User reviews

Is this film a worthy interpretation of "Brideshead Revisited"? Well, up to a point, Lord Copper, as another one of Evelyn Waugh's characters was wont to say.

First, scriptwriter Andrew Davies, a past master of adaptation of great and not-so great literary works, has put the focus on the Charles and Julia love story rather than the Charles and Sebastian 'romantic friendship' as Cara, Lord Marchmain's Italian mistress puts it. The religious aspect is dealt with almost incidentally.

Second, Lady Marchmain, as played by Emma Thompson, is a very grim person with total emotional control over her children and whose particular Christian beliefs means that she is indifferent to their suffering as to her this life is a mere precursor to the glorious afterlife – the same attitude as a 9/11 hi-jacker in fact. She has none of the sweetness that Claire Bloom brought to the 1981 TV series.

Third, some of the performances owe a good deal to those in the TV series, especially Matthew Goode as Charles who has an uncanny likeness to Jeremy Irons. And of course Castle Howard reprises its role as Brideshead. Some characters were reduced to ciphers; for example Bridey who played by Simon Jones stole several scenes in 1981 but the part is reduced to a non-entity here. Michael Gambon, a consummate actor, gives us a new take on Lord Marchmain to compare with Lawrence Olivier's earlier version.

Overall, though, I was left with the impression this film has not much to say which is new. Like the recent feature film version of "Pride and Prejudice", it gives a broad outline of the story but misses out much of the rich context provided by the minor characters. Oh, read the book instead.

I have never read the book or seen the miniseries, so my experience wasn't clouded by already existing expectations and assumptions of the characters. Instead I was awaiting a first, and therefore unbiased look into the world of Brideshead.

As a film, it is okay bordering on good and solid. The performances are strong enough to keep the audience interested, but they do not keep us enthralled. The leads are savvy and sexy in their own rights, but they lack true appeal as performers. They can come off as rather dull in certain scenes, but in others they pull out a subtle presence that is called for in intimate, or more emotion scenes. This inconsistence was bothersome and hindered the overall telling of the story. The one presence that is felt, but is far too short is that of Emma Thompson. As the matriarchal head of the family, she is brutal and works well with the one dimensional writing she was given. If they had focused more on her, we would have been able to understand the tortured minds of Julia and Sebastian better. Instead they have Julia and Sebastian describe her to the audience, which keeps us from getting close enough to realize what deformed her mind to begin with.

Charles is, at times to weak and unsure to be accepted as someone we want to see happy. We end up being unsure of his character's intention, and not in a mysterious, purposeful way, but in a, "the film-making is too unclear" way. Is Charles just a social climber whose dreams are dashed by his wants and Atheist ways? Or is he a moral soul lost in the pull of Brideshead's condemning Catholic trappings? This is the major flaw to the film, Charles is never exposed.

Small framing problems and out-of-style shots hampered the visual appeal, but with that aside, the visuals are very lush and the score complements some well placed montages to give the viewer a true sense of the desired never-ending summer Charles and Sebastian so desperately dream after.

If you like British tales of class and religion, or period films, this one is not a letdown. It is nothing new, but nothing terrible either. I recommend it if this is your sort of thing, I was not disappointed, but I wasn't blown away.

It's attributed to just about everybody - from Ginger Rogers to Milan Kundera - and it sounds so right: "There are no small parts, only small actors."

If you want proof and a real understanding of the adage, revisit "Brideshead Revisited," and behold the miracle of Emma Thompson's Lady Marchmain, sucking the life out of anything and anybody she touches, and Michael Gambon's delightfully dissolute Lord Marchmain. She has about 10 minutes on the screen, he perhaps four, and yet their characters will follow you out of the theater, and stay with you at length.

Thompson's work is especially dazzling because the mean, sanctimonious character is so clearly alien to the actress (in fact, I suspected miscasting when I first heard of her assignment) and also as the character is so exaggerated, almost a caricature. And yet, Thompson gives the challenge her all, and walks away with it; the performance has Best Supporting Actress written all over it.

It's difficult to believe that the man you see as Marchmain is the same actor who was the "Singing Detective" (of the superb BBC series, not the Robert Downey Jr. mishap). Gambon has a range as wide as all outdoors, and you never ever see effort in the performance. His amiable Marchmain - subtly hinting at a complex character under the surface - has a physical similarity to Gambon's Uncle Vanya on the London stage, but otherwise, it's a unique creation.

