Guinevere (1999) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
61 Reviews
Sort by:
Fascinating story with a few flaws
FlickJunkie-225 March 2000
This was a slow moving but interesting story about a 50 something bohemian photographer named Connie Fitzpatrick (Stephen Rea) who is a serial seducer of impressionable young women. His seduction is not really about sex, although that is part of it. Instead, it is more of an emotional seduction that involves his creating a symbiotic mentor/protégé relationship that puts him in control while feeding his ego. His latest conquest is Harper Sloane (Sarah Polley), a recent college grad from a wealthy family who is all set to go to Harvard Law School. Clearly lonely and vulnerable and not used to the attention of men, she falls prey to the charms of this free spirited older man and eschews law school to run off with him and live the artsy life.

Director/writer Audrey Wells, whose best previous writing credits were for "The Truth About Cats and Dogs" does an excellent job bringing this story to the screen in her directing debut. Her shooting of the scenes was sensitively done and brought forth a lot of the emotional elements of the story and the characters. It is clear that this was a labor of love for Wells, but as is often the case, directing one's own work takes away the objectivity about the script leaving most of the plot problems intact.

It is believable that an insecure girl could be lured into a relationship by a charming older man who overtly appreciates her and believes in her abilities. May/September romances (or more aptly in this case April/August) are common and usually happen for all the reasons depicted here. The biggest problem with the story was the introduction of Billie (Gina Gershon), one of Connie's earlier alumni, so early in the story. Billie warns Harper of the specific manipulative lines that Connie uses repeatedly with each of his love interests, almost by rote. She gives great detail right down to the way he touched her and the fact that he calls them all Guinevere.

At that point, Harper does exactly what one might expect, she leaves him. Shortly thereafter, the story loses all credibility as she eagerly goes running back to him, knowing full well that she is being totally and impersonally manipulated. The entire relationship after that waits for an emotional explosion that never comes. The whole thing just sort of withers away with the eventual breakup being no more than a fait accompli. The breakup scene was weak and cowardly, which detracted greatly from the dramatic potential. If Wells had put Billie's scene closer to the end of the story to create the last straw it would have been more effective.

Wells also misses a great opportunity to add fireworks by not emphasizing Harper's relationship with her mother (Jean Smart). There was a natural emotional tension between the two and she was the one character who had complete clarity about the relationship. Finally, without giving too much away, the gathering of the five Connie alumni at the end was a bit goofy and highly implausible given the gravity of the situation. However, Wells does eventually redeem herself with a good ending and some of the best imagery of the film.

Sarah Polley was well cast in this film and exuded the pure naivety of a young woman inexperienced in the ways of love. She was wonderfully awkward and vulnerable and it was very believable that she could fall prey to the ministrations of an older man. Polley has a Winona Ryder quality about her and has excellent potential as an actress. It remains to be seen if she can break out of the role of quirky teen.

Stephen Rea was hopelessly miscast in this role. He didn't have the emotional horsepower to play this character. His acting is somewhat stoic and wooden and this character needed to be charming, passionate and obsessive. The part required an actor more like Michael Caine.

The best performance of the film goes to Jean Smart as Harper's outspoken and gregarious mother. She completely steals the movie with her confrontational scene with Connie, explaining to him why he can't make it with women his own age. She is terrific in every scene she is in and the fortune cookie scene is fantastic.

Overall, I rated this film a 7/10. This film will probably be most appealing to men over 50 and women under 25. None of the flaws were fatal, but the pace was slow and the plot implausible in parts. That detracted from an otherwise engaging story and some very good technical filmmaking.
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The truth about scaredy-cats and horndogs
nunculus26 September 1999
The young Canadian actress Sarah Polley can sizzle in character parts--she burns a hole in the screen in her tiny bit in Cronenberg's EXISTENZ, and she was luminous as the princess in the wheelchair in THE SWEET HEREAFTER. But in leading roles, she seems both brittle and amoeboid. As Harper, the insecure and overlooked daughter of a family of cutthroat lawyers, she has one amazing scene--being seduced, her reactions fry out her speakers, sending from giggly hysteria to overdrive lust. Harper is seduced by an aging bohemian wedding photographer (Stephen Rea)--a lush who talks a big game, pontificates in bars with his low-rent cronies, and makes a sport and a pastime of mentoring (and groping) avid young women. But we don't see any hunger, any passion or obsession in Harper. When the photographer, Connie, tells her she has talent it's an obvious pick-up line--not because she hasn't done any work, but because she shows no interest in anything but being noticed.

