PodBill Just what I expected

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

gfvaughn Great film, like classic literature, provides a window into human nature, motivation, and behavior. A valuable reason to watch serious films or to read good books is to vicariously live through an extraordinarily wide latitude of human behavior which one has no opportunity to experience directly. Balanced people in relatively stable circumstances are usually capable of reasonably normal behavior. This is what a normal audience expects to see in a dramatic show. This is not a normal story. Its two sets of characters display opposite models for behavior. The tragic decline of one family and the counterbalancing rise of the other is intended to be instructive.This story deals with the tail end of the rags to riches to rags in three generations scenario. As the story begins the Ambersons have reached their peak. They possess an aristocratic status and lifestyle in the Midwestern United States at the beginning of the twentieth century. The film has a period "Upstairs, Downstairs" quality. Principal family members have acquired and cultivated aristocratic values. The family is protective and supportive of its upper class stature but has become maladaptive and has turned inward. They are firmly in denial that economics and demographics are changing, which could upset their social position. Although they see change coming, none of them have learned to recognize opportunity or how to adapt to it. Repeatedly, when they embrace change, they fail. The youngest child, the lead male character, manages, with the invincibility of youth, to multiply the attitudes and beliefs of his immediate ancestors and magnify them by three, adding several affectations of his own, which leads him to become sheltered by those who love him while behaving unbearably toward most outsiders. As the story unfolds the family becomes like the frog in the frying pan, oblivious that the heat underneath it has been slowly turned up. The world has changed but the family is blinded by what it fears. Their fortune becomes dissipated. Their static inertia is unchanged until reality, delayed, intrudes at the bitter end.Wealth, fame, and power may corrupt. Two significant but deeply flawed romances tie the plot together. Isabel Amberson Minafer is the mother of young George Amberson Minafer. Eugene Morgan who loves Isabel is the father of Lucy Morgan who loves George. Yet Isabel and George who are wrapped up in their cold, calculating aristocratic habits, don't share a common mindset with their potential mates although there is a mutual attraction. While they are judgmental and demanding, their opposites are tolerant, patient and forgiving. George is at many points visibly socially deranged and is capable of contemptible behavior and extreme rudeness even within view of his family. Lucy and her father Eugene not only are capable of absorbing the abuse and neglect delivered by their respective love interests. They, the Morgans, behave magnificently by returning poise, tact and charm in the most stressful and demanding circumstances. Lucy wants to marry George but wisely will not until he demonstrates a potential to succeed on his own. Hers is the voice of moderation and reason which he defiantly refuses to accept. This is a study in contrasts on several levels. To make the contrast complete, the Minafers and Morgans financial and social circumstances become exactly reversed. The wealthy, famous, and powerful Amberson/Minafers become destitute, forgotten, and powerless. The young, struggling and modest Morgans become successful and wealthy. But at their zenith, father and daughter share an intimate moment together. In the final scene Lucy shows signs, for the first time, not of embracing change but of retreating into the isolation which their new wealth can now provide. Will the full cycle displayed by the Ambersons be repeated by the Morgans?Abstracting the central ideas a bit, this story becomes a commentary on certain of "life's lessons". People with advantages and resources are not necessarily happier than those without, because they may develop more sophisticated ways to screw things up. American aristocracy, in contrast to earlier European aristocracy after which it has sometimes tried to model itself outwardly, is not entrenched. Wealth and incomes are fluid. In order to maintain wealth one must be prepared to adapt and change as the Ambersons/Minafers were not. There are moral examples for those with closed vs. open minds and for those who are loving vs. judgmental. Children may be strongly influenced by and model their lives via emulating the habits and attitudes of their opposite-sex parents. Too much inbreeding can destroy a family or an entire social class. Good personality or appearance does not trump bad character.Moral truths are often difficult to understand and accept. Human behavior is complex. Often there can be a long chain from cause through a variety of circumstances to ultimate effect. Learning such truths is a process of trial and error. Social experiments cannot be precisely duplicated like simple laboratory experiments. Early actions can have much later unforeseeable and unintended consequences. Observation and ultimate conclusion is only attainable by those who have lived long and experienced much. Moral truths cannot be easily explained to the young whose unchecked passions and impulses can easily lead them astray. Morality is culturally transmitted. It is not, itself, the product of legislation and statutes. Successful statutes are the product of a moral tradition and positive social institutions including the family. Laws cannot be summarily reversed with good effect.In the laboratory of literature, art and film, life's lessons can more readily be compressed, illustrated, or acted out. The film viewer can observe behaviors without having to relive painful mistakes first-hand. Those who "get it" have their principles and core values affirmed. Those who do not should dig deeper by questioning their values to see whether their discomfort is due to self-destructive habits. This story brilliantly encapsulates human experience, even though one particular film production of the story may lack perfection. The central themes of "The Magnificent Ambersons" are powerful and timeless. Who knows how many opportunities there are for it to be remade?

