous film, Maggie Smith possibly showed too much strength of character in the role - too much Maggie Smith, perhaps.* Rafe Spall is the best feature of this version. He shows much more lust for life - and for Lucy - than Julian Sands did. Sands was a cold fish in comparison. Also, Sands spoke with a fairly upper-class accent (quite unlike his father's) that negated the idea of his coming from a lower class. Admittedly there is a problem with Spall-George's talkativeness. He has a lot more to say for himself than he really should have, especially in the early parts of the story. That is the end of the good points. Now for the bad:* Elaine Cassidy makes Lucy live more than Helena B-C did, but at the cost of being much too knowing, pushy and generally modern than the character is in the book. This is a big flaw that strikes at the heart of the story. It is also much clearer that Lucy is, in fact, fascinated by George - for example she accepts both his stolen kisses fairly readily. Helena B-C truly seemed to dislike him, thus necessitating all the captions (taken from the book) spelling out that she was "lying". * Lawrence Fox is also bad in this. Where Daniel Day Lewis went over the top in prissiness, Fox just seems too sleepy. He specialises in this (see his role in 'Lewis'). How does he get the parts?* The bad, bad, bad point, as many have already noted, is the ending. I can only think that Andrew Davies was desperate to make his version stand out as really different. Having George die is as stupid as if Mr Darcy were to die at the end of Pride and Prejudice. (Have others noticed the parallels between the two books?) As for having Lucy take up with the coachman, words fail me. I suppose Davies wanted to show she had really thrown aside convention. Nevertheless, it stinks.