IMDb > Georgia O'Keeffe (2009) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Georgia O'Keeffe
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Georgia O'Keeffe (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 16 reviews in total 

14 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Finally, the rest of the story, Page 2

Author: theMidWestPete from United States
20 September 2009

I have followed Stieglitz for 40 years via catalogs, books, videos, and exhibitions. I branched out to adore O'Keefe for her work, and, increasingly for her individuality and spunk.

This portrayal of the woman fills a much needed gap in her biography and that of Alfred. The harmonies played by the character weave a phenomenal presentation of these lives.

For anyone who has read biographies, autobiographies, or other papers on these two lives will easily fill the gaps in this abbreviated portrayal. If I get the chance this program will become a part of my own collection of these artists lives - It's a keeper.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

Needs a Big-Screen Release

Author: boblipton from New York City
20 September 2009

This movie requires a big-screen release. Any movie about a painter that does not need a big-screen is a basic failure, and this movie is no failure on any level.

First, we need to consider the lead actors. I have been enamored of Joan Allen's chops since I saw her in THE HEIDI CHRONICLES on stage. She has only gotten better. Jeremy Irons is, of course, a great actor. He has a great ability to portray real people from REVERSAL OF FORTUNE to here. Here he makes Alfred Steiglitz. as written by screenwriter Michael Cristofer vain, pompous, needy, funny, visionary and very, very real.

But the real brilliance here is the cinematography by Paul Elliott who capture's O'Keefe's lights and images in a startling way, from O'Keefe's actual paintings to Joan Allen's hands.

The only failure is its non-release on a big screen. Well, perhaps someday....

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

You were put on this earth to paint, not to breed.

Author: lastliberal from United States
20 September 2009

This was essentially a two-person film. Sure, there were other characters that came in and out: Mabel Dodge Stern (Tyne Daly), Dorothy Norman (Jenny Gabrielle), Tony Lujan (Robert Mirabal), and Selma Steiglitz (Christina Koerber), to name four, but it was the passionate, sometimes stormy relationship between the painter, Georgia O'Keeffe (Joan Allen), and internationally known photographer and gallerist (and philanderer), Alfred Steiglitz (Jeremy Irons), that was displayed here. The New Mexican landscape can also be considered a character, as it enveloped her years after their split.

One of the things that may have helped make this more interesting would be some of the back-story in things that happened. Why didn't Steiglitz want children? There was a good reason. His philandering was also down played. The showing on Lifetime may have served to keep this from being all it could be.

There was some great lines throughout the film. When Stieglitz tells O'Keeffe not to return to her teaching job at West Texas State Normal College, he sniffs: "There's nothing normal in Texas." There are many more great lines, and that makes the film entertaining.

Seeing their relationship develop and falter, and watching how he managed to promote her into one of the greatest American painters was reason enough to tune in. When she overtook him in fame, and we saw Allen's passionate portrayal, it was beautiful.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

What happened to Jean Toomer?

Author: bricoleur9 from United States
26 September 2009

About a year ago, when the cast was announced for this film, much flurry was made about Henry Simmons playing the role of writer Jean Toomer, the third point in the crucial triangle that really led Georgia O'Keeffe to decide to stay away from Stieglitz.

Imagine the unexpected disappointment when in the broadcast film, Simmons as Toomer was stifled to not a single honest line of dialog! He is reduced to mention in an insane and inaccurate tirade by Stieglitz as "the Black Prince of Harlem" many decades before Malcolm X (to whom the epithet rightly belongs) was born. And these lines sound quite unworthy of a writer the caliber of Cristofer.

Not only was Toomer, a man of mixed race, hardly in Harlem, but he spent most of his life fighting against being classified as a "Negro writer." Then, even more surprisingly, scenes between O'Keeffe and Toomer show up on the Lifetime website and comprise the great majority of what was omitted from the final presentation -- scenes that could shed quite a different light on her choices about remaining in New Mexico.