TomBRIDE2 The idea of redoing a classic movie is an intriguing one and the idea of doing one that allegedly got chopped by unfeeling studio hands, such as purportedly happened to Orson Welles and his version of this, is provocative, especially if they say are actually going to shoot from the original precut screenplay. At first, things seem promising and there are some fine actors doing some interesting things, and the production is handsome. But I could not figure out why I was not enjoying what was obviously a well- intentioned and lavish production. Then it dawned on me -- Rhys-Meyers performance was not simply of an unpleasant character, but a callow-seeming actor frowning and grimacing his way through an entire movie -- poisoning the drama at its core. It is truly the most painfully misconceived performance I can ever recall seeing in a major serious movie. It sinks the entire enterprise. The casting director and overall director must take responsibility. How could they not see at least halfway through the shooting of this that Rhys-Meyers work was an empty annoying hole at the center. Was he cast a a personal favor to someone? It seems inexplicable.

ohiomom I haven't read Orson Welles' book or have seen the 1942 movie, but have seen this A&E adaptation of The Magnificent Ambersons. This movie was almost painful to watch. Even though this was an all-star cast, I only felt that Madeleine Stowe (Isabel Amberson Minafer), Bruce Greenwood (Eugene Morgan) and James Cromwell (Major Amberson) were a credit to this movie. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (George Amberson Minafer) and Gretchen Mol (Lucy Morgan) may have looked their respective parts, but little else. Both Rhys-Meyers and Mol tend to overact their parts to a fault and Jennifer Tilly (Fanny Minafer) is outright hilarious, and not in a good way.This movie adaptation has been butchered in the worst way in that I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone. It's one of those movies that you see and tell yourself, "Well, that's 2 hours of my life I'll never get back.."

pea_flea One would think that, given the way A&E was touting "The Magnificent Ambersons," the actual film might be something to sit back and take note of and maybe enjoy just a little bit. The truth is, I've had bikini waxes that were more enjoyable, if only because they didn't last for three hours, like this incessant piece of drivel.The film is marred by five lackluster performances. The unfortunate thing is, they also happen to be the ones with the most screen time. Madeleine Stowe is supposed to be the intriguing, haunted heroine Isabel Minafer, but the only thing that haunted or intrigued me was wondering how much Collagen she must inject to make her lips looks so pouty all the time.Jonathan Rhys Meyers, as Isabel's spoiled son Charlie, is over-the-top and extremely annoying, a little rich boy run amok. His performance also runs amok, to the ruin of the film. You not only want to slap his character for being such a little snot, you want to slap Rhys Meyers for acting so poorly.His obnoxious character makes you wonder why in God's name Lucy Morgan (Gretchen Mol) would even be interested in him. After all, she's the spunky daughter of a self-made man and plays hard to get with all the other boys. But that's about it. Mol gives the character little depth or spark. It's not that she's as bad as Rhys Meyers, but like all of the other performances (save the glaringly bad ones), she's just forgettable.The same could be said for Bruce Greenwood's work as Lucy's father, entrepreneur Edward Morgan. As the man who falls in love with Isabel, Greenwood certainly looks dashing. He's a handsome inventor working in the automobile business, which stick-in-the-mud Charlie thinks is just a passing fad. The forbidden love between Isabel and Edward is supposed to evoke pathos and haunt our souls, but passion never ignites, and though the actors make googoo eyes and send each other love letters, which are ridiculously read straight into the camera by the characters, they never really convince you that they are madly in love.I thought Jennifer Tilly's turn as spinster Aunt Fanny Minafer might provide a respite from the other boring performances, but all she does is further annoy you, if only because of her obnoxious squeaky voice. Aunt Fanny, played by an actress of greater ability, could have been one of the more complex of the film, as she has led a disappointing and unfulfilled life. But like the rest of the character, you find you really couldn't give a rat's about her, either.It seems that Booth Tarkington meant for the title "The Magnificent Ambersons" to be ironic. While they may have loads of money and live in opulence, the Amberson/Minafer family are by no means interesting, exciting, intelligent, or worthwhile, much like most of high society today. They fall from riches to insolvency, while the entrepreneurial class represented by Morgan gains prominence and wealth, which only emphasizes the irony of this title. It seems that Tarkington may have meant his novel to be a commentary of the constant state of flux in which societal structures often are found. But then again, that probably didn't cross the director's or the actors' minds. The film never delves deep into any of these issues.There's nothing magnificent, even mediocre, about this film. It is a waste of time, and A&E is probably realizing, a waste of money as well.