Customer Reviews

The Magnificent Ambersons

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Much ado is made about the dual ending of classic film "The Magnificent Ambersons," which was originally made by Orson Welles. The remake is more or less faithful to the original material, but some bad casting (Jennifer Tilly is the worst example), weird scripting, and a rather ambiguous tone scratch it up.

George (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) is the youngest member of the rich Amberson family, including his grandfather, mother, uncle and aunt. He's been raised as a prince, and he acts like one too -- spoiled and imperious. He falls in love with the beautiful Lucy (Gretchen Mol), the daughter of automobile innovator Eugene (Bruce Greenwood). Unfortunately, Eugene has always been in love with George's mother Isabel (Madeleine Stowe).

Jealous and disapproving of the "new money" people, George sets out to wreck the budding relationship between his mother and Eugene. He succeeds -- but at the cost of his own relationship with Lucy. Still imperious, George continues on his way without knowing that the growing urban sprawl marks the decline of the Amberson family into poverty...

It's always interesting to see how society changed in the past, as it does here and "The Forsyte Saga." And that's actually the most interesting part of "Magnificent Ambersons," not the family saga. Unfortunately, we only get an occasional glimpse of this. The rest of the time, it's merely more of George's tedious tantrums, and his family worrying about money and relationships.

Alfonso Arau seems to have been sleeping during the production of this -- he adds a sparkling grandeur to the early scenes. But the color fades quickly; pretty soon it's just a slow decline, with little to hold your interest. The only thing he adds to the production is an emphasis on the incestuous feelings between Isabel and George. It's icky, and feels like it was just pasted in.

Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is a good actor, but only in the last eighth of the movie do we develop any liking or understanding of his character. Greenwood is fairly good, and Stowe is a convincing wilting lily, although she doesn't do much else. Gretchen Mol brightens every scene she's in, and William Hootkins (as hearty Uncle George) is a lovable teddy, but Jennifer Tilly ruins every scene she's in with a screechy, over-the-top performance.

It's interesting to see the decline of the old-money dynasties in favor of the "riffraff." But the hit-and-miss casting and lackluster direction makes "The Magnificent Ambersons" almost as tedious as Rhys-Meyers' tantrums.

Being a period movie afficionado, I had great hopes for this movie. However, I regret to say...do not waste your money. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers has been excellent in other movies I have seen, but his acting in this is so overblown and forced it is painful to watch, and I am not using this wording frivolously. There were actually a couple of points during the movie where the acting was so pathetic I could not look at the screen...much like pretending to not notice when someone slips on the ice, just to save you both from the embarrassment. Rhys-Meyers' good looks did nothing to take my attention from his terrible performance.

Gretchen Mol's performance was wooden and with a plastic smile plastered over her face during most of the movie, she seems to simply be walking her way through the movie, as if she can't wait for the "Cut!" so she can make a break for the caterer's buffet. Madeline Stowe's performance was acceptable as Rhys-Meyers' mother, but not up to her usual standards. Jennifer Tilly gave her Aunt Fannie character a valiant try, but she is terribly miscast and could not seem to find it within herself to even produce tears during any of her apoplectic fits.

I am SO disappointed in this movie. Luckily, I rented it before buying it on Amazon and am thankful to have only lost the rental fee instead of purchasing it to sit unwatched on my DVD shelf until it turned to dust. It may have made a decent drink coaster, however...

... delayed release of "The Magnificant Ambersons" for a year after its completion, and now we know why.
Perhaps the editors hoped in post production to create what Director Alfonso Arau could not realize on film.

With his quirky direction, Arau aimed for the sublime and ended up with something ridiculous. His take on "The Magnificant Ambersons" not only fails to redeem Orson Welles' 1942 vision, it fails on the level of fundamental storytelling.

It wasn't the fault of the story.
Boothe Tarkington's novel about the decline of the land-wealthy, prestigious Amberson family in the face of modernization, the Industrial Revolution and growth of the middle class was a grand American tale.

It wasn't for lack of money.
The production had a lavish budget. It was shot at an old estate in Ireland and no expense was spared constructing a set that looked like turn-of-the-century Indianapolis.

