Rowing with the Wind (1988) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Emotional meeting among romantic writers with splendid visuals and impressive production design
ma-cortes28 January 2010
At a mansion by a lagoon nearly Geneva reunite (1816) various known characters as Lord Byron (Hugh Grant), the poet Percy Shelley (Valentine Pelka), his fiancée (Lizzy McInnery), her stepsister Claire (Elizabeth Hurley) and Doctor Polidori (Jose Luis Gomez), Byron ex-lover and secretary . The movie is situated in the time when Mary Shelley wrote her novel "Frankenstein". There happens mysterious events with appearance a fantastic personage trying to scare each other and then occurs unfortunate deaths . Meanwhile , Mary Shelley has fabled and hallucinatory nightmares .

This haunting film is based on real events about famous characters as the eccentric poet Lod Byron, , his secretary Doctor Polidori, Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mary Shelley . It concerns the deeds were inspired to write their classic Gothic novels , as Mary Shelley created ¨Frankestein¨ and Doctor Polidori wrote ¨The vampire¨. It's a romantic drama paced in slow-moving , enjoyable visuals and some nudism . It packs glamorous gowns by Ivonne Blake , Oscar winner for ¨Nicholas and Alexandra¨. Luxurious scenarios by Wolfgang Burmann , such as interior with lush palaces and breathtaking mansion from Venice (including a giraffe where resides Byron) and exteriors filmed in Norway , Venice, Veneto, Switzerland , Toledo , Asturias (beaches of Llanes), Spain. Colorful and brilliant cinematography by Carlos Suarez, director's brother . Stunning score with a sensitive leitmotif by Alejandro Masso , adding classical music by Bethoven , Mozart and Paganini . The picture was beautifully directed by Gonzalo Suarez who gives special treatment this interesting flick.

This story was formerly depicted in the ancient classic ¨The bride of Frankestein¨ by James Whale in which Elsa Lanchester played Mary Shelley . Subsequently in 1986 Ken Russell directed ¨Gothic¨ with Natasha Richardson as Mary , Gabriel Byrne and Julian Sands in similar characters and full of ordinary Russell's bag of tricks . And the same tale was told two years later by Ivan Passer who directed ¨Haunted summer (1988)¨ with Eric Stolz , Alice Krige and Laura Dern . But I think that ¨Rowing with the wind¨ is better than ¨Gothic¨ and ¨Haunted summer¨.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Interesting film, but drastically cut for U.S. release
Jeffrey Wang27 June 1999
After watching this film, I thought to myself that it was an interesting film, and there were individual scenes which were strong. However, the pacing seemed to be a bit off, and somehow the flow of the film didn't feel right. Then, I noticed that the version I saw was 95 minutes long, while the original version was 126 minutes long. That's thirty whole minutes cut! As far as I'm concerned, this is criminal! Obviously, Miramax re-released this film during early 1999 in order to cash in on Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley. In the process, they cut the film to shreds, and perhaps rearranged the scenes around to make it more "coherent."
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
lushly photographed oddity
Peter Swanson6 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I can't decide whether this is one of the best films I've ever seen or one of the worst, but it is definitely one of the strangest. I was expecting a benign period piece, with the challenge to write a horror story issued over a glass of port in front of the fireplace. What I found was an exploration of the egos, neuroses, and idiosyncrasies of some very creative, intelligent, and troubled people. The appearance of the monster in the middle of the film bothered me, but I've since realized/decided/guessed that it's SYMBOLIC (emphasis intentional) of the influence that Mary Shelley's book and its reception by the literary world had upon this group of friends. I'm going to have to dig out old textbooks and read up on these writers, as I don't recall knowing before of the wave of suicides and unfortunate deaths which washed over them in a short span of time.

The settings and photography of this film are as good as it gets, with beautiful natural light used most of the time. I'd recommend this movie to adult viewers, but not for anyone under 17. This thing would've been disturbing to me when I was in my early teens, and the monster would've scared the crap out of me.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good Idea But Poor Development
jrfranklin0116 September 2004
Rowing With The Wind took an excellent idea from the life of Frankenstein's author, Mary Shelley. For anyone who is familiar with the life of Mary Shelley, this film will make more sense and be appreciated better. However, for the average movie-goer, this film will probably be of disinterest. Having said that (and for those of you still reading), I would have to applaud the youthful talents of today stars, Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley, who play Lord Byron and Claire Clairmont, respectively. This Spanish production keeps with European exposure in several nude scenes, most notably of Elizabeth Hurley.

The film in a nutshell describes a visit to Lord Byron by Mary Shelley, her husband Percy Shelley, half-sister Claire Clairmont, and Byron's physician Dr. Polidori. According to history, Lord Byron challenged each of them to develop the most horrific story they could come up with. This is when Mary Shelley came up with the idea for Frankenstein, published in 1818. Oddly, Mary Shelley's biography was rife with a large number of deaths of those around her. Her mother died when she was born. One of her sisters died. Her husband's ex-wife died drowning. Ironically, her husband dies drowning.

She loses a couple of children. And on and on. She seemed so unable to escape death soon after the publication of Frankenstein. This film takes on the idea that her abominable creation is the cause of such deaths.

Kudos definitely go to whomever wrote the script for Lord Byron. Hugh Grant plays him brilliantly and in a very intelligently decadent sort of way. He's hilarious! Elizabeth Hurley and the other actors are good, not outstanding. But the film fails, despite its great plot creativity, when it hands out a quick and un-compelling revival of the evening in which Mary Shelley came up with Frankenstein. It gives far less attention than it should have, as I would have thought it a bigger turning point in the story.

