Customer Reviews

Jude [Region 2]

5 star:		(37)
4 star:		(24)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

In this 1996 adaptation of Thomas Hardy's novel, Jude the Obscure, a sad, archetypal story plays itself out across the rainy English landscape, helped along by brilliant acting and directing alike.

Though the film is admittedly incredibly bleak, and the ending sad beyond words, it is all-told a brilliant, classic film.

After a short opening sequence introducing us to the young Jude, the viewer is quickly drawn into the parameters of Jude's adult world. Almost at once, we begin to feel his pain, his longing, his hope, and his persistence. We understand well what is driving him in his journey through life. This is a novel brought to life, a story in motion.

As a die-hard fan of Kate Winslet, I have to say that this film one of my Winslet favorites. In my view, 1997's blockbuster Titanic was not only a success as a box office triumph or well-loved film in its own right, but also because it opened the world's eyes to the talent of this young British actress, whose consistently fine performances and willingness to break through barriers as an actress have brought the world great joy on the silver screen, and will surely continue to do so well into the new millenium. In Jude, Winslet is charismatic and beautiful (as usual), and plays Sue Brideheard to a tee. Introduced to her in a small, well-loved photograph, we soon come to understand what Jude sees in her. Her beauty, her intelligence, her promise of a better life. Her laughter still echoes in my head, like the flashbacks in the film. She is youth, she is carefree, she is unattainable, she is a vision, a memory, love.

Eccleston is perfect for the role of the ever-yearning Jude, his face a landscape of green hills, rain, cobblestone streets and stone carvings, and green hills yet again. There are shadows in his eyes, in his face. The depth of his feelings is well-conveyed. His tall frame is so strong and able in one way, so thin and aching in another. We walk with him, cry with him, and love him as we must love ourselves when fate comes crashing down upon us.

P.S. This was my introduction to British actress Rachel Griffiths, who went on to star in Hilary and Jackie, and is currently starring in Me, Myself, and I. Although her role is smaller than Eccleston's and Winslet's, and her character perhaps less likable, she also does a fine job.

While I realize a filmmaker can't be expected to slavishly follow the original text word for word, most go too far in remaking the characters as they see fit. "Jude" is a good example. In this version, Sue has been crystalized from a flighty woman "in love with being loved" to an opinionated pre-feminist. Arabella has peeled off several layers of crassness to reveal a pragmatic, self-sufficient person who is simply trying to get by. Even Aunt Drusilla must have found better living through medication; she's now a basically good-hearted person who cares deeply for her adopted nephew! After I got past those little changes, I had to take a skeptical look at Jude himself -- with everyone around him now presented in such a sympathetic light, you start wondering, "What's HIS problem?"

For example, since Arabella's basic lack of compassion is never exposed, one can only wonder why Jude leaves the house as she's butchering the pig: Is he sickened by the sight of blood? Is he repulsed by seeing his bride up to her elbows in pig entrails? In the book version, the issue was that Arabella wanted to prolong the pig's death to make the meat tastier, while Jude insisted on putting the poor creature out of its misery. In the movie, you might assume he'd thought bacon grew on trees.

Another change from book to film: "Jude the Obscure" was considered scandalous when it was published, but what can shock a jaded '90s audience? Hmm... *ponder*... Oh, I know! More sex scenes! Suffice it to say, if you've ever wondered what Kate Winslet looks like in the buff, you need wonder no more. As for Christopher Eccleston, a fig leaf would've covered everything we didn't see. There's a lot more eroticism here than the book called for. Whether that's a good thing is to be determined by the eye of the beholder.

The ending, like the title, is sharply abbreviated. Without the book as a reference, you'll be left wondering how things all turned out.

Overall, I thought the movie failed to either remain true to the original or stand on its own merits.

This screen adaptation of the classic by Thomas Hardy (Jude the Obscure) stars Christopher Eccleston as Jude Fawley and a slim Kate Winslet as his cousin, Sue Bridehead. Strong supporting roles are provided by Rachel Griffiths, June Whitfield and Liam Cunningham.

The film starts like many American films: someone poor and disadvsntaged has a driving ambition to succeed. If this were an American film, we would be sure of a happy ending: Jude finds a well-paid job and lives happily ever after with Sue and the children. Anyone familiar with the work of Thomas Hardy will expect fate to intervene and somehow make it impossible for the protagonists to realize their dreams. If Thomas Hardy had been born somewhat later and worked as a screenwriter, I cannot help thinking he would have specialized in the film noir genre.

My main criticism is that none of the actors manages an authentic Dorset accent, with the possible exception of June Whitfield. Christopher Eccleston attempts one but invariably goes back to his Manchester accent. Rachel Griffiths produces something that sounds more like an Irish accent whilst Kate Winslet usually speaks like she does in Titanic.

The film contains a few very strong scenes: a pig being slaughtered and disembowelled as well as a close-up of Kate Winslet giving birth.