Obviously, some effort was made to make Joan Allen and Jeremy Irons look like their historical subjects. Simmons does not look like Toomer at all. At least in the old American Playhouse version of the story Vernal Bagneris makes a credible representative.

Moreover, the finished quality of the omitted scenes belies a late cut. It would certainly be interesting to learn something more for the production record, even if not to abate the unanimous canning by the critics. Toomer's disappearing act is one of the major reasons the film failed.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

I don't know what art is, but I'll know it when I'll see it!

Author: jotix100 from New York
30 November 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Georgia O'Keefe, perhaps America's best woman painter, is the subject of this movie made for television. Her tormented relationship with Alfred Stieglitz, a master photographer, on his own right, takes center stage. Not having know much about the life of these two American icons, we decided to take a chance, lured mainly by all the talented people involved in the production. It paid off for us, as it tells an unique story that perhaps not too many know.

Georgia O'Keefe arrived in the New York art scene in the 1930s, at the height of the Great Depression. It does not take too long before she meets Alfred Stieglitz, who is showing some of her paintings done on paper. He recognized the greatness in this plain woman from Texas that was devoid of pretensions. It was Alfred who introduced her to the art crowds that recognized in her a new force in the unique and feminine way she brought into anything she did.

Alfred Stieglitz came from a well off family, but he struggled all his life to make ends meet. He was married when he started his affair with Georgia. The passion between them turned sour because he could just not stay true to their relationship. When Georgia meets Mabel Dodge Stern, a wealthy woman, she invited the artist to come to New Mexico to get away from seeing Alfred cheating on her with Dorothy Norman, a society lady that fell for Stieglitz. That was a turning point for Ms. O'Keefe as she found a paradise where she was able to spend most of her life.

Michael Christopher wrote the screenplay and Bob Balaban directed. The film explores the lives and the times these famous characters live and the legacy they left behind. Of course, one can imagine the creators must have taken liberties in presenting the story. Joan Allen, one of the best actresses working today, shows a flair in her interpretation of Georgia O'Keefe, the woman who loved intensely. Jeremy Irons is seen as Alfred Stieglitz, a man who would not hesitate to get involved with another woman, knowing how it hurt Georgia. Tyne Daly is seen as Mabel Dodge Stern. Linda Emond is Beck Strand, Georgia's true friend. Ed Begley Jr., Kathleen Chalfant, and the rest of the supporting cast do a nice job for Mr. Balaban.

Georgia O'Keefe's work is shown in all its splendor. The opportunity to watch her paintings is a treat for all her fans.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

A touch disappointing

Author: pgrass24 from United States
20 September 2009

Don't get me wrong, Allen and Irons are quite good in the film. (Irons seems to be channeling Daniel Plainview) Im just a little disappointed...

I personally would have liked to see her actually painting a bit more...or at least some insight to her thought process. The plot is really about her seemingly symbiotic relationship with Alfred Stiglitz.

There also seems to be a lot of gray areas in her later life that the film just sums up in a monologue, but Its a made for T.V movie...I guess we cant have everything. Something tells me it should (was it meant to be?) have been made into a feature. Its not bad, just could have been better.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Georgia O'Keefe-Acting Sparkles While Color Me Dull **1/2

Author: edwagreen from United States
4 October 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Joan Allen and Jeremy Irons should really be remembered next year at Emmy time for their remarkable performances in this biography of painter Georgia O'Keefe.

It is basically the story of 2 people who loved each other so dearly that they could not stay with each other.

The story is quite empty on all accounts. They argue, she paints, he basically lives off of her and they part years before Stieglitz's demise.

Too bad that actress Tyne Daly appears only in 1 scene as an outlandish patron of the arts. Loud, but coming to the point, Daly had a lot to offer in a role which should have been made meatier to suit her excellent talents.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Joan Allen superb!!!

