Customer Reviews

Gothic

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

I won't go into the pros or cons of the movie, which many other reviewers have covered earlier. If you like Ken Russell, can tolerate some ambiguity, and enjoy the darkness of Romantic poetry, you probably like this movie; if you don't, you won't.

What I will mention is that Artisan has provided us with a DVD that defines "lackluster." There are no, repeat no, extras on the DVD. Not even an original trailer or still of an A sheet. The format is pan-and-scan, and I do not believe any attempt was made to restore the print. In fact, I would venture so far as to say this is simply the earlier VHS-formatted movie transferred directly onto DVD. If, like me, you no longer own or use a VCR, or your VHS version is worn out, this DVD is worthwhile. If not, then wait until someone who cares about movies, perhaps Anchor Bay, gets permission to produce this movie on DVD, and does it right.

Gothic is one of Ken Russell's best films. Of course his work isn't for everyone, and I know some people just hate his movies, and complain about their content and self indulgence. But for me, these are some of his strong points, being prepared to experiment with his subject matter, and produce his own unique vision. Gothic tells of a meeting, in Switzerland, between: Byron (Gabriel Byrne), Shelly, Mary Shelly (Natasha Richardson), and two lesser known figures: Clair Clairmont and Dr Polidori. The beginning and end of the film both look like period piece dramas. What comes in between is Ken Russell's unique vision. The characters, during a stormy knight, invent stories and create a monster of their own imaginations. These involve all of Ken Russell's favorite images for film (and hence the self indulgent criticism): Religion, vampirism, sumptuously films sets, a plot that verges on the fantastical, and nudity. Of interest though is the way the narrative deals with death, as there is an interesting sequence where Mary Shelly has visions of the demise of all the principles in the film. Of course it all ties in with the Birth of one of English literature's most memorable books: Frankenstein (by Mary Shelly). Gothic is a Master Piece from Ken Russell, one of his most interesting films that challenges the viewer immensely. Sadly, however, not all will get it.

Or if he were really a vampyre, as suggested in Tom Holland's THE VAMPYRE. During this terrible night in geneva, the most inspired gothic spirits of Europe will challenge themselves to the writing of an horror story. The winner will be the one who would create a story so frightening that it will become true in the others' minds. In essence, it will give birth to two major works of English litterature, Mary sheley's Frankenstein an Polidori's VAMPYRE (which seemed to be very much taken from Lord Byron's life). The atmosphere is heavy and the prestation of each of the actors remarkable. You would believe to be back in the old days, in the presence of Lord Byron and the Shelleys. I would like to make a point escpecially on Gabriel Byrne's play as a dandy and, perhaps, vampyre. There are lots of hints at Frankenstein (with shelley naked under the rain shouting "Lightning is the force of the universe"), at the vampyre myth, and at shelley's obsession about worms, and so on... All in all, for an experience in fear, but not horror, we are held in good compagny, not to say the best

Sometimes what is real is much more disturbing than what is make - believe. This movie is a good illustration of this point. Viewing "Gothic" with no foreknowledge of the history and background of the story is like watching a blood fetish porno with a plot. What makes it a great movie though is that, although it seems too fantastical to be real, there is little make - believe. The night when the Shelleys, Byron, his physician and his mistress (a relation of M. Shelley I believe) got together was more than just a gathering of writers. It was a laudanum soaked Carnival. Although a great amount of the story is melodramatic and fictional - especially toward the end - many more elements of the plot are real or are based on actual accounts of the writers' character. Byron's aversion to blood and his fetish for the women in his wife's death mask for example are rumored to be true, so is Polidori's extreme Catholic persuasion, Shelley's hysterical laudanum fits, and Byron's skull. Watch the movie, read in detail what happened that night, study the characteristics of each writer, than watch the movie again. I guarantee a lot of the things which originally seemed ridiculous and out of place will be horrific and make for a great thriller when you realize they are not just bad screenwriting. When you realize that some of the characters are acting strange and almost inappropriately (such as Percy's ever wide eyed look) it also helps to remember too that these people were all on a handful of different drug combinations including opium, liquor, and probably hash so they are naturally not going to be acting normal, per se. As a viewer you are also meant to see the events in this film as an onlooker to the party which includes watching them hallucinate and at times be drawn into their hallucinations (it should be noted though that some thing which appear like poor acting probably are).