The writer-director, Audrey Wells, doesn't show much interest in anything else, either. The author of the scripts for GEORGE OF THE JUNGLE and INSPECTOR GADGET, her first indie feature has more than a whiff of the dilettante. Like AMERICAN BEAUTY, GUINEVERE likes to flirt with the idea of having an "edge," then shies away from it. Both of these movies are just too damned clear. The pleasure of that seduction scene is that Harper responds in ways that are messy, funny, unprogrammed; every other scene in the picture makes its point in letters so bold the thickest member of the audience couldn't miss it.

You can take the girl out of the studio, but ain't no way you're taking the studio out of the girl. The lechy photographer's big sin--the thing that makes him evanesce in Harper's eyes--is that, at fifty, he's still stumping and hustling for cash. Can Audrey Wells really intend that it's okay for Connie to be a serial phony, an ego-inflating come-on artist, but his real Achilles' heel is that he never made real money? (Wells' point seems to be: Connie gets Harper's tender young flesh--he could at least pay the bills.) Every scene is so blandly overdetermined it reeks of falsity--especially the much-applauded one where Harper's bitchy mom (Jean Smart) comes into Connie's loft and undoes their relationship with a single cutting observation. (Would these lovers react with such shock to such an obvious accusation?)

For someone making a movie about the romance of the artist's life, Wells seems to have no clue how artists talk to each other, or even behave--she seems to think that's egghead stuff the audience won't care about. But it's that, not sex, that's supposed to be the fundament of Connie and Harper's relationship. Despite Rea's and Polley's efforts, the movie drowns in big-movie timidity. And the ending--a Felliniesque princess fantasy where all of Connie's sweet young things gather for an All That Jazz adieu--maybe intended to be tender. It comes across as a final, passive-aggressive flipping of the bird to a half-forgotten, dirty-minded teacher.
16 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Whose story was this, anyway?
bron-tay3 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I'm putting this in here not so much for the purposes of explaining or reviewing, but for 1) giving other haters of Guinevere a place to check in, and 2) entertaining those who love to read negative reviews of movies they know they're going to see anyway.

Poor, pathetic Harper, literally hiding in the closet at her sister's wedding, her hair mussed and her bride's-maid dress sagging off her shoulders. "You've obviously mistaken me for someone with potential," she barely manages to squeak to the wedding photographer, in one of the multitudinous lines of on-the-nose dialogue in this self-conscious, overwrought clunker.

Somehow this bright, beautiful 20-year-old has managed to get through her entire life, including four years of college, without once meeting a person who has affirmed her intelligence and her creativity, even though she's smart enough to have been accepted into Harvard Law. Similar ironies occur in real life--the beauty who thinks she's ugly, the overachiever who thinks she's not doing enough--but at some point you lose interest in a character who's either got some serious personality disorder or whose creator (the writer) imagines that weird gestures and speeches can take the place of psychology.

The beautiful, bright girl proves utterly vulnerable to the seducements of the wedding photographer: an older, less-promising, often insolent, and lecherous man who says things to her like "You can do it" and "You must learn to detest the bourgeoisie." Oh, I don't remember if he actually said *those* things, but his utterances are so much hogwash that only an impression of nonsense remains. Harper is introduced to . . . coffee houses! She listens to . . . jazz! Someone actually asks her about her ideas for the first ever time in her whole entire life! To go back to the biographical thing, how did this girl ever get the liberal arts education required to enter Harvard Law without someone at least once eliciting her opinion on something? And probably admiring it? Without ever having a lively conversation with intellectual and creative types? Without ever laughing? Without going through that whole fascinating-older-man thing about ten times? Without getting a glimpse outside the world she came from?

Unlikely, weird scenes get slapped on, one after the other, without any progress in character or conflict. She throws herself on him hungrily. She moves in. He insults her, she runs away, she insults him and then comes back, they insult each other and reunite. When he's at his lowest, she goes into a frenzy of taking his picture, presumably off a roll of film with about 200 exposures on it. Then she gets him into focus and relents with a whimper.

