Reviews

One of the most riveting productions I have ever seen on television, The Golden Bowl encapsulates a story of wicked romance and deception amongst Britain's 19th century upper classes with an atmosphere so sinister, I could not but marvel at the actors' ability to create such social realism on the screen. Gayle Hunnicutt's Charlotte is so devious and contemptible in her characterisation of a seductress with such love of intrigue and slippery guile and silent contempt for her associates, one can almost hate her in real life! Upper-classes, playing with life and a marvelous opportunity for the literary dialectical materialist's interpretation in any university seminar group. I will never forget the dimminishing light surrounding Maggie as she sits alone in frozen bewilderment - effected by a gradually dimming studio light - slowly putting together the web of deceit that has surrounded her. Terrific drama! First rate!

A unique storyline that captures the viewer's attention, wondering what these two will make of each other where primarily neither want to relate intimately with anyone else. A very interesting film in terms of every unspoken gesture, facial expression and events-packed silence. Part of the fascination is the viewer constantly wondering, "What will happen between them next?"

And it is this tension that makes for a total attention. Can they love? Will they connect? Who will open up first? Why were they so alienated in the first place?

Yes, a very existentialist piece reminiscent of Bergman movies, perhaps; certainly treating similar themes. By the end of this film, I was half in love with 'You', the female protagonist. Yup, it really got to me. Maybe you too.

A unique movie that should last some time in your memory for its portrayal of boredom in low paid jobs within our inane contemporary management culture. The realism is disturbing in its familiarity as supermarket consumers and vendors meet in a condition of non- reciprocity, marginalized by management-speak and non-optional strictures dressed up as common sense.

Somehow our protagonist manages to survive his mind-numbing social condition almost as a cure for his recent lost love. A good portrayal of breakup scenes, contemporary sexuality - and social alienation with a comeback.

Also a pretty good demonstration of why one should never go to art school. (Tell 'em about it!)

Like most of the above reviewers say, this movie is a good film for a laugh and plenty of outrageous behaviour from the protagonist, Lynda. A terrific reproduction of 50s Britain - right down to the dressing gown patterns and minor consumer products. But what is it she really wants and what does she learn from her foolish behaviour? 'Nothing' seems to be the answer. And this 'nothing' seems to be the major theme. It is a film about folly.

In many ways Lynda's path is boringly predictable: She has no understanding of the man who manipulates her, nor of the future consequences of her rudeness and impulsive behaviour. One wonders what amount of social realism is represented here for an unmarried mother of the period. Poorly paid jobs, lack of support, a low income to further disable somebody with little patience and understanding of the situation she has largely created for herself. A fun attitude, temporary prettiness and her fast-disappearing youth will not go that far.

A wonderful movie; gripping, thrilling, quite shocking, even. Unique storyline, keeping the viewer wondering what is going on and what will happen next. Amnesia, psychotic illusion, impossible to work out 'a satisfying interpretation'. Superb acting, characters all believable and often very sinister. Places are often weirdly familiar. I even thought I could smell some of the locations! The music is also quite spine-chilling and haunts you for days. A movie to remember and see several times.

Director Lynch has made his masterpiece, far excelling Blue Velvet. I wonder if I could drive up there again without getting the creeps! Silencio! Silencio!

Have you ever wondered how it is possible to identify a rubbishy movie within the first 20 seconds of dialog? It is simply amazing how fast a crap script writer can get fatuous nauseating inane notions across in such a short time; something that should surely be speculated upon in film schools during the first semester. And we sure have one here: silly spite, pointless rejoinders, phony regrets, token-lesbianism, sleazy egoism; all in one pointless, plot less string of malicious banalities that makes melodramatic 50s B movies look like literary fiction. Have you ever wondered why, even when given a million dollar budget, movie makers will waste such an opportunity on a string of clichés and bland story development that would embarrass your thirteen-year-old daughter and bore your cat? It is surely a wonder. And a wonder that movie audiences would put up with such drivel and not walk out.

Well, I did. And it took me an hour to recover my composure.

If you think this film is going to be a realistic portrayal of Victorian public school life, you are in for a disappointment.

The costume is excellent, the actors are doing well, but the script is so flat and inconsequential, it is difficult to maintain any 'willing suspension of disbelief' or accompany the characters through their unlikely exchanges, flat moments, and the general lack of impetus for what should have been a riveting story. Instead, we have an enfeebled version of the terror Tom must have felt – enfeebled by the inconsequential, emotionless, pitter-patter dialogue in which Flashman struggles to make himself fear-inspiring and the Christian headmaster fails to catch our sympathy and support. Any such headmaster would have been laughed out of his job 40 years ago, let alone the class-bound oppressive conditions in Victorian England.

I was looking forward to watching this movie and showing it to my students. But for anyone with a knowledge of the book, this film fails to catch an audience – schoolboys simply didn't talk like that because life was much meaner.