It wasn't the fault of the actors.
The wonderful cast included such talented actors as James Cromwell, Bruce Greenwood, Madeline Stowe and Jonathan Rhys Meyers.

Arau gave most of them too little to do.
In the role of Major Amberson, a Civil War veteran made good on land speculation, Cromwell should have given us more insight into the actions and past of the Ambersons - how that led to the warped, rigid value system of his grandson, Georgie.

Georgie Minafer (Rhys Meyers) is supposed to have charms that buffer his dark tendencies to be bigoted, narrow-minded and incestuous, he acts like a brat with attention defecit disorder, always flailing about.
His character never gets to move beyond one whining, pouting note.
Thus, when circumstances force a change on his part, the change seems wholely implausible.

Before its release, star Madeline Stowe bemoaned the production, which probably wasn't the right thing to do.

In hindsight, though, I can understand her complaint.
Although her character is meant to charm two men in her life - the lost love of her youth (played by Greenwood) and her son, she seems almost robot-like.

Stowe complained that Arau emphasized the incestous tendency between Georgie and his mother, Isabel, but frankly no heat or sparks of that kind were generated.

Again, I blame Arau because I have seen Rhys Meyers deliver marvelous performances in "Gormenghast," Ang Lee's "Ride With the Devil" and lesser known Irish gems such as "Michael Collins" and "The Disappearance of Finbar."

I recommend you rent one of them...

Since the point of this version of "The Magnificent Ambersons" is to "restore" the scenes that were lost when the study cut the Orson Welles version from 148 to 88 minutes, it becomes impossible to judge it by a different standard in which we pretend this was the first time Booth Tarkington's Pulitzer Prize winning book was brought to the screen. Ironically, if the point is to emphasize those lost scenes, then viewers need to watch the 1942 version to help you recognize the scenes when they crop up; they mostly have to do with the way modern things like the automobile change the face of the town in which the Ambersons rule. Of course, most films suffer in comparison to the original Mercury Production.

This 2002 production is handsome enough, although it lacks the distinctive cinematography and art direction of the Welles' film. Bruce Greenwood cuts a suitably dashing figure as Eugene Morgan and Madeleine Stowe makes a tragic enough Isabel. My problem with this version is the same as it was in the original: I can never really accept the idea that Lucy Morgan, well-played by the fetching Gretchen Mol, would ever really want to have anything to do with George Amberson Minafer, played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers. I will admit there are scenes in the later part of the film where Rhys-Meyers manages to find something charming in the character, and we do get into Lucy's thoughts on the matter at one point, but for the most part Georgie is played with such bug-eyed intensity that I find it impossible to believe his mother does not know her spoiled little brat is on a level all his own as a world-class jerk. The film also goes a bit too far with suggesting some sort of Oedipus complex at work behind their relationship. Isabel almost died giving him birth and could not have any more children; that is a reasonable enough explanation for what is going on here.

Yes, Jennifer Tilly goes over the top as Aunt Fanny, but then when your performance is going to be compared to that of Agnes Moorhead, who received Best Actress honors from the New York Film Critics Circle of playing Fanny in the original, you are pretty much doomed. James Cromwell has little of consequence to do as Major Amberson, but William Hootkins as Uncle George is a worthy successor to Ray Collins in the original. He might be the black sheep of the Ambersons, but that means he simply ends up being the most grounded member of the clan. However, it is from the performances of Greenwood and Mol that this version of "The Magnificent Ambersons" draws its strength. The ending of the film, when Greenwood looks into the camera as he speaks the words of his imaginary letter to Isabel, is certainly more effective than the rather awkward ending of the original. Anything that can end with such a note of grace deserves being watched. Furthermore, those who have never seen the Welles' version will be able to better enjoy this film since they will not be prejudiced by memories of performances past.

