Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

GazerRise Fantastic!

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Marie Morgan Movies based on plays often have a particular - peculiar - feel. They take place in one or two rooms. There are only 2 or 3 castmembers. It takes places over the space of a few hours. Now - if you're riveted by that sort of microscopic examination of 3 characters' neuroses on one L-O-N-G night, then you'll LOVE this movie. If you're the type who would say, "Yeesh, get over yourselves already!" you'll hate it. The pointlessness of this is astounding - but I'm not big on watching train wreck personalities.

Bill Jordan The actors put their hearts and souls into this, but my wife and I found ourselves so bored with the toiling dialog about 30 minutes in that we just started to fast-forward until it looked like (via the frames at the bottom of the screen - thanks Netflix) something might actually be happening. Some of the emotion was laughably over-the-top, and the film was simply way too long. Not being familiar with the play, I have no idea how the film compares, but for me, the relationship between the two main characters in the film needed some background information to pull the viewer in. As presented, you wondered what drew the two together, as they seem to have no chemistry. I would give a higher review simply to reward the effort of the performers, but that would skew the score upward, and I don't think the film itself deserves it. Obviously, would not recommend.

Hecate-3 I have now seen Colin Farrell in a lead role in two very different films. In both, he gave a ludicrously histrionic performance. In both, the director either made changes to the source material or arranged the accents of the entire cast to accommodate Farrell's thick brogue. In both, a director with considerable talent produced a muddled film with poor characterization and what should be a riveting plot that drags interminably towards a foregone conclusion. Fans of both films try to turn the criticism of detractors back onto them with blanket statements about what kinds of movies they must not like and what sorts of shallow entertainment they must prefer.Taking the last point first, I have seen movies before that were nothing more than filmed plays with a cast of only two people in a single location, so even more limited than Miss Julie in those respects. Those movies had even more dialogue and less action than Miss Julie. Those movies were also every bit as grim and depressing as Miss Julie. But those films had quality dialogue, consistent characterizations, and a story worth investment.I am flabbergasted by the unyielding support of Colin Farrell's fans, but then I'm flabbergasted that he has any fans at all. In addition to having no perceivable acting talent and an accent that he can't seem to shake, despite his character John's comments to Miss Julie about understanding her attraction to him, Farrell isn't even particularly good-looking and has no charisma on screen. On looking up his listings on IMDb, I discovered that he had the lead role in another film I have seen; I do not recall that he ruined that particular film, but then I don't recall much about him from that film even though he was the lead. I have certainly seen no reason to believe he deserves even his limited fame.Many people have criticized the direction in Miss Julie for poor pacing, but a good deal of the problem is in the writing before it ever got to the set. Although I am unfamiliar with the source material, I gather from comments and reviews I have read that certain key pieces of dialogue were left out of the screenplay, namely the servants' discussion of Julie's broken engagement and the menstrual period which are brought up as explanations for her erratic behavior. I don't know what other dialogue changes might have been made, but both Julie's and John's mood and behavior swing so wildly between various extremes, much of the time with no discernible explanation, that it's almost as though with each exchange, the writers rolled some dice to select the characters' moods that time. Even erratic characters need to be comprehensible. It doesn't help matters much that the characterization that does come through the constantly shifting, random moods are two people capable of appallingly cold selfishness while the remaining character turns out to be someone inflexibly judgmental and narrow-minded.Despite a costar who tries to destroy most of his scenes, Jessica Chastain and Samantha Morton deliver strong performances. Morton is understated but powerful while Chastain portrays desperation that grows so deep it becomes painful to watch, most notably in the scene where she proposes that all three of them leave together.** SPOILERS **I know that the story was written in Victorian times when convenient character death was seen as valid plotting, but I wonder how many modern viewers understand that Miss Julie's situation need not have been as hopeless as a melodramatic maiden raised on romances seemed to think. Even after the loss of her virginity in those restrictive times, a beautiful young woman who is the daughter of a wealthy baron could probably still make some sort of match with an impoverished but ambitious gentleman or with an older gentleman. Even if she turned out to be pregnant, she could have been sent to a convent far from the public eye to have her child. She might have to take orders to hide her disgrace, but she did not need to commit suicide. It's also worth remembering that this story was written and set in a time when the church was inflexibly condemning of suicide, no matter what the reason. Suicides weren't even buried in hallowed ground. It's hard to see John's willingness to prod Julie in that direction as anything other than a man willing to manipulate a young woman into needlessly taking her own life in order to spare himself inconvenience. As bad as Julie showed herself to be from her first scenes, John turned out to be far worse.In the end, the film turned into a horror movie, and although it's undeniably a cut above standard slasher flicks, it does not reach the level of meaningful classic to which it aspires. Worth watching for the two female leads but otherwise not recommended.

TxMike I found this one on Netflix streaming movies. I like all the actors and each does a fine job with their roles. However I don't care for the movie. It is well-made for what it is, an adaptation of a stage play. But save the very last scene (after SPOILERS below) nothing at all happens. It is a morality play. They talk, for very long periods of the film, trading ideas on life, engaging in some word-play, but nothing happens.Jessica Chastain is Miss Julie in 1890s Ireland. She seems spoiled and abuses her power over the service staff. Nothing serious just orders them around for her own amusement. She isn't a very nice person.Colin Farrell is John, the master's valet. He is a good, honest, level-headed person who seems to have a nice attachment and relationship with Samantha Morton as Kathleen the cook and kitchen manager. But Julie seems determined to get John to seduce her and he has to delicately balance saying 'no' with not being insubordinate. He didn't want to lose his job and he doesn't want to alienate Kathleen.I am certain that there is an audience for this movie but it is not me. The actors are good but the movie uses 2+ hours to tell a 20-minute story.SPOILERS: At the end when it became obvious that Julie was not going to get her way, at the same time realizing what a shallow and messed up person she is, she walks out to the back of the estate, reposes at a stream, and kills herself, we see red blood flowing to fill the stream with color.