Customer Reviews

Bloom

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

BLOOM is bound to polarize audiences into those who believe Joyce's great novel ULYSSES should never be tampered with and those who welcome revisiting the glories of the story of one day (June 16, 1904) in the lives of three main characters in the streets and surroundings of Dublin, Ireland. For this viewer this adaptation by Sean Walsh for the screen works on almost every level. Walsh was brave indeed to make the internal dialogues of these important and endlessly interesting characters visual, and how he succeeded will be, happily, up to the interpretation of the viewer.

Joyce's ULLYSSES intertwines the thoughts and strolls and inner thinking and perseverations of Molly Bloom (Angeline Ball) who opens the film with lusty thoughts of her well-endowed lover while lolling in bed with her husband Leopold Bloom (Stephen Rea) who is fixated on specific parts of the female anatomy and who holds in abeyance his grief for his dead son. The other character of focus is Stephen Dedalus (Hugh O'Conor) whose general awakening to the world is both exhilarating and isolatedly toxic. There is no real story here, simply the meanderings and happenstance crossing of paths of these three indelible people. If at times the musings and fantasies of Leopold Bloom seem on the verge of outrageous (especially the scenes of his thoughts about domination/submission complete with oddly costumed characters), if the views of the 'snot-green' sea seem repetitive, if Molly Bloom's sexual antics border on absurd, then just return to ULYSSES and the seeds are all there.

For many, James Joyce is an acquired taste and the random nature of this filmed version of his writing will be off-putting. But for those who still relish the thoughts of the initial struggles and eventual rewards of reading ULYSSES, this film will satisfy. Kudos to Sean Walsh and to his committed cast of Stephen Rea, Angeline Ball and Hugh O'Conor for making it happen. Grady Harp, April 05

If you are unfamiliar with - or intimidated by - arguably the finest English language novel of the 20th century, this film is for you. Like those from many Irish households that have unread copies of "Ulysses" on the shelves, I was both fascinated and reluctant to take on this novel. That all changed once I got my hands on this DVD. After a couple of viewings of this very beautiful and intelligent film, I launched myself on to an incredibly rewarding adventure of reading the book itself.

Scholars can quivel over the minor points but from my reading the novel, the movie stays very close to the book while masterfully dealing with a number of concurrent plots. The devotion of the director, the actors and other participants in the making of this film mirror that of "Lord of the Ring" trilogy but on an obviously smaller scale. Often projects done out of love justify avoiding such films at all costs but this time the passion succeeds.

This movie brings "Ulysses" out of the ivory tower and out on to the streets of Dublin town where it belongs.

Anyone who still includes James Joyce's ULYSSES among the books they teach should have this DVD. Not only is it amazingly helpful to see the work portrayed so that you understand the way scenes are a mix of memory, reflection, and real-time interchange among characters, but the extras on the DVD, such as the 'scenes' labeled according to their corresponding segments, such as CIRCE, ITHACA, etc., offer a fabulous study aid.

And for those who, as Sean Walsh describes in his explanation of why he created this work, have always wanted to read the novel but never quite made it past page 10, it gives a grounding in the outline of the work that allows a reader to return for another try that not only makes the reading easier, but also increases the ability to relax and just enjoy the beauty of the language!

A must see even though I am not sure that my five star rating is a true reflection of this particular film. The fact that it is based on Ulysses means that I could not possibly give it less than a perfect score. There is no greater novel in history, in my own personal view.

The director's choice of beginning with Molly was an interesting and creative decision and I think it paid off.
The beauty of the sets and background is endearing and this production absolutely has the feel of Ireland in 1904. Other than the tower that Stephan lived in, all of the locations were believable, and the only reason that I say that the tower was not is because I visited the real one in 1991. I think the choice of actors and actresses was satisfactory even though I regard a better Bloom being cast for an episode of a late eighties Bravo "Left Bank" show.

Honestly though, anything that drums up interest in one of the greatest works of art ever written is worthwhile. I hope people rent or buy this movie and follow it up by reading the book.

An utterly puerile production. I have seen better acting in school plays and primary school plays at that. How could anyone believe that Buck Mulligan was a student ... even a mature student? One reviewer thought Stephen Rea's rendering of Bloom was memorable in its vulnerability - it looked more like stage fright to me.

It contains practically nothing of the character of the book, and why start with Molly? or was that just to catch the attention of the prurient.

The pace of the film was painfully slow which of course made it impossible to capture the constant turmoil in the minds of the characters.

One of the charms of the novel was the change in style from episode to episode in which the film Ulysses (1967) was at least partially successful.

Do not waste time with this. Watch the 1967 version.

This film adaptation at only 105 minutes simply leaves out way too much of the James Joyce classic. It especially leaves out much of the humour, which is inexcusalbe in a heavily satirical book. Lengthy chapters are reduced to "cameo" appearances or are omitted entirely. Comparisons with the 1967 film adaptation are inevitable so I will confine myself to three:

First: Stephen Rea is a fine actor but simply too old here to be playing Leopold Bloom. Rea looks like a late middle-aged wreck of a human being and not the early middle-aged, damaged but still optimistic character that dominates the book. Milo O'Shea nailed the spirit of the part in the earlier film.