A&E gives us a delightfully watchable remake of Orson Welles's great film of Booth Tarkington's novel "The Magnificent Ambersons." At first I thought Madeleine Stowe & Jennifer Tilly were too young to portray Georgie's mother & aunt, but when I looked up their birthdates in Katz's film encyclopedia I was surprised that they are both in their 40s -- they've aged well -- so their age is appropriate -- they just look younger. Anyway, I soon got used to them & their portrayals. I still think Tim Holt (in the original 1942 film) did a more subtle job of portraying Georgie's casual snobbishness -- not as aggressively surly as in the remake -- but even that improves near the end. Too bad A&E determined to stick so closely to the original screenplay. They lost the opportunity to take advantage of the lengthier running time by fleshing out the plot , restoring more details from the novel. Anyone who enjoys the original film and/or this remake would enjoy reading the novel -- it's not as old-fashioned or wordy as other novels of its time -- it is a good fast read today and has more characters and subplots than either film. It holds up very well. Most of the dialogue in both films comes virtually word-for-word from the novel. I read the novel after being dazzled by Welles's 1942 film -- as soon as I finished reading, I started right in on reading it a second time. One of the themes in both the novel & the 2 films is snobbery -- so here's a bit of trivia -- it is significant that Georgie's horse is named "Pendennis" -- "Pendennis" is the name of the title character in William Makepeace Thackeray's novel satirizing snobbery. The novel was ahead of its time in dealing with the theme of air pollution from factories & automobile exhaust -- Welles intended to deal with this in his film, but the studio cut almost all of this out. A&E's remake partially restores some of this theme, but more could have been done with this by consulting the novel. Tarkington wrote 3 novels dealing with air pollution & the decline of the quality of life -- he published the 3 novels in one volume under the collective title "Growth" -- "The Magnificent Ambersons" is one of the 3 novels. Now we need a DVD of the 1942 film with all the "bells & whistles" extras. Too bad the studio destroyed Welles's cut footage -- maybe we can hope that some brave studio insider made a copy of it and that it will eventually come to light. One never knows what will turn up in Czech film archives!

The review at the top, Not Quite Magnificent, captures my attitude perfectly. While some things work, and the backstory of the declining family is more interesting than the self-absorbed creeps who are front and center, this thing flops around gasping for air for a painfully long time. Why, I kept asking myself.

I have seen many of these actors in other films, and they are all competent or good. But here, every note, every speech, every aside feels forced and contrived. They even walk woodenly. Jonathan Rhys Meyers, a new one for me, is just awful, a tedious and exasperating automaton who is without a trace of humanity. OK, maybe that's the character, but why does he talk like that? And I learn he is Irish. So why, in a huge sprawling film like this, do they use an Irish actor to create a Midwestern voice? It is all wrong, never once sounding like a person. Emblematic of much more.

Masterpiece Theater uses skilled actors who capture the nuances of their characters and make them spring alive. This was the most stagnant production I've ever endured. The actors are usually standing stiffly or glaring. Even the dancing was stolid. Four turgid hours of clumsiness. So if everyone is awful, the pacing is comatose, and the whole thing is chilly and cold, it must be the director. Never have I been so aware of good intentions gone awry. One wonders what Welles would have produced wtih a similar budget and length, but certianly not this mess.

I was rather looking forward to this adaptation, and even went so far as to order the book as soon as I heard about it. I must say I was somewhat disappointed witht he final product. Most of the characters seem forced or flat (particularly Isabel and Fanny, not to mention Georgie) and the colors are rather flat throughout. I do have to give it three stars because the story is still engaging (I especially recommend the book- I'm surprised the author isn't more widely known), and after all, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers isn't too hard on the eyes. But it could have been better. I don't know whether it was the actors or the director (the script is practically straight from the book, with a few adjustments). So maybe see if you can catch it on A&E again before springing for the DVD.

Let's face it; Orson Welles's movie of The Magnificent Ambersons is a magnificent mess through no fault of its highly regarded director. Cut and edited to pieces by studio hacks (Robert Wise!!!) with the excised material now lost, the movie exists as a mere torso rather than a whole experience. So much is missing, that the movie is hard to follow unless you've read the book. The movie is certainly not what Welles wanted and it is unrepairable; a great tragedy in film history.

The new version from A&E may not have Welles's unique directorial ability or atmospheric lighting in black and white, but it does tell Tarkington's story coherently and on the whole, quite successfully. Director Alfonso Arau has purposely avoided the look of the Welles film, opting for a rich, epic color palette. The art direction is beautiful and you really get a flavor of turn of the century midwest American life.