What else is there to this new "edition" of "Brideshead"? A great deal, but only if you're among those who missed both Evelyn Waugh's novel and the wonderful Granada TV realization 27 long years ago - Irons! Gielgud! Olivier! - how can you compete with that? So, if it's a first-time visit, see the movie by all means; if you can recite lines from the book or the TV series, you can survive without the new version.

In 135 minutes, the film is handling well what the TV series did so completely in - yes - 13 HOURS. Obviously, except for the basic story line (script by Jeremy Brock, of "The Last King of Scotland"), this is a different kind of animal, still "leisurely" enough, but unable to luxuriate in the smallest details as the series did. The director is Julian Jarrold, and he is doing far better than in his recent "Becoming Jane," keeps the story moving in a smooth fashion.

As to the leading roles in the film, they are all well acted, but without great impact. Matthew Goode is Charles Ryder, the focal character; Ben Whishaw is the slightly over-flamboyant Sebastian Flyte (who needs understating more than exaggerating - Anthony Andrews' performance in the TV series was exactly right); Hayley Atwell is Sebastian's sister (and rival for Charles' affection).

One amazing thing about "Brideshead" is how this story from a different time, about characters from a different world, remains interesting and meaningful. It's almost as if Waugh's work was bulletproof - not that these filmmakers were less than respectful to the author. A better test would be a Eurotrash opera version, heaven forfend.

Every once in a few decades something like Brideshead comes along. No wonder anyone would want to try to relive that magic! So now there is Brideshead the movie. That means the director had to grasp the original TV show in two hours, so no other choice than a 'The Best Of' compilation remains, it seems.The disadvantage of it is, that what is left out suddenly becomes painfully missing.

All of us who have watched the TV series know it is virtually impossible to surpass it, in film or TV production. Nevertheless, I tried to watch it without prejudice. Overall not a bad movie, but no, not the magical resonance the original had.

All I can do is summarize in details the pluses and minuses of the film versus the TV production so here it goes:

The fathers from original were two of the best actors of the century; John Geilgud (Shakespeare) and the (incomparable) Laurence Olivier. Geilgud plays brilliantly the teasing but not totally indifferent father, who seems stop Charles from the insipid surroundings in the summer but finally lets him go. In the TV series the actor is more serious, and the fun is not there. Laurence had probably one of the best performances of all, and clearly echoes his naughtiness as he portrayed in A Little Romance then a few years earlier. His unpredictability which finally makes him decide for his daughter is well done, especially considered his playground was virtually no more than a static death bed! And then the scene where he is offered a ride in a car down the steps, which he refuses since he doesn't want to admit it might be his last.

Matthew Goode does quite a good job as a substitute of Jeremy Irons. I like especially his ambivalent apparition (homosexual, heterosexual, both, or doesn't it matter?). But he lacks the wonderful narrating voice of Irons, which research has shown to be one of the best around. In the film the romance between Charles and Sebastian's sister is elaborated much more. Partially I agree with this choice. In the original not enough scenes were implanted for credibility, except probably the scene where Charles lights her cigarette. They were virtually strangers meeting again on the cruiser years later and nevertheless they seemed to suddenly hit it off. The sister was not what stood Charles' and Sebastian's friendship in the way. The filmmakers choose for more stress on their impending romance. I think the TV original did this better; it was the family that Charles became part of, and Sebastian's indifference to love that became unsurpassable problems. In original the mother was almost invisible, with the exception of some quotes on her son like 'I don't understand it', which summed it all up. We do not need the dialog in the film where she explains herself, and wonders why her kids hate her. Understatement is much more powerful, also in the scene 'I'll say no more' between Charles and Julia, in which it becomes clear religion has driven them apart. One sentence can be enough.

All this was at the cost of stress Sebastian could have had, and got in the TV original. Most of the magic of Brideshead was simply Anthony Andrews' performance. Worse, the movie clearly alludes to a homosexual relationship, which it did not need to be. Sebastian was a love object, and could be loved by anyone, in any way. But then again, it might be hard finding someone that could deliver the line about Sebastian as Irons narrated: 'his beauty, arresting'. Charm was the problem, the danger. That missed in this film. It was charm that nearly got Charles astray, as told by the queer friend years later in his atelier. The film omitted this important scene, where that friend tried to warn Charles for Sebastian. At the time we all thought it was a nasty remark, but later on he seemed to be right. Or was the charm not an illusion after all? The film simply did not have enough time to build up the charm Sebastian surely had in the TV original. In the TV series Charles was shown first with boring friends, and it then became shortly a coming of age story, where he got introduced in a more fun crowd with Sebastian. This phase delivered some of the best scenes of the story, with his queer friend talking loud over the campus, or Sebastian dressing up as a man with mustache. Sebastian showed Charles other worlds, which real or not, were unforgettable. The film had to rush this too much, and therefore the introduction scene with the spring eggs lost its magic.