Ultimately, the photog turns out to be every bit as bad as he promises, and perhaps a little better since he's principled enough to send her away when it's at the point where the relationship can do nothing but drag her down. Fast-forward to so many years later and she's giving him the last and only thing she can: her best wishes for a good death. The scene drags on and on, and ends with his dissolution into heavenly white light. Why? Whose story was this? "He was the worst man I ever met. Or the best man I ever met." This ham-fisted summary, I suppose, is supposed to be a specimen of brilliant, tortured, complex ambiguity. To me, it's a failure to make a stand, an excuse for the writer to dump a truckload of contradictions into a character then sneak away without explaining any of it. And why end with him? Again I ask, whose story was this?

Audrey Wells, you're a fraud.
19 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Reminiscent of Casablanca, he sends his love off to safety.
TxMike28 March 2000
I suspect the theme of this movie is a relatively common fantasy among "mature" single men. Namely, find a very young woman who needs guidance and love, attach no strings, and plan on her leaving as she grows up. "Guinivere" is hard to watch in places, especially as the couple arrives in L.A. and it becomes crystal clear to her what her man really is all about. However, it is a well-done study of human needs and conflicts. And ultimately, resolutions.

Guinivere's mother's analysis is spot-on, mature women just don't have "awe" of this dysfunctional photographer, and that's why he is always with a much younger woman.

I gave this movie "8" of "10". Not because it is fun to watch, but because it does such a good job of exploring family relationships and individual growth.

Oct 2006 addition: Seeing part of it again today, I realized something which escaped me on first viewing. The first time he asks her to pick which of two photos is best, he was just setting up the rest of his ruse. He used it as a trick of sorts to make her believe she had a photographic talent.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Moving, witty and well acted.
g217 April 1999
All of the characters were honestly portrayed and I think that Ms. Wells has put together a very moving and appropriate piece. The dialog is witty and very natural. Plot and dialog aside, this film is worth watching for the performances alone! Stephen Rea and Jean Smart are both amazing and anyone who had doubts that Polley is bound for greatness should see this film!
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I really wanted this to be a good film. It just wasn't.
bgilch4 September 1999
I just saw of this film at the Montreal World Film Festival. Stephen Rea and Sarah Polley were in attendance. You could not ask for two better actors. Rea plays a 45-50ish photographer who seduces 20 yr. old Sarah Polley to give up her law school career and become an artist and his live-in- lover.

The director and writer, Audrey Wells, also directed and wrote The Truth About Cats and Dogs. I intensely disliked that film because it was implausible, not grounded in any reality, and because even the luminous Jeneane Garafalo couldn't save it. Audrey Wells also wrote Inspector Gadget; clearly, her writing leaves something to be desired. In this film she manages to put interesting situations (May-September romance / high vs. low class) forth but whenever they approach any hard edges here comes the soft humour or easy way outs or just plain ambiguously unrealized character motives. Polley's character would get to say one disturbing or strong thing, then have go on acting so obviously well below her & her character's intelligence.

I consistently thought scenes were misdirected and that the writing gave up on itself and fell into cliche, sapping it of any force it had. And with the potential force between these two great actors never realized it was a sad loss. This is no Lolita or Educating Rita. Consider even the ballyhooed scene were Jean Smart, in a good job, takes down Rea's character in front of her daughter (the 'awe' scene.) The camera focusses intently on Smart's malice. Think how much better that little diatribe would be if we were watching *Polley's* reaction while hearing the *mother's* words. That would be a real dislocation. Then we could see the full range of which Polley is absolutely capable.