Author: jz-rcsw from United States
4 July 2010

I loved this film, mainly because of Joan Allen's brilliance. Jeremy Irons, on the other hand, was overwrought and made the Stieglitz character more of a caricature than the mercurial, talented artist that Stieglitz was in his own right.All of the other characters were incidental, although Ed Begley Jr. acquitted himself admirably.

The New Mexico landscape was wonderful and anything that gave us a glimpse of O'Keefe's talent added to the virtues of the film. Ultimately, though, it was Allen's luminosity that made the film successful; she brought the character alive in a way that no other actress could. She seems to have an uncanny ability, not unlike Meryl Streep, to BECOME any character rather than simply playing a part and following a script. Don't know if she received any awards for the role, but should have.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Honestly, this was less than disappointing; it was an absolute borefest.

Author: xatian11968 from United States
17 April 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am not sure what I expected when I inserted this film in the player, maybe something fun about Georgia O'Keeffe's work, or maybe a neat coming of age story or an unknown facet. What I found was that Georgia O'Keeffe literally was about as dynamic as a old dish rag left to linger in the yesterday's dishwater. And what about that creep Stieglitz!? Seriously, the film should have been called "Stieglitz - with some O'Keeffe thrown in for sun-bleached color".

But really, I could have found some fun in watching the paint dry on a real O'Keeffe painting, as opposed to watching the entirety of this film. I pulled it out and relayed it to the two star category, because at its very least some New Mexican film crew had to labor their talent through what can only be imagined as some of the most dullest sides ever handed out to a film crew. I can't blame 'Lifetime: Television for women' entirely, because "Lizzie Borden Took an Ax" with Kristina Ricci was incredible for its modern take on an old tale, with some pretty fun soundtracks, and some pretty chic costumes.

Meanwhile, "Stieglitz - with some O'Keeffe thrown in for color" was tiresome in the first five minutes. I must admit, I love Jeremy Irons. Scar; Simon Gruber; Aramis, these are roles worthy of his talent. But wow, Irons must have been like, "'I can't' with this film, so I'll make Stieglitz the foremost Spencer Pratt of the O'Keeffe age." Which is why I warn, that this is a film about Stieglitz, who is portrayed as the quintessential Male chauvinist. And who knows, maybe he was, absolutely; but after viewing this film you are left without any doubt that he wasn't anything else.

O'Keeffe on the other hand, as portrayed in this film, lives up to the notion that the Art is what speaks, and that it is okay to relegate the artist to the background of humans making folly in their personal lives. And its best to ignore all their failings, because as I said Joan Allen's portrayal didn't leave you much room to imagine anything else. You end up incredibly disliking Joan Allen's O'Keeffe, not because what can be surmised as O'Keeffe's super subordinate life in the shadow of Stieglitz, 'male ego premier!', but because Allen brought absolutely nothing to portray O'Keeffe as anything but a means to an end to Stieglitz's career.

This film was less than disappointing, it was less than a borefest, it was something worthy of being pulled from the player barely 20 minutes into the show; it didn't even make for good background noise. Spare yourself the change in renting this film, and just go out and buy a copy of O'Keeffe's work, or better yet, buy an original, you'll learn far more in its presence than in this Lifetime: television for women rehashing of why 'heterosexual men are bad.'

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Beautiful art

Author: tamimarie228 from Iowa
30 September 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Georgia O'Keefe was a woman who created beautiful works of art and her husband treated her like garbage. It didn't start out that way but when her husband left his first wife for her, I knew that he was a cheating dog. Of course he cheated on her later on and that wasn't difficult to figure out. He wouldn't give her children and he was happy that his mistress was having his baby, which is sick. I don't blame Georgia for going to New Mexico to paint because at least she was away from that bum. Then he wanted to see her when she was having a nervous breakdown and he was the reason she was having the nervous breakdown. Despite the way that her husband treated her, she still loved him. I don't understand why but she still did. Her work is awesome and so beautiful but the movie left me to go out and learn more about her.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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