One of the few pluses was much less stress on Cordelia, the little girl. But the minus was she acted as an indirect narrator of the importance of religion. Now it had to be compensated for in dialog with the mother and Julia, which was in TV better since there meaning came out of things not said.

Many things I missed, but you can not cram all in two hours. But lines like 'I would like to remember Sebastian, how he were that summer, when we walked through the enchanted place' should have been told again.

The end was nicely done, with Charles finally not pinching candlelight, symbolic for the charm of that family that was still alive in him. I liked there the Irons narrative though 'Was it all vanity? Etc.'

I would say, it was a brave attempt, something like making a remake of 2001, or Casablanca or Breakfast at Tiffany's, and the acting was all well done. Also camera work, and story adaptation. But who can surpass Anthony Andrews, or Jeremy Irons, or Gielgud or Olivier?

As with any film which follows a beloved mini-series it is nearly impossible to escape the shadow. When watching this film you'll find yourself constantly comparing it to the mini-series and more often than not the memory of the mini-series comes out ahead.

That being said, I still very much enjoyed the film. As with other recent English remakes (Pride & Prejudice, BBC's Sense & Sensibility) you really appreciate the beauty of modern film making. The cinematography, the score, and the ever beautiful Castle Howard, Venice, and Oxford alone are worth the watching in my opinion. There are also some great performances. Matthew Goode's Charles rivals that of Jeremy Iron's, Hayley Atwell's Julia (in a more central role than that of the mini-series) was also quite good. I also found myself rather enjoying Charles' wife Celia (Anna Madeley) even in such a small role.

The real failure of the film seems to be the difficulty with compressing 11 hours into 2. Everything is forced to move faster and the more quite, gentle, and simple scenes are lost. What's left then is a distillation of the most dramatic moments. As a result the film loses the subtlety of the mini-series. The religious bits are played up a bit too much and makes the characters slightly unbelievable. Emma Thompson is great as always, but her character of Lady Marchmain as written is too over bearing, too controlling, too inhuman. The character of Sebastian is louder than in the mini-series and becomes jaded before you care much for him. Indeed, I didn't find myself caring particularly much for any of the characters except perhaps Charles.

Still, if you don't have 11 hours on hand to spend watching the mini-series, this is a suitable substitute and is worth watching at least once at any rate. As long as you don't go in expecting an equal to the mini-series you'll enjoy it and may even find a moment or two which improves upon the original.

Among many of the most prestigious literature selections, not to mention mini-series, Brideshead Revisited not only wasn't on my radar, I didn't even know if it would be the kind of well-regarded literature or mini-series I intended to watch. But as this newly revised picture, now a mere 136 minutes vs 10 hours, it looked interesting if only as a kind of "handsomely made" picture (you know the kind, along the lines of Atonement for recent comparison). I was also intrigued by the allure of a huge, sprawling mansion here called Brideshead, as it reminded me of Alain Resnais's film Last Year at Marienbad and how memories and recollections and lost love and hope is explored in the spaces of this dark, cold region of exquisite luxury. Some of that is explored in this film, and some of it... isn't.

It's for the most part a fairly tragic story of a young man, Charles (Matthew Goode, charming and suave but also subtle and down-beat, a really fine turn), who enrolls at Oxford and meets a meek/'fey' guy named Sebastian, and through him he's introduced (reluctantly in point of fact) to Sebastian's family, including his sister Julia, and his very cold and strident mother (Emma Thompson). Sebastian really wants Charles all for himself - it's a friendship that goes just a nose-hair's length into admitting homosexuality but never really goes that far despite all appearances to the contrary - but he becomes apart of the fold, and as well falling deeply in love with Julia against 'other' wishes (mostly the matriarch's over Charles's religion).