Also, the soundtrack music was very synthetic and touchy-feely and it worked completely against the (potentially) creepy aspect of the film, until the white-light hogwash of the end. But if you liked all that white-light business in "Kissed" & if you could tolerate the preposterous situation of Cats & Dogs, then maybe you will like this film. As it was, I found it singularly unconvincing, the moreso as it went along.

ps. Sandra Oh is very funny with the two minutes of screen time she gets. Sandra Oh is always excellent. If you want to see a good Sarah Polley & Sandra Oh film, rent "Last Night". It's brilliant. For Stephen Rea, look forward to his next Neil Jordan film.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A disturbingly good movie
Shiva-1111 October 1999
Guinevere: Harper Sloane (Sarah Pollack) is a painfully shy young woman trapped in a household of lawyers lorded over by an alpha-mother (Jean Smart) who treats her like a servant. Destined to attend Harvard law school and join the pack, Harper finds her salvation in Connor Fitzgerald (Steven Rea), part-time photographer/philosopher, full-time con-man Svengali. Connor actually listens to what she says and offers her escape into an exciting bohemian lifestyle. Will he be her salvation or downfall? There are shades of Leaving Las Vegas in this film - it is dark and at times unpleasant - one scene in particular made me so uncomfortable I turned away from the screen. To its credit, Guinevere, like Leaving Las Vegas, is also a very good film. Sarah Pollack is outstanding as the withdrawn Harper (in stark contrast to her brazen, street-wise savvy Ronna in Go!). Although she's actually twenty, she looks fifteen, which helps to convey a believable vulnerability and transformation.

Rea is truly manipulative as Connor, more pathetic than sinister, who preys on young women - you're never quite sure if you should loathe or pity him. Finally, Jean Smart does an excellent job as the hard-as-nails matriarch, miles away from her smarmy character on Designing Women.

Well worth the price of admission.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Jean Smart Steals the Show
jhclues6 May 2001
A young woman living in San Francisco, who has just been accepted to Harvard, decides upon another path after meeting and falling under the influence of an older man, an artist, in `Guinevere,' written and directed by Audrey Wells. Sarah Polley stars as Harper Sloane, who lives with her career oriented, rather self-absorbed family-- her parents, Alan (Francis Guinan) and Deborah (Jean Smart), and her older sister, Susan (Emily Procter). Rather self-conscious and unsure of herself, Harper has allowed her parents to plan her future-- a career in law, though it is decidedly against her own wishes. Then at Susan's wedding she meets the photographer, Connie Fitzpatrick (Stephen Rea), an artist, who quickly gains her confidence and lures her into his own bohemian lifestyle. She moves in with him (unbeknownst to her parents, who think she's staying with a friend for awhile), and he becomes her mentor; she is his `Guinevere,' and the only demands he makes of her is that she `create' something every day. The choice of her artistic endeavors is entirely up to her; photography, painting, writing, dancing. but she must create.

Inevitably, of course, their relationship develops beyond the mentor/protege stage, and she learns some things about him that ultimately lead to complications. And she discovers that her reign as Queen Guinevere may not be all that she had expected it to be.

Wells convincingly presents the allurement of a lifestyle free of constraints and overwhelming demands, which makes it quite understandable that the indecisive Harper would choose to go with Connie, rather than adhere to the wishes of her parents, who are rather cold and impersonal and altogether controlling (especially her mother). The fact that Alan dotes on Susan and could seemingly care less about Harper, as well as Deborah's apparent lack of actual concern for Harper, qualifies the facility with which Harper is able to effect her plans so readily. And even when Deborah finds out what Harper is up to (which, of course, was inevitable), she seems to take it as a personal affront more than anything, and is content with merely denigrating the relationship into which her daughter has entered, rather than even trying to change it, which ostensibly at least, would be the appropriate reaction of a concerned parent.

Polley is well cast as Harper, as physically and emotionally she is able to fit Harper's profile perfectly, and she gives a credible performance, though given her unassuming manner and fairly nondescript appearance, it says more about Connie than it does about her. And what you have already been able to deduce about Connie from his pursuit of Harper is further underscored during a scene in which Deborah confronts him with her views on the situation (which is arguably the most powerful scene in the film).

Rea is perfectly cast, as well, affecting a patient, reserved manner, touched with an almost forlorn weariness evocative of a certain wisdom-of-the-world attitude that makes Harper's attraction to him believable. And as the story unfolds, he very subtly allows you to see more of what lies beneath the surface until, in the end, you have a concise picture of who Connie really is. It's a fine, understated performance, and a good bit of work by Rea.

In a supporting role that demands mention, Jean Smart gives a smoldering performance as Deborah, a woman of seemingly insatiable needs and an overwhelming desire to dominate. And Smart plays it perfectly, from the look in her eye to the telling way she carries herself, making the most of her limited screen time and making Deborah the most memorable character of the film.