I was intrigued the first time I saw this strange film. I have always been fascinated by the life of Mary Shelley and that is what drew me to see it. I was impressed by all of the symbolism, forshadowing and how the concepts of the story parallel the works of these famous people. I have watched it many times and I still keep finding things I didn't quite understand the time before. I believe the problem most people have with this movie is they do not understand most of the symbolism. It is a bit overwhelming at times, and I have never found anyone of my friends who has actually admitted to liking it, but I think it is an erotic and powerful movie that truely captures the essence of that time and shows a darker side of the romantic era.

This is one strange movie, but it's great fun to watch late at night. I'm not a horror fan, but I did enjoy Gothic. The acting is wonderful all around. Julian Sands is a great Percy Shelley, and Gabriel Byrne is appropriately bizarre as Lord Byron. Okay, some of the more surrealistic scenes are a bit heavy-handed, but it's a riveting movie, just the same.

Considering he's supposed to be 'obsessed with the image' Ken Russell's 'Gothic' is notable for what it leaves to the imagination.

Russell is no tyro-hack, he's seen 'the Haunting' and 'the Innocents' and knows an in-tune audience will pick up subtle terrors which may or may not be glowering in dark corners, or in the dull recess of a guilty imagination.
Is that a branch scraping the window, or something much more sinister trying to gain access? Russell's anti-thriller gives no answers, even in a rather disquieting epilogue, where the excesses of the previous night are 'explained'
Briefly; Don Boyd at Virgin Vision had a literate script on his hands. The core plot had Percy and Mary Shelley, Lord Byron, his pregnant lover Claire, and a snide, repressed biographer, Dr. Polidori all spending a Saturday night at a mansion in Geneva.
Now, thought Don, let's see what happens if we give 'em loads of drugs, vats of wine, throw in a thunder-storm, a haunting, some scene-stealing goats, and let 'em go.

Now who do we get to direct? Hmm...

Russell doesn't disappoint, (he NEVER does, all his films, good or bad, have got something of interest in them) his imagination is at full throttle here.
It's frequently a furious and upsetting picture.
You can feel that creepiness as the protagonists decide to hold a séance, to call their darkest fears to exist in this world. Russell has a field day illustrating in detail what a houseful of stoned, tortured geniuses are afraid of in the depths of their debasement, with their guard temporarily down.

One grotesque tableau follows another but Russell never makes it easy for the rattled viewer. As to what's real and what's not, that's left open, as is the interpretation at the end.
Was it all suggestion and hallucination? This reviewer isn't convinced, and Russell's leaving only the vaguest of clues.

It also works on a madcap comedy level. If you sit and think about what you've just seen, you WILL laugh, as with many of Russell's movies.

There are many redolent Russell repulses to rejoice in. A gory stigmata, a make-your-own-mind-up abortion, leeches, rats, incest, slime... In fact, if you can think of it, it's probably here, dowsed in Thomas Dolby's vivid score and competing like crazy with all the other fierce imagery.

There's an attractive funeral pyre sequence, filmed in the lake district involving Shelley. In his autobiography, Russell indicates this is how he would ultimately like to be 'disposed' of.
Good idea, better than cold earth, hope the weather's good so the 40 piece orchestra - assembled by Melvyn Bragg - don't get sodden, as they play Liszt or the Who at full blast!