There's a lot of the fragility of the bourgeois on display here, the arrogance and detachment that's shown very closely by the director for maximum effect. Unlike a Resnais he's not about to get too experimental with the camera; he's a careful craftsman more often than not, allowing for just enough wonderment of the whole Brideshead atmosphere to really sink into how it could be a double-edged sword of perception. And as is bound to happen with material this sprawling (at one point time jumps back 10 years, then ahead 4 years, until we kind of know where we are), a lot seems to be cut out. While it altogether makes a coherent and entertaining enough picture, I wonder how much more of a benefit this would make as an epic, where we are absorbed more fully with the Oxford school or Charles and Sebastian or even the parents (who, thankfully, are played wonderfully here by cold-as-ice Thompson and fascinatingly guilt-ridden and subtle Michael Gambon), or how the wealth structure even works here.

Indeed, I found myself not so much involved with the Charles/Sebastian stuff, even as it's fairly well-acted and well-shot enough, as I was with the themes of religion raised in the picture. This caught me off guard and hinted at something deeper being expounded upon. Yet, again, we get just tastes of what's offered more than likely in the original text, tastes that are powerful like a 'last-rites' argument, and the tortured state of being raised from the cradle with an intense, overbearing Catholic conscience.

No love story can be altogether gratifying in which the central choices are decided by the mother of the woman in love, even less, when she is the mother of both lovers, and has faith that she is protecting their everlasting spirits. That is what seems to be the predicament in Evelyn Waugh's novel, now adapted into a stagnant film in which one is not invited to feel or react due to its own lack of feeling or solidly portrayed consequence.

This film version focuses on forbidden love and the death of purity, set before WWII. Matthew Goode, who was excellent as the villain in The Lookout, becomes spellbound with a noble family, first because of his friendship with a charming, provocative, apparently homosexual contemporary, and then his sister. The fluctuation of Goode's obsessions suggest the decay of a self-indulgent upper crust in England flanked by the two World Wars, related in the course of his recurring stays at the Brideshead estate. What's more fundamental to Waugh's story is the harsh Catholicism of the family, as imposed by their matriarch, played by Emma Thompson, the high point of the film by far. Their religious beliefs are confronted by the son's homosexuality, the daughter's adulterous liaison with Goode, and Goode's atheism.

There are two curious fathers in the film. Michael Gambon is one, still legitimately married sure enough, but is ostracized, living in a Venetian palazzo with his mistress, Greta Scacchi in an unexpected comeback. Goode's father is a definite oddball who lives enclosed in a London house and seemingly favors playing chess with himself to talking to his son.

The main character is a penniless, virtually parentless youth drifting through an alien social system. Goode plays him featurelessly really, a nondescript motor for the other characters. Ben Whishaw steals all of his scenes as the gay son. The daughter could definitely have been portrayed more warily. The actress, Hayley Atwell makes the most of her I suppose, but why would she marry the revolting and unbearable suitor instead of Goode?

I am sure that the reason this film is not very effective at all is because so much background and source material is condensed and maybe sacrificed into such a shorter running time. But why are so many other adaptations effective in spite of this factor?

The greatness of the original Brideshead Revisited was in the luxury of being able to transpose a very complicated emotional and intellectual book into words. It succeeded in this, but only just, due to superb direction, photography and script which, even in its sparseness, only just allowed the successful transition to film. The problem with anything shorter is that, if it took Mortimer so many episodes to get it right, then there are very few writers who could even get near in under 4 hours, if that. So lets stop beating about the bush. This is a sound reproduction of the calender plot but after that it is not Brideshead Revisited. Call it by another name and I will laud it. It brings in a strong homosexual element and a early sexual attraction between Charles Ryder and Miss Flyte. With that everything becomes unbalanced. Motivations change. The beauty of the original is that it hinted at ????something (a je ne sais quoi) and it was that and the ever strengthening Catholic awareness of family that made this film so fascinating. The original's masterpiece was the script supported by the cine photography. That has been lost. But taken as is, a pretty and interesting film which seems to be loosely based on an early fifties work by Waugh.

"Brideshead Revisited" (2008) is a British film directed by Julian Jarrold, based on the novel by Evelyn Waugh. The movie is told in flashback. During WW II, an English officer--Charles Ryder, played by Mathew Goode--is stationed at Brideshead, the same immense country home at which he was a guest many years earlier.

Charles is a successful artist, who had met the wealthy Sebastian Flyte (played by Ben Whishaw), who lived at Brideshead, when they were both undergraduates.

