Customer Reviews

Masterpiece Theatre: Room With a View

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

I didn't hate this version of Room With a View. Yes, I have seen the Merchant Ivory version. Yes, I have read the book. Although I thought the cast of the Merchant Ivory production was magnificent, I actually like a great deal of the cast in this adaptation as well, so I was prepared to view this with an open mind and not hate it instantly because it wasn't Merchant Ivory. I have seen several of this cast (Cassidy, Cusak, Thompson, Spall) in other productions and thought they were wonderful. The aspects of this production I found most disappointing were the script and direction. I found the dialogue to be lackluster, and the interpretation of some of the characters (primarily Cecil) just plain dull. I have admired some of Davies' adaptations in the past, but his more recent works seem to have an underlying conceit in them that I find distasteful, as though he would deign to "improve" the works of the authors he is adapting. Davies is, indeed a gifted and talented man, but is he really so lofty that he feels capable of enhancing Austen, Forster, and Waugh? He had a wonderful cast of people to work with for this adaptation, but their performances were never going to reach the stellar level they were capable of when the script they were given to work with was second rate. I know there was a time limitation, but the story was just diluted and unnecessary additions were made (the additional meeting with the gig driver, George's death, etc)that seemed to serve no purpose other than to needlessly outrage the audience. I don't understand why Davies feels the need to shock a response out of his audience, rather than impress them with quality. That cheapens the whole production. This production wasn't awful, but if could have been so much better.

If you're a fan of this great novel, do not watch this adaptation. The acting was very lack luster and it just didn't capture the feel and the essence of the novel. There was no wit and so many things were either added or changed. There was no need for a sex scene when so much about the novel is about repressed sexuality and freedom to make choices. It did not have to be spelled out for the viewer. The transformation of Lucy Honeychurch was barely touched upon and I think E.M. Forster's underlying messages were completely lost.

I have no idea what they were thinking when they decided to change the ending. I watched it open mouthed in disbelief. It was unnecessary and I think it totally took away the meaning of the novel. The ending is supposed to make you feel optimistic and good, despite the obstacles the lovers face. This ending was depressing and sad. I think the viewers were cheated.

If you want to watch a better adaptation, watch the 1985 version with Helena Bonham Carter, Julian Sands and Maggie Smith. No, it's not a perfect adaptation if you want it to be completely true to the book, but it follows the novel much more closely and the casting is wonderful. Julian Sands, in my opinion, perfectly portrayed George Emerson and Maggie Smith was wonderful as Charlotte Bartlett. Denholm Elliot was incredibly believable in his touching portrayal of the older Mr. Emerson.

I'm only giving this adaptation one star because it was visually pleasant to watch. Otherwise I think one star may have been pushing it.

After having adapted so many great Victorian novels for the BBC successfully, Andrew Davies tried to set the bar for himself even higher by adapting this E. M. Forster novel which most people would think had been definitively adapted as a film in 1986 by Merchant/Ivory. To give Davies credit, he does work to make this adaptation as different as possible, so he intriguingly plays up the class difference between Lucy Honeychurch and her suitor George Emerson (an element all but ignored in the Merchant-Ivory film) and also elects to have her other suitor, Cecil Vyse, more of a Bloomsbury type than he was in Daniel Day-Lewis's indelible broad caricature of the role from twenty-some years ago. All this seems potentially quite interesting; but Davies--disastrously--chose to make this version much grimmer than the 1986 film. All of the more comic elements of the original novel are drained away so completely that you'd think this were an adaptation of George Moore rather than of one of Forster's funniest novel. The cinematographer's palette here is murky and unlovely, and there's even a grossly unneeded framing device involving George Emerson's death in the trenches of the war and Lucy's return visit to Florence in the 20s that seem pompous and unwieldy. All the actors, even the excellent Sophie Thompson, seem suitably depressed and unhappy; this is really an experiment that failed.

I will state upfront that I'm a huge EM Forster fan and the Merchant/Ivory version of this novel is one of my all-time favorites, so when I first heard that Masterpiece Theatre was going to film their own version, I thought: Blasphemy!!!! lol But I took my chances and just finished watching this version on PBS. Why bother? There may have been a scene or two that you don't see in the Merchant/Ivory version, that is true to the book (the Roman scenes for instance) but this version was what I call a "why bother". Nothing new or interesting was added to this version (except the last 15 minutes, which is horrible!). The acting was average at best, the script almost boring and the ending....don't even get me started! Spolier alert (which never happens in the book, or M/I version): Lucy might possibly fall in love with the Italian carriage guide? Please! I'm a romantic at heart, but come on! Another spoiler alert: and George Emerson dying on the battlefields! What? Yes the screenwriter has said that he came across a postscript that Forster wrote 50 years later, but even Andrew Davies has changed that! Leave the novel alone....it's just as perfect as it is! Needless to say, skip this version and go directly to Merchant/Ivory!

The 1986 Merchant/Ivory adaptation of "A Room with a View" is one of my favorite movies; I also like the book.

That said, I really enjoyed this adaptation as well, when I saw it originally aired in November 2007 on ITV/Channel 3 in the UK. It's very important to keep in mind that this was made for a general public British TV audience - not for American/International art-house cinema audiences or PBS viewers.