As a screen adaptation of one of the classics of English literature there is a lot of material, feeling pain and suffering, crammed into 110 minutes, so much so that I kept finding new meaning after four viewings. Perhaps those familiar with Hardy will prefer to read the novel whilst those who are not will find this adaptation slow and depressing. The highlight for Winslet fans may well be seeing her totally naked, but I doubt they would think it worth sitting through the whole file for those 15 seconds.

This is an excellent film, faithful to the Hardy classic. The highlights of the film are the excellent cinematography and the outstanding original score by Adrian Johnston. I would strongly recommend this film with the caveat that it may not be suitable for those without the stomach to take the scenes described above or those who would find a tragic story too distressing.

Michael Winterbottom who directed "Welcome to Sarajevo" & "Butterfly Kiss" helmed this project that sank like a stone at the box office. Thomas Hardy's last novel "Jude the Obscure" was so poorly received that he didn't write another. But the thing about good period piece adaptations is that they remain interesting long after their initial release. This 1996 film is no different in its DVD release.

As the brooding Jude Fawley Christopher Eccleston who was in "28 Days Later" & "The Others" with Nicole Kidman does a good job with the many emotional layers of this character. Born in the lower class, he longed to be educated. But his hormones cause him to marry Arabella in an ill-fated arrangement. Then his attraction to his cousin and his dedication to their illicit love are entrancing.

Australian actress Rachel Griffiths from the "Six Feet Under" TV series and who was nominated for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for "Hillary & Jackie" does a good job in the part of Jude's wife Arrabella. The character in the screenplay seems not well fleshed. We're not totally sure why the two break off.

Kate Winslett with her 3 Oscar nominations ("Sense & Sensibility," "The Titantic," & "Iris") is a vivid actress upon whose face a range of emotions and nuances are reflected. As Jude's cousin Sue, she is a feminist prototype. We watch her aversion to religion and then her embrace of it after the death of her children in amazement as the actress covers such range.

At Jude's urging, Sue marries schoolteacher Phillotson, but it is a loveless affair. Liam Cunningham plays Phillotson excellently and delicately. His affection for Sue is as delightful as it unrequited.

Eduardo Serra did the cinematography as he did for "Beyond the Sea," "Girl with a Pearl Earring" and "The Widow of Saint-Pierre." The look of the film is exquisite and lyrical.

Thomas Hardy's story is hardly the social shocker it was in its day. However, the violence to the children is so tragic that it leaves the viewer drained and disappointed. In the end, this is a valuable picture filled with excellent performances and a classic story. Enjoy!

Those familiar with the bittersweet, obsessive, compulsive aspect of Thomas Hardy's so-called romantic novels will instantly know that this film is not apt to leave one with a warm fuzzy feeling by the last reel. Certainly it is not recommended that one read the novel, Jude the Obscure, before viewing. How many films have failed to live up to the expectations of the literary adaptation? Why would this be any different? Jude is a man of humble birth who strives to rise above his allotment in life. Rather than approaching the subject as a modern fairy tale where dreams do come true, the standard treatment in cinema, there is a grim realism which reflects the destructive nature of impractical and unnatural compulsions. Jude attempts to fly in the face of social convention in a headlong flight of self-destruction which at times has the horrific fascination of a slow motion train wreck, one is disturbed by the sight but unable to turn away. I knew nothing of this film save that the title characters were played by the extremely talented pair, Kate Winslet and Christopher Eccleston. That was sufficient enticement for me and as always I was not disappointed by the performances. Despite the current trend to degrade the "Masterpiece Theatre" production style actors and directors of immense talent breath life into even the dullest works. Dull this film isn't but grim it certainly is. Only a brave director would tackle this kind of project. How much easier it would have been to soften the hard edge to make the viewing more palatable. There is much to be gleaned from witnessing in all its ugliness the past stigmatization of relationships we now accept as commonplace. If one comes away from this film with nothing more than an inkling of gratitude or awe for the sacrifice of those who attempted to effect social change then this film is worth the viewing.

The title character, Jude, is played by Christopher Eccleston, but it really is Kate Winslet (in her pre-Titanic days - when she made her best films) who is the star of this film. While both actors are brilliant she brings such life to her character you find yourself being constantly drawn to her. This movie is excellent, but certainly not pleasant to watch. It's about a man (Eccleston) who tries to follow his dreams, only to have them crushed by an unforgiving society; but on another level it's more about the love he feels for his cousin (Winslet), and the ultimate hopelessness of their relationship. I read the book before I saw the movie: I felt as though, three-quarters of the way through, without warning, someone had punched me in the gut, and then repeatedly kicked me until I died. Actually, the movie ends with more hope than the book, and that's really saying something. Think about the storyline this way: imagine the worst possible life that fate could lay out for you, and then multiple the pain factor by ten. But the acting is brilliant, the pain is real, and you can't help but be compelled by it all. This is my favourite movie apart from Last of the Mohicans.