The supporting cast includes Gina Gershon (Billie), Paul Dooley (Walter), Carrie Preston (Patty), Tracy Letts (Zack), Sharon McNight (Leslie), Sandra Oh (Cindy), Grace Una (April) and Jasmine Guy (Linda). Though not a film with which you can get too emotionally involved, `Guinevere' has it's moments and does manage to maintain interest. The characters are real enough, but they evoke a sense of ambivalence; these are not people you are necessarily going to like or dislike. In the final analysis, it's a good film, and worth seeing-- but with the possible exception of Smart's character, there is nothing especially memorable or compelling about it. I rate this one 6/10.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
horrible, disgusting, detestable
jonmills-315 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I've just watched a film so bad, I am visibly shaken, nearly to the point of vomiting. I love Sarah Polley. I find her mesmerizingly beautiful, and I thought she did the best that could be done in this film, under the circumstances.

That said, the 'Connie' character is just gross. And not even gross in a passive sort of way. Gross in a way that leaves you hoping and praying you can forget these memories, scratching to get the images out of your head.

Can anyone tell me what Connie died of? I mean, it doesn't even say, right? Is it cancer, perhaps related to his constant smoking? Or is it something still more disturbing? I'll tell you, what did it for me was the scene where he bites down on some piece of food, and his f*ing teeth fall out. I mean, what the f*$%?!?! I saw that and nearly threw up in my mouth. Then I went straight to the bathroom and brushed my teeth for half an hour.

Poor Sarah Polley. Someone put her in a good movie. I still liked 'Go,' in which Polley completely steals the entire movie from Katie Holmes.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I love to hate this movie. Utter cheese.
Timbo-258 October 2000
Astonishingly horrid, hackneyed drivel. I couldn't believe that the actors and filmmakers--who are ostensibly a part of an artistic community of sorts--would portray "bohemians" in such a cheesy way.

And what the hell was with the cutesy dance scenes with car-commercial music in the background? Did someone tell the director this would look cool? I puked. Every "romantic" scene was equally unbearable (except for the sex scenes which were tasteless and disturbing).

We all know people who think they are sophisticated, intelligent, and avant garde, but are actually vomitous, narcissistic poseurs. They will love this "art film." You should avoid it like the plague.
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Thoughtful, Funny, Sad, and Heartwarming...
cbk25 July 2001
Good movie. Sarah Polley is a natural actor. Her flare for comedy is almost contageous. Her dramatic skills will have you reaching for a hankey. Uma Thurman had better watch her back, Sarah Polley has what it takes to cover the emotional scale...See this movie, you'll see what I mean.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very good performances and inspired casting.
NgohOiNei25 October 1999
Sarah Polley more than holds her own as the star of this interesting and quirky film. Gina Gershon seems much more natural and likeable than usual here, and Stephen Rea is a bit understated in his performance. Jean Smart has a wonderful turn during a monologue to her daughter (Polley) and Connie (Rea). Intelligently written, stylishly directed.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Interesting, but not sadly misses "something"
Carol-234 October 1999
I can't say exactly what, but something is missing in this movie. Poor Connie. I think he gets less out of the relationships than the Guineveres. Maybe I like things "tied up" too much, but I wish we'd seen a little of Harper's work so we could judge just how well Connie taught her. A scene of her in a gallery or studio somewhere surrounded by her work as she answers a ringing telephone (presumably with Billie on the other end) would have been satisfying--no dialog necessary, just a look of sadness on her face. Whatever else, this movie sure spurred some dialog between my 25-year-old daughter and me.