With better direction and production (beginning of the film is a bit grainy), this would have truly made a compelling story. 5/10
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Blame It On The Monster
Kennybee16 July 2003
This film has promise that is never fulfilled. Curly-topped Hugh Grant as Lord Byron has to be seen to be believed. He wears the frilliest costumes imaginable. With long hair and chest bared, he looks like he's auditioning for a Lifetime biopic of Siegfried and Roy. One of the best (and unintentionally comical) scenes is Grant howling out on a boat. He is too fey and whimsical to make a credible Byron.

Another newcomer is a furry-browed, heavier set Elizabeth Hurley. She is beautiful. Yet, like Grant, she isn't ready for prime time. The scene where her sister, Mary, consoles her following a suicide is funny due to Hurley's exaggerated facial expressions.

The music labors on to new melodramatic Gothic depths. Music can enhance an atmosphere when the atmosphere is right. When it isn't, music only makes for another distraction.

The monster speaks in staccato. Due to editing, it's difficult to determine if he's a villain or victim. Sometimes it's difficult to determine if he even is.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good film
joanriba28 November 2001
I disagree with most of the critics, I think it's an excellent film. Camera, music, colors, everything is an harmonic combination. The only possible critic might be, the film can be a little be pretentious, but I would never describe it as tedious. You like it or hate it, I am fortunate ones.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good film
joanriba28 November 2001
I disagree with most of the critics, I think it's an excellent film. Camera, music, colors, everything is an harmonic combination. The only possible critic might be, the film can be a little be pretentious, but I would never describe it as tedious. You like it or hate it, I am of the fortunate ones.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A jumbled mess
Cajun-424 September 2000
Although the story of how Mary Shelley came to write her famous horror story FRANKENSTEIN is a familiar one that has been touched on in quite a few movies, there is always room for a different viewpoint and probably there is the germ of a good idea here but something went horribly wrong. It could be a case of too many cooks which often happens in these international co-productions. It has obviously been heavily cut but I don't think the edited scenes would have helped any, we would have just been bored for longer that's all. The acting is generally poor and the actors are miscast especially Hugh Grant as Lord Byron who has none of the brooding qualities one associates with the poet and who also looks downright ridiculous in some of the costumes even they may be historically accurate. There are one or two rather pretty scenic shots but that's about it.

The whole thing ends up as so boring I would suggest it as a cure for insomnia but the music is so inapt and irritating is would probably have the opposite effect.

One to avoid.
9 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A somewhat poor treatment of an otherwise exciting moment in literary history
antonjarrod24 January 2011
Badly acted, with a sense of a lack of direction, the only saving grace for this film are the wonderful settings and the score.

One would not recommend this movie to anyone other than fans of 'early Grant and Hurley', but one wonders how many of them there are!

The script is the biggest hurdle. While it contains wonderful references and allusions to the most interesting lines spoken by the historical personages, and does indeed contain some of the words of the poets, the script fills padded out with unnecessary archaisms at best and drivel at worst.

What is most strikingly dull about the work is the character of the monster. Whilst the monotony of the voice is supposed to give us certain Gothic impressions, we are left in fact with only a sense of horror at the poor delivery and rather senseless decision to characterize death and foreboding in this way.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
European, but not that bad.
mlaiuppa27 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I thought this was a very interesting take on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and the people and history surrounding it's creation. It's slow but worth the wait, beautifully filmed. Hugh Grant and Valentine Pelka do a fine job. Thankfully there is less of Grant's girlfriend of the time, Liz Hurley. She should stick to modeling.

The use of the monster as an omen of death is very interesting.

I didn't really know much about the life of Shelley or Byron before this movie.

Be aware there is some nudity, but it is not what I would consider gratuitous. I looked it up. Shelley really would walk around his house nude. He even answered the door once with no clothes.

The locations are absolutely fabulous. I so want to tour Europe and stay everywhere this was filmed.

I really loved the music and wish there was somewhere with a more detailed list of the pieces used. There is a list of the composers in the credits, but they all wrote a lot of music. Which Beethoven piano sonata? Which Mozart? You could spend a lot of time trying to find the music. There is no soundtrack released that I am aware of so you're out of luck if you want to listen to the music in the car.

If you can get the DVD or VHS on sale, worth it. But I wouldn't pay full price.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
As Beautiful as a Painting
astridlee7 July 2014
You could stop this picture on any frame and have a beautiful photograph suitable for framing. That is the only good thing I can say about it. The acting is generally horrible (although I did like Mr. Gomez) and the former reviewer's description of the hilarity of Hugh Grant howling in a boat is spot on. I blame the writing and directing. Most of these actors are capable of much better when given decent direction and decent dialogue to speak. The female characters are not shown to have any talent of their own, as we know at least Mrs. Shelley surely did. On the other hand, the men don't display much talent, either! This whole film is a bit like a soap opera on TV, but the acting doesn't rise to that quality. Turn the sound off and enjoy its visual beauty.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A tedious, unmoving film; poorly shot, edited, and acted.
void-520 May 1999
This was amongst the worst films I have ever encountered. The cinematography was dull, with long tedious shots (like a camera on a tripod filming a stage play) interspersed with "dramatic" angles that made little sense to the content on screen. The editing was terrible, scenes matched together with the delicacy of a butcher. The plot hinged on the viewer being familiar with the historical night in which Mary Shelley wrote frankenstien. The acting was forced, with the type of character development that left you with an intense interest in seeing each of them die horribly (the sooner the better).
3 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

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