Really, if you're feeling down do NOT rent this movie. Jude is one of the most depressingly bleak and pessimistic films I have ever seen yet curiously I couldn't tear my eyes away. Christopher Eccleston is excellent and sparks the right amount of chemistry with Kate Winslet, who is superb in her own right. I found it refreshing that they didn't cast the typical pretty boy actor-type in the role of Jude, instead substituting box office assurance for quality acting. Winslet proves consistently that she is one of the most talented actresses of her generation - who else could make you forget Titanic's godawful script? - and as Sue she is no exception. For those who like her in this film I suggest her role as Ophelia in Hamlet (1996) which was criminally overlooked by the academy awards board. Unfortunately, whilst this pairing keep the movie from drowning in its own dark tone, towards the end you'll be feeling extremely disturbed. One to experience once but not time and time again.

This is a film that was unfairly destined not to receive the recognition it deserved, because there is nothing uplifting or hopeful in its story. It is perhaps one of the five most depressing films ever made. That said, however, it is beautifully written, gorgeously filmed, powerfully acted, and packs an emotional wallop few if any films can match.

Kate Winslet and Christopher Eccleston may be the best actors of their generation in their ability to completely inhabit a role and make you believe in a character. No other actors can convey so much through mere facial expressions, and these two bring Hardy's mercurial Sue Bridehead and hapless Jude Fawley to brilliant -- and heartbreaking -- life.

While the compact script, which omits some characters from Hardy's book and minimizes others, muddies some of the plot points, the main themes of Hardy's novel -- people of good will destroyed by an irrationally judgmental society -- remain intact.

This nearly flawless rendition of the most controversial of Hardy's novels is frighteningly timely. If you think that what America needs is a return to Victorian values, to "shame", and to quasi-religious institutions telling individuals how to live their lives, watch this film and then think again.

This film will tear apart your very soul.

I have seen JUDE many times,and each feels like the first.Iam struck by the yearning Jude has to succeed and his determination to learn. You can see his dream of University in his eyes as a child when Mr.P tells him of Christminster. Once a man,he temporarily throws his dream away for a woman but he comes alive again when he finds his soulmate in Sue. In the scene at the bridge when they share a line from Catullus, and they stare at each other, you sense that they are looking into each other's soul.It is more intense then if they had kissed at that moment. As they drift apart it is even more clear of their need for each other. The deaths of their children are heart wrenching to say the least.Kate Winslet delivered the most gripping scene of utter torment that I have ever witnessed. She became my favorite actress at that point because I knew it was torn from something within that was very private to her and yet she shared that with her audience. Chris was excellent as Jude as well and together they must have brought the characters to life as Thomas Hardy would have envisioned them. Mr. Hardy never wrote another novel after JUDE and I don't think I'll ever be affected by another movie myself. Midge

This pessimistic and rather brutal cinematic production is based on the nineteenth century novel Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy. A bowdlerized and altered version of that novel first appeared in Harper's New Monthly Magazine as a serial beginning in December 1894. Its original title was "The Simpletons," a title modern viewers of this movie might find appropriate considering how Jude and Sue round out their lives.

It need hardly be said that any motion picture, and certainly not one running only about two hours, can hope to do justice to Hardy's novel (his last, incidentally) which is about 180,000 words long (about 400 pages of dense text). An earlier TV mini series version made by the BBC that I have not seen, Jude the Obscure (1971), ran for almost four and a half hours in six episodes. But this is a pretty good movie anyway, highlighted by an enthralling performance by Kate Winslet.

The movie starts rather slowly, if picturesquely, until Kate appears and then the movie comes to life. I have seen Winslet in several films, including her first feature film when she was18-years-old, Heavenly Creatures (1994), an interesting film made in New Zealand based on a sensational matricide from the 1950s. She was very good in that film, her budding talent immediately obvious as the spinning, laughing, crazy teen who went off the deep end emotionally. In Jude, Winslet's sharp, confident and commanding style is given greater range and she comes across with a performance that is full of life, effervescent, delightful, witty, sly, clever, and very expressive, and she looks beautiful doing it.

The story itself, a naturalistic tragedy that in some respects anticipates Theodore Dreiser, et al., was considered immoral in its time. "The Bishop of Wakefield, disgusted with the novel's <insolence and indecency>, threw it in the fire," according to Terry Eagleton who wrote the Introduction for the New Wessex Edition of the book. Modern film goers will hardly notice the implied critique of marriage that offended Victorian readers, but they might find the scene where Arabella throws the pig's "part" at Jude indelicate. Victorian readers found that scene most offensive. As a public service I want to warn any modern viewer who might be offended at seeing Kate Winslet naked to avoid this film. (Just Joking: Kate is quite fetching in the Rubenesque shot.) To be honest, though, this really is a tragedy that still has the power to offend some sensibilities. Certainly you don't want the kids to see it.

Christopher Eccleston plays Jude and does a good job, and Rachel Griffiths in a modest part plays Jude's first wife Arabella. Director Michael Winterbottom stayed spiritually true to Hardy's dark vision while tailoring the tale for modern audiences. There's a nice period piece feel and some charming cinematography. The denouement is well set up and so realistically done that we don't know whether to be horrified or outraged. I think I was both.