In the flashback, Ryder is fascinated by Flyte, one of the "Bright Young Things" who represented the height of elegance and sophistication in the years between the two world wars. (Victorian ideals of gallantry and noble patriotism had pretty much been destroyed by the gas and filth of WW I. The next upper-class generation valued wit and alcohol more.)

Emma Thompson plays Lady Marchmain, who presides over Brideshead in an imperious, overbearing way. (Wit and alcohol don't appeal to her--the only thing more important to her than the proper dress for dinner is her profound Catholic faith.) Also at Brideshead is Sebastian's sister, Julia Flyte (Hayley Atwell) with whom Ryder falls in love.

The plot of the film involves the attraction of Charles to both Julia and Sebastian, the importance of art in a world of commerce, and--in this movie--the stultifying effects of intense faith.

The problem with "Brideshead Revisited" is that we don't really care about any of the characters. Charles has a genuine desire to be an artist, but that's the only positive attribute that we see. Sebastian is drunk most of the time, and cynical whether drunk of sober. Julia is immensely attractive, especially in the early scenes when her hair is styled in a the severe, Louise Brooks fashion, but she has little else to recommend her.

Emma Thompson is, as always, fascinating to watch and to hear. In my opinion, she is one of the greatest English-language actors in the world, and I can only marvel at her skill. However, the character she plays is rigid, haughty, and fanatical, so there is no way you can like or admire her.

Castle Howard is used as the setting for Brideshead. It's not really a castle--its a huge manor house set on an enormous estate. (If the film were entitled, "Great Houses of England," Castle Howard would get star billing.) You can't help but be impressed by this glorious residence, with its expensive furnishings and dozens of staff. However, a beautiful house, a star performance, and a great hair style don't add up to a wonderful movie. There was probably a wonderful movie in here somewhere, but this wasn't it.

The film is worth seeing for what it has to offer, but don't pass up a better film to see this one.

I haven't read Evelyn Waugh's famous 1945 novel or seen Granada's acclaimed 1981 television adaptation. so I approached the story fresh, as indeed will most viewers of this quintessentially England tale of the repressive nature of religion and class. I understand that the adaptation by Andrew Davies and Jeremy Brock has taken some liberties with the original, more subtle narrative, but this is inevitable in a work of just 133 minutes compared to the 11 episodes of the television series.

Directed by the English Julian Jarrold who made "Becoming Jane", the film has many strengths. There are wonderful locations in Oxford, Venice, Morocco and above all Castle Howard in North Yorkshire standing in - as in the television version - as the eponymous country house that is almost a character in itself. The script contains some fine lines - often very cutting and very cruel. Above all, there is some accomplished acting, both from veterans Michael Gambon and Emma Thompson as Lord and Lady Marchmain and newcomers Ben Whishaw and Hayley Attwell as their son Sebastian and daughter Julia and Matthew Goode as Charles Ryder, a young artist who falls in love in different ways with both Sebastian and Julia as well as their home and style.

Sadly, however, ultimately the whole film seems somewhat pedestrian and leaves one feeling strangely cold and disconnected.

I read that the movie is based on a 1945 novel and 11 hours 1981 UK television serial.

Charles Ryder (Matthew Goode) goes to Oxford to study painting, and befriends a rich lad Sebastian Flyte (Ben Whishaw), who takes Charles to his palatial mansion – Brideshead. There Charles meets orthodox religious family of Sebastian – his sister Julia (Hayley Atwell) and his mother Lady Marchmain (Emma Thompson). Events unfold where Charles and Julia start loving each other – but face the passionate jealousy of Sebastian. Julia marries another man, Charles marries Celia (Anna Madeley) and Sebastian runs away to Morocco in depression. Lady Marchmain requests Charles to bring back Sebastian, but without success. Ten years pass and Charles and Julia meet again – just to be together. Do they succeed in being together? Go and see the movie for yourself.

I have not read the book, nor have I seen the television serial, so I was not exposed to any comparison of sorts. From what I saw on screen – except a few drastic editing cuts – and jumping of events, I could not find anything out of place.

The production values of the movie are outstanding; the cinematography amazing; the eye to details perfect; the acting from the star cast – top notch (especially the display of eye movements of each characters, that say much more than words).

