VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

SnoopyStyle Miss Bentley (Vanessa Redgrave) has been spending every April at an elegant hillside villa on Lake Como. It's 1937, and her father has recently died. It's supposed to be an uneventful vacation and then Major Wilshaw (Edward Fox) arrives. Next is tall, flirtatious, sassy, young American Miss Beaumont (Uma Thurman). It's all fun and games to her, but her affects are much more powerful than she realizes.It's a breezy film at first like the countryside setting. It is where the rich set vacation. There's some attempts at slapstick with the tennis game. The Italians are mostly cartoonish. Vanessa is easy going. Uma is flashy. When the specter of jealousy arise, the story finally gets going. Instead of using this emotional drama, the story ends and it's wrapped up with a happy ending. It lacks any tension or power. Vanessa Redgrave makes it watchable. It's just a slow watch.

spenycjo Honestly, what a disappointment. Every. Single. Sentence. Spoken. Like. This. S-l-o-w-l-y. It made me just about jump out of my skin (and I can watch a four-hour silent movie without losing interest for a minute).I haven't written a review here in ages, but this movie needs a warning label.I've seen all three of the stars give fabulous performances so it must have been the director. Here, Redgrave's performance is so weird I couldn't figure out what she thought she was doing. Fox and Thurman could not have known what they were entrusting to the film stock-- performances in an acting style from the distant past...only slower.And the story is so clichéd - out-of-date clichés, not even current ones! - that it was painful to watch. There *can't* be any spoilers, the only element of surprise being that you can't believe the filmmakers would actually dare do anything so obvious. Watch "Enchanted April" for what this might have been.

jhirsch-2 I don't usually comment but for once I don't agree with anybody else. Quite simply, I think this movie was confused and exaggerated and a waste of acting talent. The premise is a mix of standard conventions, the "white expatriates in a romantic foreign land" meets "laughter in the shadow of war" framework. I wouldn't mind the clichés so much, if not for:-Edward Fox's bizarre performance as the major, where he seems to waiver between creepy predator and grinning imbecile.-Typically elegant Vanessa Redgrave in a goofy impulsive performance where her seemingly complex inconsistencies really just make her look foolish.-Uma Thurman makes it hard to remember why she doesn't totally suck as an actress. I rarely knew what emotion she was trying to convey but perhaps people could be confused into thinking she was layered and mysterious.-The grinning Italians in the background might as well be Mario and Luigi for all the depth of character we get to see. They bob around happily, cheering and waving and doing pratfalls.-The central element, the love story between Redgrave and Fox, is totally stiff and unbelievable and made me feel weird just watching it.All told, I watch about 5 videos a week and this is one of the very few movies I have shut off before it's done. stay away.

thefolks I chose this movie for our Valentine's night movie and it was perfect! It is a romance for and about mature people -- that is, people in the later years of their lives. If you are in your teens or even 20's, this movie may not appeal to you. And if you like hot, sweaty sexual scenes, it will definitely disappoint. It is flirtatious, funny, elegant, tasteful, uplifting and amusing. The scenery and setting at Lake Como, Italy in 1937 are serene and beautiful. They don't make many movies like this anymore; finding this 1995 jewel was a rare pleasure.