Many reviewers have complained of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers performance of George. Frankly it is a brave and quite accurate portrayal. Tim Holt in the Welles film was hopelessly too mature looking to play Tarkington's headstrong brat. Georgie is not a very sympathetic character in the book and Rhys-Meyers studiously avoids turning him into the bland leading man that Welles allowed Holt to portray. Those that take issue with Rhys-Meyers don't know the book. He is the right age and certainly the right look for this difficult character. He is a dynamic actor that isn't afraid to be true to a character's inate nature. He's not easy to take at times, but Georgie isn't either!

Many have also criticized Jennifer Tilly's Fanny as not being the equal of Agnes Moorehead. Again, Tilly is closer to the book. Fanny is a hapless character which Tilly invests with a wonderful degree of humanity coupled with her unique brand of eccentricity. Moorehead had not an ounce of charm and frankly was miscast. Madeleine Stowe, James Cromwell, and Bruce Greenwood are all excellent as are the supporting players.

Is this the ultimate version of this classic. Of course not. It is, however, a well made, BBC style television movie that is very true to Tarkington's novel and tells the story clearly, unapologetically and with some amount of panache. I give it an enthusiastic recommendation.

This "so-called" remake of Orson Welles' 1942 masterpiece is a major dissapointment.

The makers claim to use the original Amberson script written by Orson Welles himself, and this version is supposed to bring to the world Welles' true, unspoiled vision of the story of the magnificent Amberson family. However, this A&E made-for-TV movie completely lacks the sprit, imagination, and cinematic creativty Welles put into his work.

The script has been bastardized and watered down to form a bland teleplay that excludes important and memorable things such as the unforgettable narration and the opening flashback montage (to name only two).

Watching the original film, one can see that Welles truly cared about his characters, and he also held a fondness for the time period in which this story takes place. Both aspects are GONE in this version. The characters are, at times, completely left out to dry, and when watching this, one gets the feeling they're watching just another "period" movie.

Just about the only worthy thing in this entire movie is some (NOT all) of the acting; Madeline Stowe, Bruce Greenwood, Gretchen Mol, and William Hootkins being the standouts.

My advice to anyone thinking of purchasing this is: Stick with the original. Despite the fact that it was taken out of Welles' hands and re-edited by his studio, it still stands head and shoulders above this.

Booth Tarkington's 1918 novel, "The Magnificent Ambersons" is far from being magnificent. Here is a taste of it:

"But Lucy who sat beside him lifted ineffable eyes from him [George] to her father, and shook her head.

"`No, just take his hand--gently!'

"She was radiant.

"But for Eugene another radiance filled the room. He knew that he had been true at last to his true love, and that through him she had brought her boy under shelter again. Her eyes would look wistful no more."

What can one say about such leaden phrases as, "ineffable eyes" and "true at last to his true love"? That is weepy, inept pap. The rest of the book is hardly better.

On the assumption that this production does faithfully follow Orson Welles' 1942 shooting script, it is clear that he tightened up the book and made improvements throughout. However, Tarkington's original sow's ear became no more than a much improved sow's ear. The screenplay was no silk purse.

Welles' movie of "The Magnificent Ambersons," mangled and mutilated though it is, retains about itself a tattered air of magnificense and--yes!--art that places it far above the book and even the screenplay. It has an ensemble feeling that dates back to the old Mercury Theater days. The uniformly excellent actors, all united in style and goal, were "One equal temper of heroic hearts," as Tennyson might have said. The film's overall design and cinematography achieved something far beyond anything that Tarkington might have imagined. And more important than any of that, although much more subtle, is the unique, pervasive and unmistakable presence of Orson Welles--that truly ineffable man.

In 1943, the hacked up studio version of the film won academy awards for Agnes Moorehead as best supporting actress, for best black-and-white art direction and interior decoration, for best black-and-white cinematography (Stanley Cortez) and for best picture.

Now we come to this TV movie. It offers only the original screenplay, none of the rest--and in bland TV color, yet! The net effect is similar to that of attempting to reproduce the Mona Lisa on an Etch-A-Sketch. What were they thinking?

This new TV movie arose out of a mediocre conception and was executed by mediocre talents to achieve a mediocre goal. I give it two stars because it at least has two virtues: no semi-clad performers are required to eat bugs on a remote jungle island and Simon Cowell is nowhere in sight.