Director Julian Jarrold (his third directorial venture) has done a commendable job in bringing to life an epic saga of sorts in nearly 120 minutes – 2 hours of length. A magnamus task to achieve. I am sure he himself would be dis-satisfied with many of those important events to be left out while editing. Julian has develop this nack of handling British family sagas with wealthy opulence around.

The palatial location of Brideshead is depicted with so much panache, that it is nearly like a dream land. The location a real Chatsworth House in Derbyshire.

Regarding the cast – Emma Thompson stands tall above all – with her short but pivotal role. Next comes Ben Whishaw with near the edge feminine guesture. He sets the screen ablaze with his intensity. The main protagonist – Matthew Goode, plays an under-written and subdued character of sorts – that is an atheist, and an observer. He is the common string across the movie and floats easily with all events and character ranges – with equal grace.

For those who have not read the novel or seen the TV series, this shorter version is a good curtain raiser. So go and see and enjoy the magna opus. I liked it.

(Stars 7.25 out of 10)

I went to watch "Brideshead Revisited" without read Evelyn Waugh's novel and not knowing much about what it was so my opinions will be reserved exclusively about my thoughts about the movie, no kinds of comparisons whatsoever.

The movie tells the story of Charles Ryder (Matthew Goode) an artist remembering his involvement with the owners of the Brideshead estate, the aristocratic and Catholic Flyte family. He meets the drunk and rebel Sebastian (Ben Whishaw) and his enigmatic sister Julia (Hayley Atwell). Charles got romantically involved with both brother and sister (a challenge for viewers like me who haven't read the book and didn't understand the characters motivation especially those from Charles). And in the middle of all this there's the religious mother of the Flyte family (played by Emma Thompson) and their absent father living in Venice (played by Michael Gambon).

Looking to the film as a whole I think (and everyone's entitled to have their own opinion) that it is almost empty with nothing much to say, nothing much to show and it's very difficult to understand what the director wanted, what the writers wanted. Is it a story about a period or the story of a confused man? We know a man and his life then he meets this rich and complicated family, gets involved romantically with brother and sister, he doesn't really knows what love is and keeps going with his life. So what's the point?

The ambitions and motivations of the characters are uneasy, barely visible on the text written and I assume that only those who read the book might understand some of the things presented. About the relationship between Charles and Sebastian it was a weak presentation, something that sounded important to the story but in the end drove the viewer confused. They were sexually involved or it was just fooling around? I was expecting something like "Maurice" a powerful and difficult love story between two men set in a period similar to the "Brideshead".

Speaking of "Maurice" it reminds me that "Brideshead Revisited" needed a director like James Ivory to conduct this film more brilliantly and with a better screenplay. This material on the hands of Merchant Ivory would be fantastic, perhaps even winning a Oscar. The costumes and the art direction were excellent but a little bit eclipsed by a dark cinematography.

Besides the good technical aspects of the film it is watchable because of the good cast. Matthew Goode proves here that he can be a great lead man on a film; Emma Thompson was excellent and got the best part in the film; my only complaint comes from Ben Whishaw, who was good but the delicacy delivered by his character was excessive in some moments in which I couldn't care for his character, perhaps a bad touch coming from the screenplay.

It's another good case of a good movie that could be greater than it is. Needed a better director, a better writer and definitely a better screenplay. For a film with almost three hours it's very empty in substance. More cowbell here! 8/10

P.S.: Rewatched in 2017, and I'll keep most of my thoughts on it just as the first time of seeing it. It grows a little on the viewer due to its important themes about social/cultural/economical clashes and the influence rich people have on less fortuned people of whom they somewhat depend on in difficult times. Gotta admit those themes were greatly presented.

Two young men meet at Oxford , impressionable Charles Ryder (Matthew Goode) , though of no family , exception for his father , neither money, becomes friends with aristo Sebastian Flyte (Ben Whishaw) when the latter throws up in his college room through an open window. . He then invites Charles to lunch after his teddy bear Aloysius "refuses to talk to him" unless he is forgiven. Charles becomes involved with Sebastian's family , Catholic peers of the realm in Protestant England. Charles is intrigued by family's curious relation to God and each other. The story is told in flashback as Charles, now an officer in the British Army, is moved with his company to an English country house that he discovers to be Brideshead , Sebastian's family home where Charles has a series of memories of his youth , his yearns and thunderous relations .Love is not ours to control Privilege. Ambition. Desire. At Brideshead Everything Comes at a Price. Every temptation has its price.