Second: This version is simply too glossy, the cinimatography too well done, the characters in period costume looking too much like they just reported direct from wardrobe and make-up. By contrast the 1967 version, although given a contemporary setting, was filmed in black and white and has the right sense of gritiness about it. It also gets across more of the humour.

Third: Hugh O'Conor is a much livelier Stephen than Maurice Roeves and the one notable improvement over the first film adaptation.

In short: If you wish to see Ulysses on film best to skip this version and stick with the 1967 original, which is far from perfect but closer to the spirit of the book. Still better, get the unabridged audio recording from Naxos read by Jim Norton and also available from Amazon.

Joyce's novel is impossible to film because the peculiarities of its form are unique to the written language. It is the same reason that many films cannot be reduced to words because there is more to them than just a story. "Ulysses" is more than the chain of events through a single day; it encompasses literary allusions, numerous writing styles, and other elements that contribute to the whole, that no film could capture. This is why the film is entitled "Bloom" rather than "Ulysses:" it is an entirely different medium inspired by the novel, not a visual copy of it.

Approaching it as a separate work, rather than a failed transfer of the novel to the screen, avoids disappointment. The cast, mostly lesser-known (at least to me) Irish actors, is wonderful, especially Angeline Ball as Molly Bloom. Her soliloquy is worth the price of admission, and probably contributed to her winning the IFTA Best Actress award for her portrayal. The commentary by director Sean Walsh is one of the better ones I have come across, explaining both his general approach to the film as well as explaining individual decisions. For the viewer unfamiliar with the novel's storyline and the different styles of each chapter, the commentary will assist in their following the action.

The sole disappointment is Stephen Rea, whose familiarity compared to everyone else is distracting. Rea delivers his lines in a thickly accented, incomprehensible mumble that glaringly pointed to the disc's major flaw - a lack of English subtitles (the subtitles are in Spanish only).

In all, a valiant effort.

One reviewer was put off by the bodily functions (almost) portrayed . Ah well, but that is life. Does this person ever watch televison past 8:00pm?

Another was so vitriolic I checked their bio; doesn't seem to like very much about about anything. Ulysses was not voted the greatest novel of the 20th century by literary critics for no reason. The average novel is to Ulysses as the "Sound of Music" is to Mozart's "Don Giavonni".

The movie is a beautiful "abstract" of the novel and would hopefully tempt someone into reading the novel. It is difficult and demands some helpful books about it to wend your way through it, but the effort is well worth it. Joseph Campbell in "Wings of Art" investigates several of its underlayments, especially the influence of Bhuddism in the novel.

Bloom
Since I love the television show 24, which breaks neatly into each hour of a single day, I figured there was a chance I'd like the movie Bloom, whose two hours cover 18 of a single day. Just kidding. Aside from the day-long time frame, the projects share nothing in common. Whereas 24's Jack Bauer saves the world at least three times, kills 20-50 people, blows up a half dozen buildings and never stops to eat or use the bathroom in a day, Bloom's Leopold Bloom (originated by James Joyce in Ulysses) avoids mayhem while walking around Dublin, finding plenty of time to eat and use the toilet during his day.
Bloom is a shocker for those groomed on current movie mayhem staples, which makes it tough for director Sean Walsh to succeed in his goal of exposing the basic Ulysses story elements to a wide audience, one where he finds very few members have read the book that has been rated as the best of the twentieth century.
Walsh's approach is to reduce the work it takes to absorb Joyce's writing style, but it could well be that the work is mandatory for appreciating the what happens. Correlating each of Ulysses' 18 chapters to those in Homer's The Odyssey is part of the fun. So is going through the different patterns of each chapter, bringing about an oddly rewarding obsessive compulsive appeal. This is lost in Bloom, where the exact timeframe is dispensed with, losing The Odyssey correlation along the way.
Still, the basics of the story are covered, with good eye towards recreating early 1900s Dublin and beautiful choices in outlying beach scenery. Performers are effective, led by The Crying Game's Oscar nominee Stephen Rea in the title role. Hugh O'Conner gives the Stephen Dedalus character a more ingenuous appeal than found in the book, making him easier to like in the film. Angeline Ball maintains her figure better than the novel's Molly Bloom, but has a good take on her extended, famous soliloquy, bringing a soft and meaningful reading of the uniquely written piece whose eight mere sentences run about 60 pages in print.
Her reading is a highlight of the film, taking advantage of one of the book's segments that seems the most theatrical and cinematic. The other is the Circe chapter of hallucinogenic activities in a brothel. It would take work to do it right, with part of the challenge being that the work has to be disguised and flow easily, as Terry Gilliam managed in Brazil. Walsh, on the other hand, is hampered by his low budget, which lessens the necessary effects for the sequence. He has his actors play it too broadly, with music that seems to be saying "This is funny, laugh damn it."
The scene will be expected by readers but should take newcomers completely off guard, with no hint at why it's there or what it means. Most of the film works that way. Ulysses readers, on the other hand, will recognize most key elements and perhaps enjoy recalling favorite moments from the book so that ultimately the movie becomes a literary, rather than cinematic, experience.

This film reinforces my belief that some books cannot be translated to film. The depth of imagination required to follow and appreciate the intricate interweaving of the Ulysses story/plot/action can only, as far as I know, be achieved within the human mind. The movie industry simply doesn't have the technology to achieve such a feat on the screen. This was a valiant effort, but my anticipated visual bloomsday felt more like a doomsday.