Interesting that (along with another reviewer) I saw the connection between the Stephen Rea character, Connie, in this movie and Herman Wouk's Noel Airman in the 50's novel "Marjorie Morningstar" and talked about that as we walked home. And as big a bitch as Harper's mother was, she had it right as she saw through Connie. Beautifully acted by all principals!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A great performance
taratula2 December 2000
This is a murky, unfocused little film. It is clear that Audrey Wells is a talented writer-director, but I felt a lack of assurance in the execution of her story. However, Jean Smart delivers a brilliant performance that enriches the film, making it memorable. She nails every single SECOND of the film she's in; her monologue towards Rea is a devastating piece of acting that was shamefully overlooked by the Academy. This woman is one of the best actresses of her generation, and if you saw her hilarious, Emmy-winning spot on "Frasier" you know she's got strong comedic chops, too. Give Jean Smart better roles!
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pardon me while I spew
nedelka4 June 2008
I got roped into watching this drivel by my girlfriend. It was On Demand and I had had a couple of beers so I said 'why not'. Well, if you're interested, here's why not: This galling display of perversion is so caustic to the sensibilities of any thinking person that I cannot believe anyone was truly happy with the film when it was completed. The characters are beyond unsympathetic and venture into the realm of embarrassing. Harper is a pathetic and hopeless individual if she made it as far in life as her storyline says she did without the skills she seems to lack. Worse, the life lessons she is supposedly learning clearly aren't sinking in if,after realizing her love interest is nothing but a lecherous, perverted, no talent, broke, lying loser who preys on naive, helpless girls when he exposes his intentions in LA at his former 'collector' friends' house, she happily goes along for the ride with only a little tantrum. Absurd. The collection of similarly abused women at the finale is just gross ("Class of '85!" Good gawwwwwwwd). This film is such a poorly executed self indulgence that it doesn't even live up to irony. Just plain awful. I can't even say that its worth watching for a laugh, because there's nothing funny about. Characters don't develop in any substantiated way. One second people are one thing, the next moment another, for no reason. We are led to believe that harper becomes successful. How? We never see one piece of work. She never gets any connections to dealers or marketers. Suddenly she just appears, wearing a mournful-yet-put-together looking black dress instead of her usual MC hammer style washed out jeans (in the late 90's? San Fran? really?) and tee shirt. Jesus. Where'd that come from? A hopeless attempt at a heartfelt art movie that subverts its own intentions with its meaningless artifice and sloppy, contrived, indulgent imagery. I never post anything on the internet, but this was so bad I couldn't help it. STAY AWAY!!!!
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
true story
landau_yael6 April 2006
who ever is interested. i stumbled on this movie completely by accident, and once i began i couldn't know why? it was true. i just got it. i got it because i was just leaving a relationship like that, that i think- marked me for life. this movie shows something so true, true in a sense that their is no right or wrong, and in some way it really makes me think. it makes me see things in perspective, relationships, and how we fail to observe them while engaged in them. once i saw this movie- i felt i was looking at myself, and also not hating my ex-partner (a very much disturbed older paragrapher. off course- it made me view it in a very romantic way, that i enjoyed. it was painterly to see in harper how innocent i am.or was. for sure- i am no longer at that stage in life. thanks to him.he wasn't a bad guy- and i was too blinded to see how mixed up he was.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One of the worst movies I've ever seen
jakob-2013 April 2000
I couldn't believe how awful this movie was. It was virtually free of redeeming features. Poor Sarah Polley desperately tries to save the thing singlehandedly but with lines like that nobody can.

These were some of the things that really grated: Complete absence of likeable characters (he a sad lech, she a dimwitted girlie, her family standard-issue clichZd stiffs, and a pathetic rent-a-bohemian crowd whose role in the movie was decorative (as in house plants) rather than integral).