A sensitive and touching family saga, concerning enjoyable relationships , good feeling , emotion and moving scenes , including awesome interpretations with outcast roles were pretty well developed . The story is about spiritual values and how they survive in even the most unlikely of circumstance and how God works through people in the most unexpected surprising ways . This polished picture captures adequately a golden moment of youth and then the gradual disillusionment brought by the passage of time . Like all great works , Bridesehead revisited --both book written by Evelyn Waugh (1945) and movie --touches on a great many themes such as : changing characters , alcoholism , ambition , betrayal , adultery , loss of innocence , and most specifically an innocent type of homoeroticism . As the touching script becomes extremely affecting , containing an agreeable message , remembering the true meaning of our existence and the things that actually matter in the troublesome life . Dealing with main starring remembering with full of sensibility and attractiveness his young manhood , his loves , existence and a journey of faith and anguish. The film is good , but being much better the classic TV rendition Brideshead revisited (1981) by Charles Sturridge with Jeremy Irons , Anthony Andrews and Diana Quick .Here stands out the charming relationship between Matthew Goode and Ben Whishaw , in fact the movie seems more comfortable with the peculiar relationship between Charles and Sebastian than the relation between Charles and Julia . The interpretations here are truly nice beyond description , such as Matthew Goode , though really outstanding results to be Ben Whishaw and the attractive Hayley Atwell . Being accompanied by a very good suppport cast , such as : Emma Thompson , Michael Gambon, Felicity Jones, Greta Scacchi , Jonathan cake , Ed Stoppard , Patrick Malahide , Thomas Morrison, Nial Buggy , among others .

Sets are costumes are just so, and a brilliant cinematography by Jess Hall , as well as an evocative and moving musical score by Adrian Johnston. The motion picture was professionally directed by Julian Jarrold though it has some flaws . Jarrold is a good director and actor, descended from the founders of Jarrold Department Store and especially known for Kinky Boots (2005), Young Jane Austen (2007) and Brideshead Revisited (2008).

Having seen the 1981 mini-series of the same name I have to admit that I am spoiled on what the way this movie SHOULD have turned out. The 1981 mini-series captured everything from the book, including the true purpose of the movie - as a glimpse into the complicated lives of a group of English high society citizens, their Catholic religion, and the very subtle way they communicate strong points to each other. This last point, the subtlety, is of highest importance because the character development that comes along with it makes the original mini-series. The movie version has none of this. The characters are just crude summations and dim reflections of the complex beings presented in the mini-series. The entire point of the book is completely lost by this rushed compilation of scenes. None of the characters are developed thoroughly, even the main ones. The audience never connects with the lives of these people and certainly isn't enveloped in their world. I don't really have one good thing to say about this movie... it is an insult to the book and mini-series. I highly recommend that you see the mini-series, despite it being 11+ hours long, because only with that investment of time do you really see the original intention of this story.

Charles Ryder (Matthew Goode) embarks on a college career at England's Oxford University in the 1920's. Ensconsed firmly in the middle class, Charles is befriended soon after his arrival by a fellow student, Lord Sebastian Flyte (Ben Whishaw), who is gay and very, very rich. They begin a tentative relationship and, not long after this, Sebastian takes Charles to his family's breathtaking estate in the countryside. The young lord wants his new companion to meet his loving nanny, who still resides on the premises. But, the return of Sebastian's mother, Lady Marchmain (Emma Thompson) and young, beautiful sister Julia (Hayley Atwell) cuts the visit short as the aristocrat hustles Charles away from the scene. He declares that he does not want Charles to meet his poisonous family. But, they do all meet again when, on summer break, Sebastian summons Charles to his home, Brideshead, to comfort him over a broken foot. It is there that Charles moons over the opulent mansion and also learns of Lady Marchmain's staunch Catholic views and considerable influence over her offspring's life decisions. Also, Charles finds himself romantically drawn to Julia as well as her brother. The young trio set off very soon for Venice, to visit the family's patriarch (Michael Gambon) and his Italian mistress, Kara (Greta Scacchi). Events in the city of canals, however, set in motion a catastrophic change in Charles' life and, ultimately, a different direction for all of the others, too. How will the winds blow for Charles and for the wealthy Flytes? This is a sumptuous film, replete with stellar performances, a heart-wrenching story, faultless direction and a stunning artistic interpretation. First, the cast is superlative, with Goode and Whishaw most excellent as the young students and Atwell very lovely as the beautiful sister. Thompson's performances is a wonder in self-control, as one sees the tight grip she holds on herself to prevent any actions that might ruin her Catholic reputation. Gambon, Scacchi and the other lesser players are quite nice, too. The themes of the film (based on Waugh's novel) are complicated but very thought-provoking and could fill many hours of conversation. The direction is absolutely faultless while the artistic amenities of the film, the costumes, sets, and camera work, are out of this world. You will not find a more beautiful work of cinema for the rest of the year. Therefore, if you have not visited a theater in ages, do make time for Brideshead Revisited. It is the sort of film that makes cinema lovers go ga-ga.

