I Capture the Castle (2003) User Reviews

A Weird Family, Devilish Comedy, Roiling Drama

[lawprof · 7/10 · 24 August 2003]

How many viewers of "I Capture the Castle" have a legal background and understand the humor underlying the family name of the central characters, "Mortmain?" Literally, "mortmain" means "Dead Hand" and in law it denotes the attempt of a person to control his property postmortem. The humor here is that the paterfamilias, James Mortmain (well played by Bill Nighy) is a dried up author who hasn't penned a word since a successful novel of twelve years past. He claims to be working on a new book, an assertion that may be face-saving but is of dubious credibility. James has a past that the family neither wishes to remember nor can face seeing its reappearance (can't reveal what that is, can I?).

When still at the top of his game Mortmain and his then wife (who later dies, no foul play here) and his two little girls stumbled upon a rodent infested castle which he leased.

Jump quite a bit ahead to a now remarried Mortmain who lives in the still unrestored castle with his new, young, artist wife, Topaz (the beautiful, funny and accomplished Tara Fitzgerald) and his two teenage daughters, an appropriately mischievous little son and a sort of retainer in farm clothes, young Stephen.

The family is now, as the English say, "on their uppers."

Rose (Rose Byrne) is a gorgeous redhead solely obsessed with marrying out of the castle into the squirearchy or at least the solvent. Younger sister Cassandra (Ronola Garai) is engagingly wise, funny and bewildered at the changes that overtake her family when two young Americans succeed to the ownership of a manor that encompasses the castle (for which rent is long overdue). The sisters' close, interdependent relationship is warmly portrayed.

So Rose pursues one of the Americans, Cassandra deals with first love, spurning one suitor while secretly pining for another. An interweaved subplot has Topaz and then Cassandra desperately acting as James's muse, seeking to ignite what may well be the drenched sparks of a one-novel author.

As would be expected of a drama set in England in the 1930s before the hideousness of war returned are the inevitable class clashes, both economic and trans-Atlantic. What would a film like this be without a formal dining room scene replete with persiflage and the ominous threat of words said that can not be retracted?

"I Capture the Castle" has a strong cast but Cassandra is the centerpiece as she shows developing resolve and growth. Her appeal is irresistible. She's the younger sister many have fantasized but few have had. Ms. Garai is marvelously believable.

Yes, the film is in the Merchant/Ivory and Masterpiece Theatre vein but what's wrong with that? I liked most of the characters and rooted for calm but troubled Cassandra and frenetic but basically good Rose.

7/10.

Romola Garai illuminates the screen and story

[YouRebelScum · 8/10 · 13 May 2003]

This film is just begging for the tag 'Charmingly eccentric 30s romantic drama', complete as it is with Empire line dresses, stunning countryside locations and a whimsical, bickering family. However it's the performance of the divine Romola Garai, as the middle child Cassandra, that really makes this film work. Bereft of makeup and hair shorn to an unflattering bob, constantly scribbling in her diary, she is the embodiment of the intellectual teen; her capacity for articulating cascading emotions seeing her forming a passionate bond with the written word. But her ongoing contemplation of her madcap family is born of concern rather than self-obsession. In the absence of their mother, Cassandara has begun to shoulder some of the responsibility for her brother, precocious and emotionally catatonic father. Her burdens are increased rather than lessened with the arrival of a pair of rich Americans, and the romance that ensues. The way Garai indicates Charlotte's confused emotions - torn between different impulses that propel her towards being a daughter, a sister and a lover - is remarkable. While Garai occupies the center of the film, some of the other players shine in their roles, especially the always entertaining (and perpetually unclothed, yes, she's naked again here!) Tara Fitzgerald and the lovely Rose Byrne as Cassandra's elder sister Rose. The men fare less well. Bill Nighy is miscast as the reclusive writer father, and Henry Cavill as Casandara's would-be beau Stephen is leaden. The other failing of the film - which is really more of a backhanded compliment - is that I found myself wanting to know more about the family and see more of their infighting. The plot errs towards the romantic rather than the comic (OK, fair enough, that's what it sets out to do) but I found the end result a little disappointing. I haven't read Dodie Smith's novel so don't know whether the slightly muted tone is due to allegience to the original story. Overall though, "I capture the castle" is sweetly and undemandingly entertaining, and Romola Garai's vulnerability is intoxicating.

Good, but not as good as the book.

[Jazzy689 · 8/10 · 28 December 2004]

I read Dodie Smith's 'I Capture The Castle' about three years ago and found it a charming and engrossing read. I looked forward to the film and have just watched on the BBC. I was pleasantly surprised with the film because I thought that it would put people off the book but the casting was very good for all of the characters.

The main problem was the fact that with the book, it is written as a diary with Cassandra's thoughts about everything but in the film, the viewer just got a brief comment about the several situations. Despite this, the film was sweet and the actress playing Cassandra is perfect. Not exactly how I imagined it but films hardly ever beat the books. I give it 7.5/10

Satisfaction with a tinge of sadness

[wonderfulfable · 12 July 2003]

I do not know why but periodic films always get me and leave me in awe. I Capture the Castle does leave me in awe and also leaves me with the warm feeling of satisfaction.

Cassandra Mortmain (brilliantly potrayed by Romola Garai -also known for her television works, most prominently Attachments-) moved from London to a countryside castle with her family when she was young. Reason being for the move is that her father (Bill Nighy); an author made famous by his first bestseller, wanted to stimulate his creative juices to write another novel. Unfortunately, it has been 12 years since he has written anything and this has affected the Mortmain family financially. Cassandra's older sister Rose, laments about this and wishes to escape from the deepening poverty they are enduring.

This changed however with the arrival of two american brothers; Simon (Henry Thomas) and Neil Cotton (Mark Blucas). Simon is the new landlord of the land that the Mortmains are renting. Their arrival has stimulated the emotions of curiosity, lust and love in those two girls. Rose, although initially wary of Simon is soon smitten by him and has agreed to marry Simon. From that point (for which I shall not spoil), we see Cassandra drawn into the centre of interwoven relationships. Some twists did occur although not very suprising, neither are they predictable.

Having seen Romola Garai's acting in Attachments, I find her underused in the television series. In Castle, she gives a colourful range of emotions. From what I can tell, the sadness or the joy is as real as it is. Another thing is that her narration (also written in the journal she writes in the movie) interspersed in most of the scenes, gives the audience an insight to her feelings and her deepest fears. I feel that there is more to come from this talented young actress and hopefully it will be good.

Another thing to note is the recreation of 1930's England. Brilliant, glamorous are in the dinner scenes, the girls trip to a London department store and the dance clubs. Quaint are the scenes in the countryside and also the gloominess from the weather. Humour? There are with Thomas Mortmain and Topaz Mortmain (delightfully played by Tara Fiztgerald; loved her 1930's 'hippie' bohemian act) supplying the punchlines and the laughter.

With all the side stories aside, I feel Castle was meant for audiences to see Cassandra's coming of age and how she deals with the plethora of emotions that hits her. I just left the cinema feeling warmly satisfied but with a tinge of sadness.

Good movie, better book

[arwen_072 · 6/10 · 28 January 2005]

This movie was not a bad movie -- as simply a movie, it is more than watchable. But seeing it days after I finished the book, I was disappointed. Perhaps this was as good an adaptation as any anyone could have made, but I felt something lacking. A certain tone that the book had and the movie didn't. I suppose that's the problem with adapting books into films. They can never be quite the same substance.

17 year old Cassandra is witty and somewhat quirky, which in the book, comes across in her writing. The characters are sharp, original, and real. The movie attempted to capture them -- and it was a valiant attempt. But no picture is a substitute for Cassandra's commentaries, and as a result, some of the characters fell flat. James Mortmain, in particular, became merely a moody has-been writer when he was a comical, as well as violent man in the book. Don't get me wrong; I think Bill Nighy played the character well -- but he was never a source of comic relief in the film, whereas I found him hysterical in the book.

The character of younger brother Thomas was also transformed, from a mildly interesting young man into the utterly different nerdy little brother. This was no loss at all cinematic ally, for putting the Thomas we met in the book on screen may have made for one-too-many interesting characters. It just made me a bit sad.

The casting was good, though Marc Blucas was unemotional and forced as the charismatic Neil Cotton. The script surprised me, deviating from the book in story line very rarely. The dialogue and narration, though often different, fit with the essence, if you will, of the story. My main complaint has to do with the last scene, so beware...

*spoilers* The last lines of the book were, "I love you, I love you, I love you" left open for interpretation. The last lines of the movie were completely cliché and flat -- "I love, I have loved, I will love." That may be true, but it seemed an unnecessary and dulling change. That whole scene between Cassandra and Simon was like that. It almost seemed like an insult to the viewer's intelligence. Do they think we can't understand a little well placed subtlety? The dialogue was so blunt and out in the open, whereas the ambiguous quality of the dialogue in the book was one of the reasons I like it so much.

All in all, the movie is worth a watch if you have some spare time, but the book is worth a read even if you don't.

Complemented the book very well

[Deanna8799 · 7/10 · 4 June 2009]

I am a fan of Dodie Smith's book and thought that this movie complemented the book very well.

The style and look of the movie was brilliant. From the clothes to the scenery, it was a visual feast.

The best part of this movie was the casting. The casting was perfect! Every actor fit their character beautifully. Romola Garai was great as the naive Cassandra. Henry Cavil is wonderful in his quiet, intense way (and of course he's gorgeous!), and Marcus Blucas and Henry Thomas were utterly charming as the Cotton brothers.

The only thing I can say negative about this movie is that the conclusion was made very obvious. The relationships between characters was given away at the very beginning, lessening the impact of the ending. (It's more subtle in the book.) I highly request reading the book first, before seeing the movie! It will allow you to make your own assumptions about the characters before the movie reveals all! If you want to see a smart, romance I suggest this film!

Best adaptation ever

[eglaisher · 10/10 · 13 May 2003]

The rights to this film were rescued from Disney. I dread to think what Disney would have done with the book. Thank goodness they never tried it!

This book was one of my favourites, so I went to see the film in fear and trepidation. I needn't have worried. It is a beautiful film in its own right. Nothing was overstated. The emotions and nuances were captured perfectly by some wonderful performances, without the need to spell everything out in black and white.

Please see this film. I haven't enjoyed anything so much in ages.

Subtle and Universal

[NIXFLIX-DOT-COM · 7/10 · 24 September 2003]

I CAPTURE THE CASTLE, despite its protagonist being a young 17-year old girl, offers a universal theme: love is beautiful and great, and it can also hurt. Everyone who has ever been a teen knows what the lead is going through -- unable to distinguish between love and lust, or even how the opposite sex feels about you. It's a magical time in a person's life, but it's also extremely frightening and confusing. So wander through the mine fields of love with care, but also know that the hurt can't possibly last, and will soon enough be replaced by another love.

7 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of the movie)

Pride and Prejudice Lite

[Flagrant-Baronessa · 8/10 · 2 November 2006]

In the picturesque 1930's English countryside "I Capture the Castle" tells the story of an eccentric family in a decrepit, murky and leaky old castle that is now a shadow of its former majestic self, as is the father of the family. Their financial and romantic struggles are sewn together by an apt narrative by its lead character Cassandra (Romola Garai) who is the youngest daughter in the family.

The film is adapted from the same-titled cultish novel by Dodie Smith and it is glaringly apparent that the latter is interwoven with classic Jane Austen elements: class struggles, layered characters, English landscapes – and one heck of a high-spirited and likable heroine, Lizze Bennet-style.

Yes, the film wholly belongs to Romolai Garai who portrays this heroine with remarkable sweetness, honesty and selflessness. Although there is a wealth of intrinsically 'good' characters to be found in the story, Cassandra is unmistakably the most likable one and indeed she propels the film with her warm, caring charisma. It is a damn shame the unspeakably talented Romola was not showered with awards for her unrivalled performance. Billy Nighy also chips in as the father of the family – a failed writer who suffers from chronic writer's block and is moody and self-indulgent because of it. Yet he moves away from the Nighy-like acting of "charming prat" here and instead hands in a bruised, broken and tragic performance.

The conflict emerges with the blossoming of Rose (Rose Byrne), the oldest sister. She is the official family beauty and selfish on the surface, desperate to marry so she will get away from the miserable old leaky castle and escape into wealth. In a time of social climbers, Rose is a mountaineer. So naturally when one night two rich and eligible American bachelors (and brothers) set foot in the castle, she takes her chance. Cassandra forever takes a backseat to her older sister, but remains kind and happy for her nonetheless.

When Rose starts climbing the social latter, the financial constraints of the family are eased, but is she truly willing to marry only for money? 'I Capture the Castle' explores this question through the perspective of Cassandra as she writes her 147 pages of musings. It often offers delicate and classy humour in the juxtapositions of the seedy, drafty castle life with the glossy upper-class dinners at the American brothers' estates and indeed the whole film is peppered with light-hearted comedic situations and crafted with humorous, charming strokes. Yet it needs to be said that were it not for Romola Garai as the spirited tomboy Cassandra, the castle would have fallen apart – literally and figuratively.

There is that unmistakable romantic angle to every element of the story – never chick-flicky but always love-oriented – that renders I Capture the Castle a pleasant Austen-diversion. Hard-boiled attention-deficit action-viewers, you have been warned.

8 out of 10

Hit Or Miss Film -- Charming, But Spread Too Thin

[Dan1863Sickles · 6/10 · 6 October 2006]

An eccentric and well-born English family in the 1930's tries to cope with genteel poverty, while the two stunning teenage daughters of the family experiment with passion and romance.

Main thing you need to know: Romola Garai is not only lovely, she's an acting genius. Her fresh, innocent blond beauty rivets your attention, and she hits the right note in every scene -- curious, defiant, tender, lonely, confused, caring. She not only hits the right note, she often hits two or three right notes at once. Watch her animated facial expressions and you'll see she always gives you more than one emotion

The problem with this movie is that it tries to be too many things. One minute it's a sexy teen romance, like DIRTY DANCING (which also starred Romola Garai.) Then it's cerebral satire of long-forgotten intellectual types, like COLD COMFORT FARM. Then it's some kind of Masterpiece Theater type thing about newly rich Americans in England, and what fools they are for European elegance. Derivative themes and a thin plot with too many familiar stereotypes.

There are too many supporting characters, and aside from the luminous Romola Garai none of them are especially sympathetic. Marc Blucas was pretty good in JANE AUSTEN BOOK CLUB. Here he shows more muscle-power than talent. Henry Thomas is getting too old to be playing boyish and innocent. Bill Nighy as the eccentric dad has some authentic moments, but was a better patriarch in UNDERWORLD. ("Lycans, daughter. The lycans took my talent. Lucan and his kind . . spoiled my taste for f-f-f-fiction!")

There is one extremely interesting sub-plot about a local village lad the heroine thinks of as a friend, who worships her and is rejected. In an unexpected twist, a wealthy older woman seduces him and takes him to London, where he becomes a successful actor/model. The film handles this in a sensitive way, neither pitying the young man nor condemning him for giving in to his wealthy female protector. Unfortunately, this most interesting sub plot is only given a few minutes of screen time.

Summing up, then, this movie is something you must see only if you are a fan of the phenomenally talented Romola Garai. Other than that, it's really a hit or miss movie, and some parts are very thin.

Dispiriting for a lover of the book

[freudella · 5/10 · 25 December 2003]

Whenever there is a movie made from a book, there are bound to be shortcuts taken, characters combined or eliminated, adaptations made to make it suitable in size and scope -- but the overall tone should adhere, as best it can, to the source material. On this count, this movie fails miserably. The humor and wit of the book are entirely lacking in this dull melodrama

Romola Garai was well-cast as Cassandra and I'm certain she would have been better (lighter, more witty, less leaden) if she would have had better material. All others were pretty far off the mark, especially Tara Fitzgerald as Topaz and Marc Blucas as Neil. The latter is so wooden and his line readings so flat, I ducked my head in embarrassment for him whenever he opened his mouth to speak. Bill Nighy, so wonderful in other things, was also a grave miscast. None of the bluster and rather humorous pomposity of the character come through in his portrayal -- only neuroses, anger, and self-pity.

Perhaps this wouldn't be such a terrible movie to those unfamiliar with the book. However, if you loved the book I can't see how this film can be anything but

disappointing. The filmmakers who made "Cold Comfort Farm" should have done this one. It required that same light and loving touch. You won't find that here.

Good Adaptation

[dunbare · 8/10 · 28 January 2007]

I have read the book and the movie is quite faithful. The story is about a girl Cassandra (ROmola Garai) who is living in a rundown English castle with her eccentric family. There is her materialistic, selfish and beautiful sister Rose (Rose Byrne), her chicken feathered hair little brother Thomas, her Bohemian stepmother Topaz and her once sensational father (Billy Nighy)

**********SPOILERS***********************

The story of the Mortmains is that father was a successful writer who wrote a novel Jacobs Wrestling that was particularly a splash in America ( there are a lot of comparisons to English and American customs). The father Mortmain takes his young family to live in a castle for creative purposes. In flashbacks we see Mortmains fall when the unfortunate Cake knife incident occurs causing his incarceration and his lack of writing. Their mother passes on and we see the Mortmains living in romantic poverty with Topaz acting as mother.

The Mortmains life take a different turn when the arrival of landowners Neil and Simon Cotton arrive. They are brothers who now own the quaint little castle and are American. Rose and Cassandra immediately hatch a plan to capture Simon as Roses husband. As Topaz puts it "those boys are very taken with you Rose." This is Topaz observing the Cottons first encounter with Rose. As the girls become more and more successful hearts will be broken.

This movie really is one big tragic love triangle. Simon falls in love with Rose and marriage is proposed. Neil is quite hostile towards Rose and sees her as a gold digger (she is). Cassandra meanwhile realizes she loves Simon and is disgusted by her sisters love of peach colored towels, bluebells, and fancy dresses. Rose is not in love with Simon. The story is even more complex in that Rose ultimately weds Neil the brother she does love! To make matters worse Simon is still in love with Rose and Cassandra is in love with Simon!

Cassandra herself is pouring her broken heart out to her ever adoring servant boy Stephan. Stephan was the son of the Mortmains maid when they could afford one and stuck around after his mothers death. He has always adored and loved Cassandra. He is by far the most handsome of the men in the film and it is painful to watch his face crumble when Cassandra tells him she does not love him.

This film is about love and broken hearts as all have their hearts broken Cassandra, Stephen, Simon and even Topaz and Father. The only ones who have any kind of happiness are Rose and Neil two of the least sympathetic characters in the story.

1. Topaz was the character I liked least. She looked nothing at all like the one described in the book. Topaz was said to have skin so white it was like she belonged to a new race ( This is set in the 30's before tans when pale skin was popular). Her hair was very fair almost white. The woman who played Topaz while certainly eccentric looked a little old ( I believe Topaz was around 28 or 29) and did not have either of the physical traits Cassandra described so beautifully in the book.

2. Stephen should have been played up a lot more. The actor who played him certainly had the physical attractiveness of Stephen and the sensitivity, but he was adored by many young girls. It should at least have been hinted at more how desirable the girls Cassandras age found him and how she did not seem to care. Stephen himself did not seem to care about it either.

3. One of the saddest scenes is the Pagan rites when Cassandra realizes she will never share the same home as Rose again. It was a bit bittersweet and one of my favorite scenes.

This was a charming little film that I really liked. While not totally accurate to the book it comes very close and even if your a loyal fan of the book the movie may be a pleasant surprise.

Romola Garai is brilliant as Cassandra

[polycan · 7/10 · 5 May 2005]

This has always been one of my favourite books. I was thrilled when I saw that the book had been made into a movie, for the first time since it was written, over 50 years before.

I think Romola Garai is brilliant as Cassandra, but it is a shame that some of the dialogue she is given just does not compare well with the book. Bill Nighy did not seem to be the right actor for James Mortmain, who I think is more of a stiff-upper-lip type, not so artsy as Nighy portrays him - Mortmain has written a book but it's a scholarly work.

I know a book has to change when it becomes a movie, but I missed characters like the romantically-minded school teacher and the dressmaker's dummy that Cassandra "brings to life". I also miss details like Topaz and Rose having long blonde hair (described beautifully in the opening pages of the book) and Thomas being 15 - so not quite as precocious as he appears to be in the movie.

The movie captures some of the book's charm: the castle, the countryside, Cassandra's emotions, but I felt it was unnecessary to make up a particular scene between Cassandra and her father (I think this was done to accommodate Nighy's acting style) and I was really disappointed by the ending, where Cassandra seemingly lets go of her love, writing it off as a general experience, rather than declaring her love, as she does in the book, and her hope that the man she loves will return.

Terrible Screenwriter

[mollymcn · 3/10 · 22 January 2004]

I was very disappointed in this movie. Hearing the DVD commentary by the director, producer, and screenwriter explained why it was so bad but annoyed me because they didn't seem to know the book as well as anyone adapting a book into a movie should. It is understandable that the director and producer were much better acquainted with the screenplay than with its source, but the screenwriter has no excuse. She frequently said that adapting a popular book is difficult because fans of the book are so devoted to the text that they are upset because their own favorite episodes are left out. I enjoyed the book but am not that devoted a fan, and though I was sorry to see characters and scenes I liked left out, I know it would be impossible to make a movie that retained everything in a full-length novel. But to take the title, characters, and some of the events of a book, but change significant motivations, events, or characters beyond recognition is inexcusable. It was especially annoying when the screenwriter claimed scenes were true to the book when they weren't. The worst was when she made a big deal about not changing the ending, saying that Dodie Smith (the author) had been offered half a million dollars by book-of-the-month club to change it and she (the screenwriter) felt that if Smith resisted that much money it was important the ending stay the same. And she changed it! She changed it in a different way but the change was just as bad, arguably worse. She also changed some scenes in a way that made them not only contrary to fiction, but also to the real era in which the events of the movie are supposed to take place. Many movies do this, but I wish they wouldn't. On the positive side, the scenery was beautiful (though wrong for the supposed setting) and the acting was good for the most part. It was too bad that the story was changed enough that Neil and Simon behaved bizarrely and inexplicably. Neil especially was a strange caricature of an American, but given what he had to work with, I don't think it was the actor's fault. I'm sure I would have liked this movie slightly more if I had not read the book, but I still wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The screenwriter's plot just doesn't make sense. Maybe no screenplay could have adequately conveyed the character's motivations and the plot only makes sense in book form, but this screenwriter's attempt is truly terrible.

Along with our hearts.

[Cipher-J · 9 February 2004]

This is such a wholly captivating romantic study in human values with deep personal growth for basically all the main characters, that it's like a breath of fresh air in comparison to the sleaziness of what gets regularly stamped out by the Hollywood machines. On one level it's a `coming of age' story, in that it is presented from the point of view of an adolescent girl's search for meaning in life, but it is so much more than just that. The relationship issues are strong and poignant, never tawdry or sensational. People make mistakes for all too human reasons, but they also learn from them and grow. We are left with a sense of hope and inspiration, and not just a fairytale promise. The details of the story are not otherwise important as an introduction. It is wonderful to see!

why yes I would love to dance naked in the moonlight (personal thought)

[rdukeesq · 7/10 · 31 May 2011]

So I watched "I capture the castle" from 2003, starring a bunch of British actors who for the most part I am not familiar with and the kid from E.T. (Henry Thomas). To get sidetracked just a little before the review, if you look at the list of young stars who Spielberg has worked with he has spotted some kids who actually have made careers as actors including Dakota Fanning, Drew Barrymore, and most notably Christian Bale (empire of the sun- great flick!). So is it good, I say yes. This movie is sort of a romantic comedy that takes place in the 1930's in England. It is humorous especially in the early moments of the movie, and as the film progresses gets more serious and more about discovering love and the way love affects everyone differently and can change, grow, be confusing, painful, and well die out sometimes. So is this movie for everyone, well no. This movie I would say is geared more towards the Jane Austin crowd, and anyone else may groan during it. I am not a huge chick flick guy or a Jane Austin guy, but I enjoyed it. It is an interesting story, the period is represented beautifully and authentically, and the characters are for the most part very fascinating especially the father, played by the one guy I really knew in this flick, Bill Nighy. So if you find yourself having high tea while playing croquet and being bohemian than turn this movie on some night you should enjoy it. if you like concise reviews of interesting films please read my other reviews at http://raouldukeatthemovies.blogspot.com/

A Charming Film But . . .

[gloryoaks · 7/10 · 21 February 2004]

This was a charming film, but for those who love the book, it had some major disappointments, especially in the script and in the portrayal of Topaz. She was a marvelous, lovable, nutty character in the book, an original! Neither script nor actress even began to capture the real Topaz. I found Tara Fitzgerald actually annoying in the part. The book is not only intriguing and romantic,but deliciously funny, as told in Cassandra's journal. The writer and director didn't even try on that score--which gave the film a heavier, melodramatic quality. Rose and Neil were shortchanged at the end. Rose has a wonderful speech in the book which gives her reasons for her actions in movingly persuasive terms. That was left out of the movie. And, as another reviewer has pointed out, the scriptwriter did change the ending of the movie, and not for the better. The book's ending in Cassandra's journal was more authentic and true to the 18 year old character.

Charming romantic film

[belisanda · 8/10 · 21 June 2004]

The book (by Dodie Smith) is better. It's usually so, as it has the space to develop the characters, set the setting (as it were) and be more satisfying.

But the movie for me ranks 8/10. Adaptations are always difficult, but here an harmonious compromise has been reached.

The acting is not uniformly good, but each performer gives the best of itself. Particularly Tara Fitzgerald, Romola Garai, Henry Thomas and, yes, Marc Blucas(if you've only seen him on 'Buffy' you're in for a treat).

All in all a wonderful, old-fashioned with the odd touch of XXIst century romantic comedy.

Modern Jane Austen - bit sad

[phd_travel · 7/10 · 24 August 2010]

A more modern Jane Austen type story of sisters without money and finding love. The countryside setting is charming and it is beautifully filmed.

The acting is good. The casting is good. Rose Byrne is pretty. Romola Garai acts well for a difficult complex role. The other supporting cast are good too. Sinead Cusack is an odd choice for an American. Henry Thomas looks a bit puffy.

The ending is more modern than Jane Austen in that it is not one of those typical feel good endings but it is slightly sad for the same reason. It is about realistic love not fairytale love.

This is worth watching for an unusual story and . Just a bit depressing at the end. The nudity was not necessary for the movie if they had left it out more people might have been able to see this movie.

Fairytales meet reality in a subtly stunning 1930s romance

[Chris_Docker · 8/10 · 14 May 2003]

Fairytales meet reality in this 1930s romance set in stunning scenery and with sumptuous period costumes to match. Two teenage girls struggle with their developing feelings whilst reduced to poverty in an old castle with their father, a famous writer-philosopher who has not published anything in twelve years. Two American lads enter their confined world and stir up confusing feelings of love, lust and a desire to escape their financial dilemma. There is nothing very 'deep' in this movie, apart from vague references as to whether it is ever acceptable to marry for money, but it is a delightfully executed love story, enriched with the two girls' elaborate fantasies, self-analysis, and stuff that dreams are made of. It largely avoids the triteness of modern romantic comedies and all but the weariest cynic will easily enjoy the delicate combination of post-Victorian manners and wooing that weave a captivating spell in an unfolding tale of visual beauty.

Charming entertaining and thoughtful 1930's romance

[deejtee · 7/10 · 8 May 2003]

Had the pleasure of seeing a preview of this with the director and a producer at the Odeon Hemel Hempstead of all places on 8 May.

Do NOT be put off by the trailer shown on British cinema screens over the last few weeks - its poor technical image quality is NOT representative of the movie in any way. Instead watch the (presumably American) trailer on this site.

The central heroine - Cassandra - is a delightful new young actress and totally carries your interest through the movie and her convincing development from a naive teenager to a woman learning about the world and men.

Tremendous production values with some super rustic/castle scenery as well as a beautifully staged 1930s London environments make for an entertaining couple of hours likely to appeal to anyone from teens to OAPs (who remember this teens from the 1930s!).

Enjoy it while you can - though presumably as a BBC Films production it'll be on the small screen soon - big screens are better!

Nothing earth shattering but good ENTERTAINMENT!

A wonderful book; a badly-cast film.

[soyarra-1 · 2/10 · 5 December 2004]

I was thrilled when I learned this book was being turned into a movie, but was dismayed at the casting of the American brothers. Could they have chosen two more boring actors? I doubt it. At least Henry Thomas can act, but he's much, much too wimpy and lightweight for the romantic Simon (I weep for the wasted opportunity that would have been Paul Rudd in this role) and Marc Blucas is a big, big zero here. He's a terrible, stiff, unconvincing actor (as he was on Buffy and in nearly everything else he's ever been in) and impossible to swallow as the object of the flighty Rose's affections.

Still, Romola Garai and Rose Byrne were lovely as Cassandra and Rose, even though the central romances in the story were subverted by the performances of Thomas and Blucas. I was initially appalled by the idea of Bill Nighy and especially Tara Fitzgerald as the girls' parents, but both were quite good. It's too bad one can't totally ignore the two male leads and just concentrate on the good actors, but as they're central to the story, it's impossible. As such, this is a lackluster film adaptation of a wonderful book.

Best translation of literature

[patrick-sachon · 9/10 · 27 January 2008]

After reading the novel, I am usually disappointed by the screenplay, but not in this case.

The story is preserved and is magical in this film. Romola Garai is brilliant as the young Cassandra, but all of the characters are strongly played.

The soundtrack is fitting, and the settings work well. The characters traits develop smoothly and interact believably. This, to me is proof that with a great storyteller/writer, cast and director, time and care; something true to itself can be produced.

I just wish there were more films made to this standard.

Young Love Gone Horribly Wrong

[PirateGirl · 3/10 · 30 May 2004]

Ah, yes. Young love. Let's meet two impoverished sisters. Now let's meet the new neighbors: two rich brothers who live in the castle next door. Bet you can't guess what's going to happen next...

Yep. The plot's fairly transparent from the outset. The only question that remains is which brother will fall in love with which sister, and vice-versa. Unfortunately, all four of them seem to fall in deep, abiding, heartbreaking, world-ending love after one line of poetry, one shaken pitchfork, or just generally at the drop of a feather. More unfortunately, the director chooses to present this as deep, weighty drama.

I would have liked to have been able to say that the actors and director did the best they could with the material they had to work with. But the film is acted with an it-must-be-almost-lunchtime languor, and edited to take forty-five minutes of story and fit in on nearly two hours of film.

Perhaps if I'd been able to have one ounce of sympathy for the "tragic" plight of any of the silly, one-dimensional characters, the film wouldn't have dragged the way it did. But as it was, the costumes and scenery stole the show.

At the end, as Cassandra, the film's heroine, stands on the tower of her crumbling castle and declares "I have loved, I love,"--long, dramatic pause, as though the audience hasn't figured out what the last line will be--" I will love," I could only find myself hoping that the tales of her future loves did not make their way into the hands of a film producer.

nice little film doesn't do book justice.

[gfrancie · 23 June 2003]

Right off the bat I possess serious prejudices regarding the film. One being that the book that it was based on is my favorite book in the entire world. I first read it when I was seventeen, I have since read it about thirty times, so I know the story and the characters so very well. I did watch the film with equal anticipation and dread (like most people do when their favorite book is adapted to film) and I was slightly pleased and often disappointed. I think the key to the book and how it works is the constant sense of restraint and keeping certain things a mystery. One never found out much about the mother she was more of a ghost that wasn't truly important. And I wasn't keen upon the fact that they made a bigger deal about her, and took the film in a direction that was quite different and shall I say over-dramatic for the tone it should have set. I did find it to be a nice little film, definitely fun for those who favor frock films, and pleasant to see a film where it isn't neatly tied up at the end. (which is a bit like the book, but again in a different sense) I do understand it is difficult to cover a book in a two hour movie, thus I think it would have been a much better idea if they had made it into a mini-series. Then there would have been proper exploration and it would have stayed much more true to a book I adore.