A plot anyone could have filled in after the first five minutes Dialogue that would have been embarrassing in a 70s movie (the old art vs commerce debate - please!; quaint words like 'capitalism' and 'bourgeoisie'; "I am studying your form" - aaaaargh) Generic feel-good scenes straight out of Newton cigarette ads Cheesy, unironic music Complete ignorance of the principles of photography (photographers do not work like that). Perhaps excusable if it had been made by an older guy - but a woman? Girls, we can do better
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Sarah Polley's film all the way!
postmanwhoalwaysringstwice27 November 2004
Writer/director Audrey Wells, who would go on to make 2003's "Under the Tuscan Sun" as well as the recent "Shall We Dance", directed Sarah Polley in 1999's "Guinevere". Wells' forte seems to be characters in search of romance who find it in unexpected places. It was the 'ugly' girl in "Truth About Cats & Dogs", Italy in "Tuscan Sun", and the older man in this film. That older man is played with wild abandon by Stephen Rea, often inappropriately stealing the show. Ignoring Jean Smart's histrionic heavy scene later in the film, and the control Rea's Connie has over Polley's Harper, this is Sarah Polley's film. What make this film work is its sensitivity and subtly, especially toward Harper's youth, naivete, and uncertainty in love and life. It's a sweet film about self-discovery at any age, and although it gets a bit moody toward the end, it works well as a date movie.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Very Weird Romance
Claudio Carvalho11 February 2004
Harper Sloane (Sarah Polley) is a gorgeous and insecure twenty years old woman, dominated by her wealthy family and has just passed to Harvard. In her sister's wedding, she meets the photographer Connie Fitzpatrick (Stephen Rea), an old, weird, not handsome and very poor man, who tells her that she has a great potential in arts and calls her Guinevere. Harper falls in love with him. She gives up of Harvard, leaves her family and moves to his apartment. Pretty soon, she finds that he has used the same seduction by flattery technique, including the nickname Guinevere, with other girls. But she stays with him, until she is `replaced' by another girl. After four years, Harper becomes a mature woman, totally different from the one in the beginning of the story. This movie is a very weird romance. If the viewer can buy that a beautiful and wealthy girl like Harper could really love a guy like Connie and stay with him, probably he will like this film. That is not my case. Harper is a mature woman in the end of the story, but in the beginning, she would have to move to Harvard, where she certainly would develop herself as a human being. Of course, the experience she has with Connie is great for her formation, but the guy is too much strange and does not really seems to love her. She is just another tasteful laboratory for him. The cynical dialog of Harper's mother with Connie is for me the greatest part of this film, when she says that a looser like him prefers young and naive women to be admired in his completely failure as a man. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): `A Lente do Desejo' (`The Lens of the Desire')
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Stay away from this awful film!
Red-12512 December 1999
Guinevere, for which I had high hopes, is a disaster. The basic story line (young woman falls in love with older man) is not the problem. The problem is that we are supposed to accept the premise that Harper Sloan (Sarah Polley) is an insecure, naive, helpless young woman. Suspending disbelief is one thing, but swallowing this nonsense is out of the question. We are told to believe that Sarah Polley, at age 20, needs something or someone to appreciate her for what she can become.

Sarah's character, Harper, is a beautiful, wealthy, college-educated resident of the San Francisco Bay Area. There is no way in the world she would still be this uninformed, inexperienced, and helpless. She has done well enough at college to be accepted into Harvard Law School. If we are to believe the film, she is incapable of any intelligent or creative thought or action. From what college did she graduate? Was she asleep for four years? Was she asleep for 20 years?

The only scene with any hint of reality or intelligence was the one in which Harper's mother, played well by Jean Smart, confronts the older man. Sarah Polley is beautiful and talented; she is wasted in this turkey. [For a film in which the director utilizes the talents of a young actor, avoid Guinevere and see Natalie Portman in Anywhere but Here.]
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
good cast can't even make this one look good
charbrom17 February 2001
First of all I have to say I saw this movie on video, since it didn't come out here in the cinema. The cast (Rea, Polley) looked good, and I liked 'The truth about cats and dogs', the only film by director Wells I had seen before. But what a terrible miss, this turned out to be. The relationship between "old man" Rea and his muse Polley didn't look believable at all to me, although in one of the first scenes (which turned out to be one of the only likeable ones) they seem to hit it off pretty well. But as the movie carries on, the story loses its promise and gets worse and worse. Towards the end you get more and more annoyed with the main characters and finally you realise you've been watching a terrible movie.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Must See If Crushing On Sarah Polley
aimless-4629 August 2007
Sarah Polley fans, especially ones going all the way back to "Ramona", are generally big-time "Guinevere" (1999) fans simply because it is the film in which she peaked physically. And Director Audrey Wells picked up on this during casting, seeing in Polley (at that time of her life) someone physically perfect to play her heroine Harper Sloane. Wells needed a young woman who simply glowed in front of the camera, whose face looked better "without" make-up, and who projected both innocence and restlessness. With Polley she also got a bonus, one of the most talented actresses of her generation.

In this sense Wells resembles Alfred Hitchcock, a director with an uncanny ability to identify actresses at the one moment of their lives when they are physically perfect for a particular role. Sylvia Sidney in "Sabotage", Nova Pilbeam in "Young and Innocent", and Joan Fontaine in "Rebecca" come to mind.

