Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Nissimo I've heard so many great things about the novel Wide Sargasso Sea and I expected this movie to at least live halfway up to its literary counterpart. Within the first ten minutes of the movie, however, the ludicrousness of the storyline reared its proverbial ugly head.First of all, the movie's treatment of Black Jamaicans reads like something out of a Jim Crow era film. They almost function like prop sets in the background and often have a sinister aura about them. Actually, they are the agents of evil in the film. It also doesn't help that the one "good" Black character engages in clichéd voodoo practices. This aspect of the film is downright nauseating.Secondly, Mr. Rochester's character is diametrically different from the Rochester of the Jane Eyre novel. Of course, the film depicts his earlier years before he develops into who he is in the novel, but give me a break! I refuse to believe that Mr. Rochester is really so stupid and bumbling at any point in his life. Thirdly, the sex scenes are positively eyeroll worthy. Deep breaths, sweat drenched skin, and tightly shut eye lids do not make a sex scene better. Geez, it was so amateur. It didn't even make me clutch my pearls.Overall, the film is terrible. From the manner in which it develops, to its treatment of the Black characters and Mr. Rochester, it's all just bad. I'm upset that I wasted my time watching it. And now I think I'm going to feel offended for the rest of the night.

rsternesq I think that there seem to be some confusion expressed in a number of the reviews of this and a subsequent version of Jean Rhys' most famous novel. Just for information:1. Creole does not necessarily imply mixed race. Bertha (to use Rochester's name for her) was clearly white enough to appear white and indeed, like Jean Rhys herself, may have been entirely of European ancestry. The mixed race brother, Daniel, was black on his mother's side which has nothing to do with Bertha's mother being mostly/entirely French. He was angry and destructive because his father preferred the white daughter to him.2. The Wide Sargosso Sea is a sort of prequel but it is also a re-imagining of the back story for Jane Eyre that is intended to take Bertha's character and expand on it with Rhys inability to ever fully reconcile herself to the differences between her origins and life in Europe.3. While we think of the Caribbean as a dominantly black environment, the origins were Carib Indian and whites colonized the area before the introduction of African slaves. The racial undertone is a more modern view than Bronte likely had. She was trying to deal with the whole idea of foreignness/strangeness and the ultimate solution to the plight of Jane's situation, poor but of "gentle" birth.4. Of the two filmed versions, the first makes the characters too physically attractive and really misses the novel's stress on the protagonists never meshing rather than loving and losing love.5. One problem with the casting of Rochester in the first version is that the actor portraying Rochester is distractingly gorgeous and not sufficiently British (apart from his accent). In fact he looks like he rather fits in, in contrast to Bertha's uncle and the other European planters. Of course, the actress who portrays Bertha, even at the end, is so enticing that Rochester's loss of interest is inexplicable.6. The first film seems to run out of time and rushes the end. Not enough is made of Rochester's anger at being manipulated, whether by voodoo, drugs or circumstances. Once he becomes his father's heir, the return to England should have led to something other than the conclusion. There is definitely insufficient deterioration in Bertha. Their stories are mirror images. He deteriorates and is miserable where she is able to live and she deteriorates where he is able to live.7. The novels (both Jane Eyre and The Wide Sargosso Sea) have a great deal of narration which is lost in the earlier film and perhaps insufficient in the second. None of the films are substitutes for the books but all are interesting reimaginings.8. In order to appreciate the Rhys novel, one should read about the author. The same is true of Jane Eyre and its author. The more things change, the more they stay the same.Finally, while not great, the films both aspire to be literary, which means a lot in an age when filmmakers think there is a need for horror/splatter movies and lots of people apparently agree so I for one say thank you for both versions of the Wide Sargosso Sea and all of the versions of Jane Eyre that offer relief from the current tripe.

scorpio1386 I think reading the book helps the viewer appreciate the movie. The movie is a pretty faithful adaptation to the novel. The movie tells the story of the crazy wife in the attic in Jane Eyre. Not only does it tell her story, but it gives an entirely believable explanation for her insanity. Not only is the scenery beautiful, but the story is as well. Set in Jamaica during colonial times, we see a young woman grow up in a unique society. It is easy to sympathize with the multi-layered characters. Karina Lombard is a great choice to play Antoinette. There isn't that much to the story, at least not in the way of events. The story is deep, though. It's definitely worth a watch, and if you can spare an afternoon, read the book- it's very short.

TimeTrvlr03 This film was gorgeous; Jamaica is a beautiful country. This film, however, had serious flaws. One was the rather bizarre use of "erotic" scenes. They were incomplete and contributed little, if anything, to the plot. The viewer only gets a glimpse of the passion that supposedly exists between Edward and Antoinette. Therefore, they should have either gone all the way, tastefully (no pun intended), or have left those scenes out entirely. The most egregious problems, however, regarded the plot. There were enormous holes, which perhaps could be rectified by reading the book. But for those who haven't read the book, there should be enough information in the film itself to keep the reader afloat. From the start it was unclear what was really going on with this family (despite the narration). Why did the ex-slaves keep laughing? (Something vaguely explained in the movie, though apparently fully explained in the book). Why didn't the parrot fly away? What made the mother go nuts? At no point in the movie were Mr. Rochester's "issues", as it were, fully explained. The man gets a letter exposing his wife as a Creole and dumps her like a hot potato, after (as Christophene explains) he was the one who came crawling to her in the first place. What a hypocrite. Again, maybe this is the ultimate point, that Mr. Rochester is a snob and the archetypical Victorian Englishman and that Antoinette is the victim of both his prejudice and that of the Jamaicans. But none of that exonerates the appallingly abrupt conclusion to the film. One minute they are sailing off for England and the next she is the insane woman in the tower who burns down Mr. Rochester's house in "Jane Eyre." There is by no means enough plot development to support such a leap. So, despite the beautiful cinematography, this movie is a hopeless muddle. Stick to the book.2/5 stars (for the scenery)