Acensbart
Excellent but underrated film
Fleur
Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.
KexUK
and definitely lacking in the shoot-em-up, bawdy gratuitous sex scenes and Hollywood hype. This is not a film for the usual popcorn viewing brigade. Firstly, it is not (to it's enormous credit) a Hollywood produced film or even a big business film. It is privately funded and produced. Now, viewers will find this very hard to believe, for the excellence of scenery, costumes,attention to detail and cast role would certainly infer my earlier statements to be incorrect. Additionally, superb cinematography and scene placement produce sumptuous delights for the eyes. Furthermore, Emma Thompson's script is a lesson on period dialogue given clarity and flow to a modern generation. This is a film that demands your attention but will not pander to it. If you are not willing to give your mind and heart to it, don't blame the film. It's subtleties and nuances are exquisitely and delicately portrayed and I could find no area of the acting which in any way displeased me.On the contrary. Now I will grant that I'm an old guy and that I can remember in my childhood echoes of Edwardian-like darkened rooms and repressively collaborative furnishings, so there were echoes in the film I recognised that many a viewer today would not find relevant (hence, perhaps, some of the comments on this board). But...and it's a pretty big BUT....to describe this film as anything less than superb, a masterpiece, a true pageant of excellence in every department...and done without major company backing...would be a gross misrepresentation of film making.So, take that Hollywood!! Bam! Klash! Kaboom! So take that all you bigmoney film orgs! Kaboom. Good, indeed superb, films can be made without enormous expenditure and excessive hype. This is one of them.(but don't watch it if you only want to defend Ruskin or suppress the indomitable spirit of womanhood).
ThurzdayNext
This is a film treated with the delicacy that the real circumstances must have required. Effie Gray, based on the true story of a teenager who marries John Ruskin (grown man and well-known author), comes to realize that she and her husband have varying expectations of marriage. She slowly begins to fade away as she makes all appearances of following the rules of her new, married life.The movie is well-paced, quiet, and stylistically appropriate. Dakota Fanning does a wonderful job of portraying Effie's quiet despair, and you do forget that she is an American actor (her accent is good). Derek Jacobi makes a guest turn, towards the end, and, It's always a pleasure to see Emma Thompson in anything, let alone in a vehicle for a screenplay that she has written.Well worth seeing.
Turfseer
The controversy over "Effie Gray" may have been more interesting than the film itself. Screenwriter Emma Thompson was accused of plagiarism by writers of two earlier versions of the Gray saga but fortunately for her, the plaintiffs were unsuccessful. Nonetheless, as a result of the litigation, Ms. Thompson engaged in no publicity junkets to publicize her film."Effie Gray" is based on the true 19th century story of the young Scottish girl's marriage to the noted British art critic, John Ruskin. Effie was 19 at the time and Ruskin, 29. However, Ruskin, played by Greg Wise, is currently 48, which might give some viewers unfamiliar with the history the wrong impression that Ruskin was robbing the cradle.Thompson ably depicts what happened between Gray and Ruskin. As a naive, inexperienced girl, Effie's dreams of wedded bliss are shattered when she comes to live with Ruskin and his parents at their London estate. Ruskin's mother is particularly critical of Effie and they both are way over protective of their son. It soon becomes clear that Ruskin has no interest in sex and actually tells his new bride that she repulses him.Effie finds an ally in Lady Elizabeth Eastlake (played by Thompson), wife of the head of the Royal Academy of Arts, who is distressed by the repressive situation Effie faces at the Ruskin household. A trip to Venice does nothing to help the couples' floundering union, and Effie is further distressed by Ruskin's lack of attention, especially when a randy Italian, Rafael, attempts to seduce her.The rest of this saga focuses on Effie's burgeoning melancholia and a trip up to Scotland, where Ruskin commissions a young painter, Everett Millais, to paint his portrait. Sure enough Effie falls for Millais but nothing gets consummated until Effie returns to London and is encouraged by Lady Elizabeth to sue for the annulment of the marriage on the grounds of her husband's impotence.That's basically it folks! The story is unusual in that the villain of the piece is hardly guilty of what one might call a "serious infraction." But that's mainly the problem: the stakes are so low that one can hardly get excited about the goings-on here. The actors, screenwriter and cinematographer have acquitted themselves well here as this is a fine film to look at. Nonetheless, it's also a listless affair which I'm not sure was really worth telling.
BKTrayner
Great Masterpiece Theatre costumes, characters, and setting, but the whole this is a slow motion bore.It's obvious from almost the beginning that the domineering parents don't like Effie. Nothing new about this plot -- been there and done that. Then we learn that something is clearly wrong with Ruskin, the mama's boy, who won't have sex with his wife.This story line goes on for an hour or so, and then we are introduced to a painter who captures Effie's heart -- now it's another version of the Forsyte Saga -- but we don't actually see any love scene.Then Effie finally goes to the lawyer and finds out she can get an annulment, and the movie essentially ends with the lawyer serving the divorce papers.We looked this up in Wikipedia. The story as presented in the movie is essentially true and accurate, but the "real" story goes on to a public scandal over this divorce with the re-marriage to the painter.The summary on IMDb indicates this will be about this "scandalous" love triangle. We learn for the first hour about two sides of the triangle, and we meet the third side in the second hour, but nothing about the scandal. This could have been a great movie with lawyers fighting in court, newspapers chasing Ruskin, etc. Instead, Emman Thompson simply wrote a screenplay that strips this historic episode of any dramatic interest.In the small art theater where we saw this, my wife and I were the only ones in the audience. The projectionist was just about ready to lock the door and go home. After see this move, we understand why.