The material is dated. With no real aristocracy around, we're left puzzled at the sympathetic portraits of a class of people who, yes, have problems just like the rest of us. The adaptation might have sharpened the role of dogma in today's world, but we're again puzzled (and a little impatient) at the clutch the Roman Catholic church holds over the family. While today's religious police are just as harmful, people can escape. Watching, we wonder, "Why don't you just leave?" And then one character does, but his damaged center seems to be about something other than the role of the church or his family (or even his sexuality). So I thought any impact is blunted because we have a difficult time relating to people's predicaments.

We do understand the central character's envelopment in the lives of people outside his class. His own father--in a very short scene at the beginning--sets up the hook the exotic Flyte family sinks, and Matthew Goode's portrayal of Charles Ryder is without a play for our sympathy nor does his attachment seem cynical or fortune seeking. All the Flytes show a genuine interest in him and he responds. The actor's poise is the same as Ryder's: He isn't either smart enough to know he's not an equal or his own convictions are stronger than the Roman Catholics he observes. His love of the extravagance of Brideshead is our own, and the film offers enough sumptuous scenery of the manor even though the entire film seems to suffer from budgetary restraint (the ship at sea is clearly a model, the Carnival scenes in Venice don't show its expanse, the costumes seem secondhand and don't fit anyone very well, etc.).

Emma Thompson is the sunniest of "Royal" British actresses, and while she's fine as Lady Marchmain, she doesn't convince us of her (1) aristocracy nor her (2) desperate religious convictions. She does make us understand her wanting to save her son from his alcoholism, but I never once thought she cared a whit about his soul. The role of Sebastian may be unplayable: Fey, a drunk, tortured by something unnamed and carrying a teddy bear...who could bring this off?

Matching Goode's performance as Julia, Haley Atwell is stupendous. When she and Goode's eyes meet we sit and wait for resolution of the sparks they set off. She reminded me of the young Glenda Jackson. But the esteemed Greta Scacchi as Cara (clearly the better choice to play Lady Marchmain) scores the most convincing portrayal in the film. Although brief, her warning to "tread carefully" sets up the only real drama in the entire film.

Whether or not you've seen the mini-series from the 1980's (only the snob would dismiss this quite worthwhile film), the drama that unfolds is far superior to last year's tedious and derivative "Atonement." While I don't think this film strikes the emotional chords that the film adaptation of another Waugh's work "A Handful of Dust" did (that film overcame many of the same outdated issues where this adaptation doesn't), it has little to apologize for and reminds us that society has evolved...even for the better.

The book by Evelyn Waugh is a masterpiece with great characters and memorable situations. The mini-series beforehand was sublime, brilliantly acted and exquisite in the details not to mention faithful. Now I am not a purist or anything, but this film could and should have been so much better considering how good the book is.

Granted the settings and cinematography are exquisite as are the costumes. And the music score was quite nice as well. However, that's the only praise I can give unfortunately.

The main problem was the way the story was told. This story didn't feel like the wonderful, poignant story of Brideshead Revisited, instead it felt like a story full of paper thin characters, sketchy relationships and dialogue that sometimes took you out of the period. Yes the themes of forbidden love and loss of innocence are there but they are handled in a superficial manner. The acting is lacking too, Greta Scacchi is a good actress but she isn't beautiful or compelling enough, while Ben Whishaw is very uncharismatic with Sebastian being too effete and his development is rather rushed, and Matthew Goode is okay if stiff but his character could have been much better written and developed. Then there are great actors such as Michael Gambon and Emma Thompson who are wasted with underwritten characters, and Hayley Atwell is positively radiant but just so-so in her acting. In fact Patrick Malahide is the only one who acquits himself well.

Overall, a big disappointment but not absolutely unwatchable. 3/10 Bethany Cox