Performances are good; particularly Gabriel Byrne as 'mad' Lord Byron and Natasha Richardson as proto-feminist Mary Shelley (and I'd love to hear the advice mum Vanessa Redgrave gave her about working with Russell. She may proclaim 'the Devils' to be her best film but she never worked with him again!), and I don't think Julian Sands performance as Shelley is as bad as reported either.
It's not great by any stretch but I've seen worse, and he IS playing a highly strung (out!?), self-suffering waif-in-a-storm, zonked out of his literary brains.

'Gothic' isn't Russell's best film but it is a good one. Compared to the output of most modern Hollywood directors, it's a masterpiece. It has wild imagery, some very tender and moving moments but most of all it has an atmosphere of utter dread, created masterfully by a visionary who knows instinctively how to use light and dark, sound and shadow and Richard Branson's money to make a looney entertainment about some of the worlds most respected and austere literary figures, verbally and physically abusing each other, raising the dead, ripping off their clothes and writhing round in slime.

A Ken Russell film, could it be anything else?

In its eighty-eight quicksilver-fast minutes of existence, Gothic packs in a lot of sheer frickin' sex-oozing brain bashing madness among the literati of the Regency era. Forget for a moment their contemporary Jane Austen with her hoity-toity prim and proper tales of eye-batting heiresses and manner-infused country gentlemen, no, this is Ken Russell's take on how the age's reigning rock star poet, George Gordon, Lord Byron, spent one memorable, acid trip like weekend in a rented Swiss castle along with some "unexpected visitors."

The events that followed left Byron's friend, physician, and sexual admirer Doctor John Polidori suicidal, Byron's sometimes bedmate Claire Clairmont insane and pregnant, saw the radical Romantic poet Percy Shelley scampering naked, crab-like along the castle's rooftop during a thunderstorm babbling about electricity being the germ of life, and overwhelmed Percy's teenaged wife Mary with visions of death and tragedy to the point where she saw her own demise as the only escape. And oh yeah, the weekend also inspired Mary to produce an oft-misunderstood little novel you've probably heard of: it's called Frankenstein.

When things are done in Gothic, Byron has his way with just about everybody, no one is spared a bad acid trip's worth of crazed visions, and for those of us sitting back watching it all unfold, it's pretty interesting, particularly if you come to the movie pre-loaded with the background story on the main characters and the legendary weekend about which Russell unabashedly speculates.

Gothic stands as the perfect antidote to all those saccharine-esque Hollywood feel-good movies you've been seeing lately. It gives the soul a good old-fashioned leech-bleeding.

while many have called this film wildly imaginative or perhaps ken russell's most outrageous film, i still say it's his greatest work since the rock opera tommy or his take on the d.h. lawrence adaptations which came before and after this masterpiece. this film is very creepy and extremely moody so naturally it is not for all tastes. in this overloooked film, we see ken russell's demented vision in all it's sinister glory as he unravels his take on how mary shelley came to write of her great monster. there are many horrific scenes in this film which may cause one to blink or to shudder with delight but few are excessive in the gore department which may actually work in this film's favor. ken russell's dialogue is often ironically witty and ofcourse philosophical which works well given the atmosphere and time period in which our film is set but may not be every horror maven's true delight. in fact, you might find it rather boring if you have never read mary shelley, cornelius agrippa, or any works in the occult department. ken russell manages to take the most hideous of images and fears which play on all our minds and then dares to call them to life if only for the duration of this film. in doing this, i believe he is asking us not to run from our worst fears here and to understand that overcoming these fears may lead to a creative enlightenment which we all should hope to attain. kudos to ken russell !!! wish there were more films like this one out there somewhere. ...

An intriguing interpretation of the now legendary summer Percy and Mary Shelley spent in Switzerland with Lord Byron, et al. I found some of the horror aspects a bit overdone, but the acting was quite impressive, particulary Gabriel Byrne. This is a film that draws you in, weaving fantasy and reality together in a nightmarish manner--very appropriate, really, for the birth of Frankenstein.