Yes, it's different than "the original", but you need to enjoy it for what its is (someone else's interpretation)rather than consider it only in comparison to what many people feel is the definitive version. If you really love a story, there should be some enjoyment in watching different interpretations of that story for the purpose of comparing and contrasting, and seeing it through different eyes - rather than just in the (re-)telling of the story itself. Of course you're bound to prefer some versions to others, but don't write this off because it's not a duplicate of Merchant/Ivory.

I'm really surprised but how upset some reviewers are by this version - it's not that different/off the mark from the book.

If you are dead-set on benchmarking this against the Merchant/Ivory classic, don't bother getting it as you'll be wasting your time and money. If you can watch it with an open mind, you'll enjoy it for what is - and there is some excellent casting and acting.

One last thought - as a piece of (British) primetime television, this is fantastic compared to the usual TV broadcast rubbish (reality shows, un-funny politcally-correct comedies, soap operas, etc.)

When one has a Merchant-Ivory production to compare oneself to, one has to be extra careful and quite apparently the authors of the movie failed to remember about this warning. They were apparently aware of the existence of the earlier version and tried to do their best to do something different. And they failed. Partly because they tried at the same time to do something different from the book.
The moments of the movie which are good are not very different from the 1986 version. Well, there is not much one can do with Florence but I guess there is something one could do to make the Florentine part not look as if some scenes were exactly reshot with a different cast.
There are parts of the new movie which are different - we get a Roman bit (not really included in the novel...) which is nice and colourful (in general, this version is much more subdued than the 1986 one) but it only presents Cecil in a completely wrong light. When he can't kiss Lucy we can't help but wonder (even though the script includes a bit too many allusions to his homosexuality ;) why it is so difficult for him.
And then there is the whole structure of the movie. The book (and Merchant/Ivory movie) is set within a time frame of the year. Lucy and Charlotte arrive in Florence in the spring, the English part takes place in the summer, the conflict coincides with the arrival of the autumn, and Lucy is back in Florence in the early spring with George. You don't believe me? Well, don't take my word for it. Read the book!
This modest time frame was apparently not enough for producers - they had to add to the novel another time frame and make Lucy revist Italy in 1922, some years after George... was killed in the Great War. Which only proves that getting a decent critical edition can be crucial to success - George could not get killed in the war because he was a consciencious objector and did time for that. He did fight, however, in the Second World War. Anyone who read the book knows this from Forster's postscript written in 1958.
The movie ends with Lucy reunited with the Italian coachman. If all her liberation was aimed at this, well, did she really have to wait for some twenty years? It seems the more a waste of time as Lucy of 2007 version is by far more liberated than she was twenty years earlier. This makes the movie more modern but undermines the crucial issue of the plot - spiritual maturation and liberation.
In short - a lavish TV production. Not very bad but it doesn't measure up to the 1986 version.

I love the novel by Forster, and although I know movies have to leave out parts, nothing disappoints me more than when a screenwriter ADDS parts that were not in the book. I was in shock the whole movie wondering why he had to add so much. The books was excellent. Just tell the story.

I was so excited to hear that Masterpiece Theatre was doing "A Room With a View." It is one of my favorite books, partly because the writing, story, and characters are wonderful, and partly because I just feel good at the end of it. I don't want to trivialize a wonderful piece of literature, but it is a feel good book.
This adaptation took most of the joy out of the story. The filming was good, the scenery was beautiful, and the acting wasn't bad, but it lacked anything that made me happy to be watching it. I won't give away the ending, but it killed the whole thing for me. I just left feeling sad. It isn't just that it was not part of the book. I understand when things get changed a little bit because it is a movie and not a book. This however, added nothing to it. It revealed nothing more about the characters or the main themes of the story. It just sapped all of the joy out of the film. Watch the Merchant Ivory production, it was so much better.

Where to start. I am not one of those "they didn't stay true to the book" people. But (and spoiler alert) when you kill off characters simply because you want to... that is ridiculous. The whole film doesn't even make sense in this version. It was a waste of time; a classic turned into mediocre rubbish. Don't bother with it. Read the book. Or rent the 1986 Merchant Ivory film. Or just go for a walk; but certainly don't watch this.

Though I don't feel the 1985 theatrical adaptation fully lives up to the expectations I'd built from reading the book, this 2008 version is even more lacking. I do feel Elaine Cassidy looks a bit more realistic as the tepid, muddled Lucy Honeychurch (Bonham-Carter was a bit too "polished" for me), but her portrayal of Lucy lacked the subtlety Bonham-Carter did bring to the screen. In fact, none of the actors were able to convey the gentle hints and ironic turns to the plot as seen in the book and the '85 version. I can place the blame heavily on the writing: Davies stripped the plot of its sweet, nuanced and very Austen-like exploration of the maturation of an Edwardian lady for an aggressiveness--both in dialogue and in the characters. Everything is spelled out instead of shown through the characters's actions, and by changing the ending, tweaking characters, as well as injecting a crudely sexual element, Davies basically took the book and adapted it with his own agenda in mind. I'd only recommend this movie if you have a thing for period movies and like watching all sorts of adaptations of your favorite book, whether they be poor or not.