Wells, who also wrote ''The Truth About Cats and Dogs'', captures that moment in some young women's lives (yes, the film could be considered a feminist statement) when they are able to break free of expectations and programming. The Harper Sloane character seems so authentic and the portrayal so lacking in glib cynicism that it most likely has a lot of autobiographical elements.

Harper is tracking along toward Harvard Law School when she meets Cornelius Fitzpatrick (Stephen Rea), a middle-aged Irish artist who has been hired to photograph her sister's wedding. His well-practiced seduction technique and irreverent world-view causes a major attitude adjustment and she abandons her career track to become his protégé and lover.

The story is told from Harper's point of view and the viewer soon learns along with her that this is not the traditional "Pygmalion" scenario. While not exactly a rogue and a roué, "Connie" is a compulsive Henry Higgins who has repeatedly played this game with repressed young women. He goes into these relationships with a five-year time limit. Consistent with the POV factor,

Harper's story is told with intelligence and compassion, with a lot of emphasis on the fragility of a first love and the pain of a trust betrayed. The film's feminist slant is revealed not so much by what is explicitly shown but by its failure to bring any dimensionality to Connie's character. No clues are provided to explain his aversion to a long-term commitment, Harper discovers that his promises are empty ones but she never learns the roots of his insecurities.

Although Polley's best scenes are those with Carrie Preston, who plays her best friend and confidante; the most entertaining scenes are those with her mother (Jean Smart), an unstated version of Susan's mother on "Seinfeld". The dysfunctional nature of Harper's family and her mother's unfulfilled life are slowly and somewhat comically revealed, but the bottom line is that her mother is sincerely trying to shield her daughter from mistakes.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Slow Burning Bore
Theo Robertson19 May 2005
The plot to GUINEVERE is as follows : Harper Sloane a young woman aged twenty embarks on a sexual relationship with photographer Con Fitzpatrick a man old enough to be her father

There that's the entire plot summed up in a few words . Notice how the plot is cogently summed up in a few words ? This means the story is rather threadbare and not much happens . The unlikely duo do things together like attend parties , have sex and take photos mainly of Harper's naked adolescent body but even this isn't exciting as it sounds and is in no way intended to be an " erotic " tale if you know what I mean

Looking through the comments on GUINEVERE it seems opinion is very much split as to what the audience makes of this movie . Some people enjoyed it as a character study while others think it's a ridiculous movie . To be fair Stephen Rea and Sarah Polley do make the most of their slightly bland roles and the music is haunting and a line of dialogue " You will have a twelve inch c*ck up your ass very soon " did make me giggle but that says more about me than the quality of this movie
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
catmantu21 May 2001
Another example of how insightful writing and excellent acting gets you nowhere in today's slam-bang movie market. Audrey Wells creates one of the finest films to date written and directed by a woman. Are offers flying in to make another? Doubt it very much. She came up with a treasure based on character and an original storyline. But there wasn't a gun in sight, people were not terrorizing each other, we had no impossible stunts to marvel at and it wasn't until the final scene we finally got our special effects fix. But the sum total was much more unique than any number of Armageddons/Independence Days & co. So who noticed? Not the Academy Awards, where Wells did not even receive a Best Original Screenplay nomination. Sarah Polley gives one of the great ingenue performances ever. Stephen Rea is wonderful in the male lead. All overlooked. Get this one for your DVD library folks. It can be savoured again and again. But don't delay, it will soon be out of print, no doubt.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good Idea, Poorly Conceived
univ_mama21 September 2003
Actors with more chemistry might have pulled it off better, but the biggest setbacks were the lack of cleverness in the script and absence of a magic the tale seemed to have been meant to convey. The manipulations were trite and unoriginal, and the idea of the older man being a mentor to a young girl in spite of age and personal problems was fairly unbelievable in this instance. Not enough growth and realization, not enough of a connection was achieved before their time expired. Stephen Rea was almost too cool to be believable as such a screwed up and insecure man. And Sarah Polley never quite seemed to possess the awe and innate beauty her lover was so affected by. However, Jean Smart was perfect as the mother.

Though I believe it could have been magical, and it did begin well, to my disappointment, the journey and end were ultimately rather ridiculous and pretentious.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews