Reviews & Ratings for
"Daniel Deronda" More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

20 reviews in total

---

28 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
"I don't love her any more than she loves me. That's not the point.", 18 April 2003

Author: KatharineFanatic from United States

Having never read George Eliot's novel, I came into the film with only what I know based on the information friends have given me. The film is utterly exquisite. The costuming alone will have Anglophiles like myself crying from sheer envy, and there's enough archery, riding, and balls to weigh out the seriousness of the film, which is essentially two plots woven into one. An utterly heartless and wretched marriage for a spoiled young Gwendolyn in the form of the evil Grandcourt, a landowner whose sole pleasure lies in torment. Be it his wife or dogs, our heartless villain never takes greater pleasure than in dangling something before them and tearing it away again, only to feed it to someone else. We see a kind of barbarism in this act, be it with the family spaniel or his impoverished, abandoned mistress.

The second plot line, which I found slightly less interesting, was about the film's lead, Daniel Deronda, a presumed illigitimate boy who has been raised a country gentleman. One day while out boating he saves a Jewish singer from drowning herself, and sets out to discover his own true identity through finding her family. I don't know why, but I found myself itching through these scenes to get back to Gwendolyn and her pathetic plight of enslavement to her husband. A second viewing, once I knew the course of the characters, settled me a bit.

The acting is very stellar. There's not a weak link in the cast, although I have to say seeing Barbara Hershey seemed a little out of place in this Victorian paradox. The film makes numerous contrasts between good and evil, selfishness and humility, lies and deception. It's actually quite an achievement, and I was pleased at the amount of restraint showed by the filmmakers. The sexual tension between man and wife will go over most younger viewer's heads, something for which I'm grateful. It's rare we get a wonderful Victorian bodice ripper where the bodice stays on.

---

34 out of 44 people found the following review useful:
Don't Judge "Deronda" Based on the First 15 Minutes, 11 April 2004

Author: hfk (hfk@email.com) from Oklahoma City

The first time 'round, when PBS initially offered up "Deronda", I watched the first 15 minutes or so and was so disgusted with Gwendolynn that I changed channels and didn't think twice. Second time 'round, based on reviews here at IMDB, I gave it a bit more time and I'm certainly glad that I did. "Deronda" is a powerfull, beautiful, bit of television. I'm a conservative by nature and, on a regular basis, I'm sickened by the politically correct preaching that's often pushed by PBS and Network television. Daniel Deronda like, say "Prime Suspect", is story-telling with a liberal slant that is both legitimate and thought-provoking. I thoroughly enjoyed the story, and the lush production. I'm surprised by the nit-picking about "wooden" acting: I found the acting excellent, particularly compared to the endless trash television that's pumped into the idiot box these days. perhaps this is trite, but "Deronda" actually inspired me, uplifted me and, at least as far as I'm concerned, that's one of the most significant hallmarks of great art. Don't miss it.

---

23 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
Exquisite Adaptation, 5 June 2003

Author: sydneypatrick from USA

This was one of the more exquisite costume drama adaptations I have seen, with attention to detail absolutely striking in an archery scene that sets the bar for the entire series. Like the novel, it is polarizing in its two stories in one - people seem to either love/hate Daniel's plight or love/hate Gwendolyn's.

Personally, I found Gwendolyn equally annoying in both novel and film. Hugh Darcy, as the eponymous hero, was pretty to look at and delivers a fine, if unremarkable, performance.

But it is Hugh Bonneville as the dastardly Henleigh Grandcourt who took my breath away! He is flawlessly reprehensible, stealing every scene he was in and when he wasn't in a scene, I couldn't wait to see him again! It was terrific seeing Hugh Bonneville in such a role, as he's usually cast in the "very nice guy" roles (Bridget Jones Diary, Iris, Tipping the Velvet, etc). Although he's fine in such roles, as Grandcourt he made my skin crawl with his morally bankrupt, wealthy and pugnacious swagger. LOVED him!

What this series could have used more of was Jodhi May and Greta Scacchi. In difficult supporting roles, both women shine as, respectively, a searching, haunted Jewess and a scorned, bitter mistress. Barbara Hershey makes an appearance late in the series in a pivotal plot device that I won't reveal lest some unsuspecting viewer be bitter with me, and in a limited role gives a performance that reminds us why she became famous in the first place (and at least for this viewer, made me forgive her 'Beaches').

Overall, this adaptation is very enjoyable and recommended viewing for fans of the genre.

---

13 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
No "Middlemarch, but still pretty decent, 4 January 2003

Author: Lord Dorotheus Brooksham-Daffodil III (morrissey@karenina.zzn.co from Sumwair, Knowair

"Daniel Deronda" is the only novel George Eliot wrote after "Middlemarch", and it's also the strangest novel she's ever written, because one can never figure out whether the two story-lines are actually two separate novels put into one book. One continually has the impression on reading the book that the two story-lines could exist independently of each other. Mind you, she did the same thing with "Middlemarch", only here the two story-lines, those of Dorothea Brooke and Tertius Lydgate, are interrelated and interwoven ingeniously, which is one of the reasons why Middlemarch is such a masterpiece of structure. But I digress. In "Daniel Deronda" this relation is far less apparent, which makes it a lesser novel than Middlemarch, structurally speaking, but not necessarily a less fascinating one. One story-line is about the beautiful, vain, spoiled and idealistic and free-fought Gwendolen Harleth, one of Eliot's great, great heroines, who is forced to marry Henleigh Grandville to save her father from financial ruin. Grandcourt is also one of the most fascinating characters in Eliot's canon, for he seems to be the only one of her characters who is truly evil and who is not redeemed. He intents giving in to all of her caprices and wants at first and after due time to basically enslave her. The other story is that of Daniel Deronda, who is of Jewish heritage and starts a quest to find out more about it and in doing so meets the young Jewish idealist Mordecai, who dreams of a homeland for all Jews and who lectures Deronda on being who he is and on being true to his heritage: Jewish. In the book George Eliot seemed to have wanted to juxtapose Gwendolen's vanity and spoiledness with Mordecai's idealism, with Deronda being the only link between the two story-lines. He tries to bring some relief to Gwendolen's life of her oppressive marriage to Grandcourt. Which puts him in the strange position of being something of a mentor to Gwendolen and Mordecai´s disciple. But does it work on the small screen? Yes and no. I´ve always found Gwendolen´s part in the book far more interesting than Mordecai´s and I really had to struggle through it, it being quite tedious at times. Also I think Eliot was in a bit over her head in dealing with such issues as heritage, especially Jewish heritage. But she meant well. Mordecai's role on the mini-series is much diminished for the sake of the love-story between Deronda and Mirah. Which is probably a good thing, but it still didn't quite work. It just will not get interesting, perhaps this is because I am not Jewish. The most interesting part is Gwendolen. This story is the George Eliot I know and love. Most of Eliot's normal themes are recur here. The tension between ideals and the rules of society, selfishness and vanity, and the role of women in the Victorian marriage. All these themes are touched upon. Gwendolen's, played by the stunning Romola Garai, oppression by Grandcourt, played by the chillingly brilliant is her criticism of the roles of men and women in marriage. Women were basically slaves. And Gwendolen's redemption and spiritual rebirth is basically George Eliot saying that you can't be idealistic all your life and that you have to adhere to society's rules if there's going to be any chance of you being happy. The acting at times seemed a bit wooden, not in the least by Garai and Dancy. But Bonnneville was absolutely brilliant in it. He is truly evil. Mary Ann would have been proud. All in all I´d say this a pretty good adaptation of the novel. I give it a 7 out of 10.

---

9 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
brilliant production, 22 November 2006

Author: raymond-15 from Australia

The title gave me no clue to the absorbing romantic Victorian drama that was to follow. Said to be George Eliot's last great novel, it exposes in no uncertain manner the pitiful life of the Victorian woman, hardly more than an obedient slave and forced to respond to her husband's demands.

Hugh Bonneville stands out among the excellent cast as the nasty Henleigh Grandcourt who revels in watching women squirm under his aristocratic power and Romola Garai is perfect as Gwendolen who marries him, not for love, but to save her family from economic ruin.

Hugh Dancy in the title role of Daniel has immediate appeal with his handsome good looks touched with both shyness and sadness as he ponders over his past life and the unsolved mystery of his mother's identity.

After Daniel saves a woman from drowning in a river, the story takes an unexpected turn and concentrates on the Jewish problem of a permanent homeland. Daniel is much attracted to the woman he has saved and through his efforts to help her some mysteries of his own life are revealed to him.

The sets, costumes and photography capture exquisitely life in England in the Victorian era. Quite apart from the romantic drama, there is much to ponder over in this story. Thankfully to-day women have gained a degree of independence, though not entirely, and the Jews are still uncertain about the boundaries of their homeland.

I can recommend this film which is in 4 parts. Set aside a full evening to watch the story unfold. It's quite long (205 minutes) but a brilliant production.

---

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
A slice of Victorian life, 26 December 2004

Author: George Parker from Orange County, CA USA

"Daniel Deronda" is a worthy knock-off of George Eliot's novel of the same name which tells of a young Englishman's search for meaning and purpose while enjoying a life of property and leisure. As with most Victorian period costume dramas out of the UK, this film is sumptuously appointed and well represented by the players and places as it meanders through the usual multiplicity of relationships from aristocrat to pauper with a Jewish thread for distinction. "Daniel Deronda" conjures a range of characters from a stoic martinet to a spoiled beauty to an attractive Jewess and beyond with love, greed, envy, guile, and death all swirling around the Deronda character as it manages to sort itself out with a coherent story arc and a more or less happy ending. A "should see" for anyone into Victorian flicks. (B)

---

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Hugh Dancy brought both the character and the novel Daniel Deronda to life for me., 8 January 2006

Author: Emma from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It was interesting to read the various comments put up here about the screen adaptation of Daniel Deronda. I watched it at the time it was first shown on television and thought it was really excellent. Then shortly afterwards, I came across the novel whilst on holiday and having enjoyed the television adaptation, I began to read the book and couldn't put it down. After that I felt compelled to go back to watch the televised version again and felt that although, as with any screenplay, it could not include every detail from the original novel, it captured the essence of the book extremely well and that it was truly inspiring. In fact I even re-read the book shortly afterwards. I thought the acting was superb and would certainly take issue with other user comments about both Gwendolyn and Daniel. Daniel was supposed to be almost saint-like and consequently somewhat removed from the other characters, although he did care deeply about them. I thought that Hugh Dancy did this very well, as it was so difficult to portray such a character. I certainly don't think he was in any way "wooden". He apparently said that having read the novel at university, he found it fascinating and helpful when filming to refer constantly to the original novel for guidance, and that needless to say, it gave him a much greater insight into the novel than when he had first read it. (Actually it was through watching Daniel Deronda that I became a loyal fan of Hugh Dancy.) I confess that I found myself quite illogically drawn to Gwendolyn's character as she advanced through the story to such an extent that the end of the screen version always makes me cry. Obviously she was intensely annoying to begin with, but she pays for her immaturity and her selfish and thoughtless behaviour by the end of the novel. I thought she was a far more interesting character than Mirah, not that I didn't think that Jodhi May was excellent in that role, but I loved the sexual tension between Gwendolyn and Deronda - the fact that they almost kissed but never did, so that in the end, even though you sensed it was a relationship going nowhere, you really wanted them to get physical. Of course Deronda was too honourable to do any such thing! Ah! Therein lies the attraction of the character for me: such purity and honour, (and of course Hugh Dancy is beautiful...) but there's not too much of that left these days - I refer to purity and honour.

---

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Period Romance with Substance, 1 July 2008

Author: Lasker (lasker_98@hotmail.com) from San Diego, California

As a film of social and interpersonal dimension, Daniel Deronda is impressive. It is refreshingly easy to forgive that it is not an Ivory production complete with exquisite costumes, sets, and revelatory photography. There is an engaging account to make up for it.

The series encapsulates the respective stories of the heroic Daniel Deronda and the spoiled aristocrat, Gwendolyn Harleth whose lives first intertwine at a casino. The first images of the roulette and the covert glances Gwendolyn and Daniel share transport us immediately into the Victorian period with its secrets, niceties, and excesses. It is the only period that such a film could take place. Their encounter is a chance one. She is called away, once she receives the news, to attend to her impoverished family; he is not a gambler. Yet, his return of the jewels she sold to provide money for her family lays the foundation of their relationship that lasts until the end of the series. Gwendolyn, despite her self-centeredness and arrogance, sees value in him that transcends her attraction. His generosity is an impression which deepens each time she sees him, and, to a degree, transforms her.

Romola Garai masterfully registers the complexities of Gwendolyn Harleth, who is the more pivotal character. Her facial and vocal expressions continually convey the conflicts in her nature that on one hand consists of a superficial expectation of wealth, and on the other hand contains her desire to be a better person than she could possibly become. Gwendolyn's decisions, involving situations which are morally complex, result continuously in dichotomies that benefit some to the absolute detriment of others. She is haunted by these ambiguities, her uncomfortable reflections on her motivations, and her tragic belief in Daniel Deronda. That she often suffers as a result of circumstances and conscience, does not give her comfort. Yet the initial understanding of her lack of substance disappears. Her character is considered the most impressive ever written by Eliot, and Garai is award-worthy in capturing her.

Hugh Dancy has the requisite gallantry and innocence of Deronda, who finds a social purpose in aiding the Jewish people in their pursuit of their homeland. His romantic interest in Gwendolyn is a fascinating aspect that gives the series its thrilling effect. One is compelled to wonder and hope throughout if they will have a future together.

---

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Villainy pays off, 26 January 2004
Author: ingemann2000

I'm watching the British series Daniel Deronda every week on Swedish tv, and I will recommned it to everyone who fancies quality literary adaptations. The production values are impeccable, and the acting list very impressive. The one to catch your attention, though, is without a doubt Hugh Bonneville as the supervillain Grandcourt. He's everything a good oldfashioned villain from the 19.th century ought to be: suave, cool, arrogant, manipulative, morally corrupt, and with a razor sharp wit. In fact, he totally overshadows the meek and handsome, but oh so noble and earnest hero, poor Daniel Deronda! Hugh Dancy does his best, but it's hard work to make Deronda as interesting as Grandcourt! Likewise with the heroine. Romola Garai is beautiful to look at, but it's difficult to really care about Gwendolyn. She's such a silly, whiny, and cold person who would rather marry a man she dislikes than stoop to be a governess! It made me long to give her a good whipping! All in all, I think she and Deronda deserve each other, for being so awfully colourless and boring. I'd much rather spend the time watching the villain smirk, or wonder about miss Lapidoth's strange fate, among the Jews. As usual, being the villain pays off! Hugh Bonneville and David Bamber as Lush are the characters you remember! They really are perfectly selfish and dastardly mean!

---

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
The movie starts with nice scenes and good sound musics and very interesting story but suddenly changes to a Jewish suffering propaganda, 21 May 2012

Author: k-267-491613 from Ontario, Canada

The movie started good but turned to a scam from the middle. Jewish suffering theme and it tries to prove Jewish people are so good.

If you are Jew and want to be proud of yourself just for fun, watch it, It has some good elements in it too. Like good pictures and some good signings.

The story seems to exaggerate how other people are stupid but the people with Jewish blood are saint like even without knowing they are related to this race.

Overally the story is nonsense. Unless you are not looking for any logic.

The movie contains some emotional scenes too like love of mother son and sister brother.

If I were a Jewish or Israeli, I would be offended with this production. Since when in the middle of the movie people find out about the scam of Jewish propaganda again they will start to think why this race is like this and want to make itself separate from other humans.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user reviews	Your vote history