Customer Reviews

Rowing With the Wind

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

 

 

A haunting, dreamlike film, occasionally powerful and moving, though more often dark and strange, "Rowing With the Wind" looks at the lives of the 19th century British poets George Gordon, Lord Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley; and Shelley's wife, Mary, who became even more famous than her husband with the writing of Frankenstein.

The film looks at these writers' ideas only very generally, preferring to dwell somberly and with a majestic use of music (especially Ralph Vaughn Williams' "Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis"), scenery, and sets (stark castles, Venetian palaces) on the chaos of their personal relationships and the pain of their lives. In doing so, it suggests a monstrous reason for their many tragedies, but don't come to this film expecting a horror movie--the device is more metaphor than monster.

Hugh Grant proves once again that he is more deserving of reputation as an actor than a bad boy--though he does play Byron as a sort of ultimate bad boy--and the rest of cast is effective as well.

This movie is based on actual historical events revolving around four individuals in the early 1800's, in several European locations. Three of the four main characters are famous British writers or poets. The main character in the movie is Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein. Mary Shelley had a life plagued with the loss of loved ones. The movie follows a portion of her life and highlights the loss of those that are close to her. The deaths she is surrounded by are brought to light through dialogue in the film. At one point Lord Byron, who is played by Hugh Grant challenges everyone to write a story, which is also based on an actual event. At this time Mary Shelley writes her famous work Frankenstein. As she is losing her loved ones throughout the movie her guilt and loss is manifested into the monster she has created. She blames herself for the loss of those around her which is also manifested into the monster she has created. We see the monster throughout the movie, but it is very easy to miss why the monster is there. The monster never interferes causing the deaths, though in one instance it looks like the monster causes a death mimicking a part of her Frankenstein novel. All the characters in the movie actually died in the manner portrayed in the film. If you have a historical knowledge of the main characters there should be nothing in this movie that catches you by suprise. The number of actual characters in this movie are limited and mainly focus on the four main characters and their ecentricities. The cinemetagraphy in this film is excellent. The movie was made to appeal to the visual senses. The film takes place with scenic and colorful backgrounds in Geneva and Venice. The costumes worn by the actors are rich and lavish and add to the scenic backgrounds. The dialogue in this movie is sharp and witty. All the actors in the movie would fall under the category of "eye candy". Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley are younger in this movie which appears to have been filmed before they established any fame in the US. If you did not know that Elizabeth Hurley had a role in this movie it might take you a while to recognize her. This is a European movie filmed in English. The film was well shot and is not a B movie, however I did not give it five stars due to the transfer of this film over to DVD. There are flaws that should have been touched up in the transfer process onto DVD. These flaws are not easily noticeable throughout the majority of the film where the back grounds are darker colors. However it is very noticeable in the opening sequence which takes place aboard a ship in the artic. The flaws stand out against the white background. With the time and effort that was put into making and filming this movie one would think that it would get the proper attention when put onto DVD. This movie is much better than what it has garnered attention for. This movie has seemed to catch attention due to Elizabeth Hurleys later fame and the fact that her breasts are exposed for a few seconds in this film. This European film uses the characters as part of the scenery and exposes three of the four main characters throughout the film, which has both male and female nudity. This movie is not fast paced and has no action. The movie depends on its dialogue which is delivered very well by all of the main characters. Bottom line here is that this is not a horror film with action scenes. It is well worth the time spent to view it.

I bought this DVD out of sheer curiosity. The write-up on its cover shamelessly and ridiculously exploits the "Sexy Hugh Grant and seductive Elizabeth Hurley" thing, attempting to ride the coattails of their later fame more than fifteen years after it was filmed. It cheapens the movie, in my opinion, and was half the reason I popped it into the DVD player not really expecting much. I was truly surprised, though, to find myself enjoying the humor and, most of all, intrigued and even moved by the story.

Don't get me wrong; it's definitely not factually accurate, and it is a perfect example of what Hugh Grant hilariously refers to as "Euro-pudding." However, it has its certain charms. Actually, I have found myself rewatching it on a few occasions because, as someone with some basic familiarity with literature of that era, the story stuck with me much more than I would have expected. I had to read up on Byron and the Shelleys, and then I rewatched it so it would make a little more sense to me, and what I really came to appreciate had less to do with factual depiction of events (and seriously, it's a movie about a fictional monster wreaking havoc on the life of its creator, so I wasn't expecting fact) but more to do with a very personal look at some larger-than-life characters. As someone below mentioned, Hugh Grant gives Byron an unexpected humanity, and Mary Shelley's sadness seeps through the self-appointed drama of the film to touch any viewer who has the slightest sympathy for the very tragic life she lived. It is an interesting concept to use her greatest achievement, Frankenstein, as a symbol of the misery she endured. She believes in the movie that she has brought life to imagination and ruined the lives of everyone she loves, but the omniscient viewer is haunted more by the idea that the horrors of her imagination were driven by the very real tragedies of her life.

My perspective on Rowing With the Wind boils down to that, a sympathy for these incredibly talented and incredibly sad people, and an appreciation for a film that in some way succeeds in humanizing their experience at the most tumultuous time of their lives. It is crazy - and probably intentionally so, as you are inside the reflections of a woman who was no stranger to psychological suffering. My advice is to take it with a grain of salt and maybe you will also be pleasantly surprised.

There are three movies that focus on the life and times of Mary Shelley which I have seen to date. They are Rowing With The Wind, Haunted Summer, and Gothic. Of these, only Haunted Summer comes close to being truly accuate to what really happened. Nevertheless, despite the many innacuracies in this particular film, such as Dr Polidori dying in Switzerland five years earlier than he really did and in the wrong country, this is a very enjoyable piece of work. I've always loved the story of "the Romantics", and this film endevours to tell the story of Mary Shelley from the time she leaves England with Percey and Claire to events after Byron's death. While it was important to me to know the truth about everything that really happened, my vivid imagination enjoys films like this that take liberty with the truth, which is also why I enjoyed Gothic. However, Haunted Summer was equally enjoyable, which I suppose means that in the case of our Romantic heroes, their story as it really happened suffices as sheer entertainment. I gave this film four stars, denying it a fifth soley because of the historical innacuracies.

Well, there's no getting around the fact that the film has no apparent point. Why is the filmmaker telling this story? What is the point of the monster? What, ultimately, are we supposed to get out of watching this? We will never know.

That being said, I do have to put in a good work for Hugh Grant. He's always been underrated as an actor (partially his own fault, for playing all those ridiculous floppy-haired roles, and he's always been very good in roles he seems to be a bizarre choice for (Chopin, anyone?). The same is true here. Apparently Grant was cast because the writer-director was struck by his resemblance to Byron -- yet, he doesn't resemble Byron at all, and the ridiculous blond hair he gets halfway through the movie doesn't bring him any closer. What he does manage to do is give Byron some depth and some sort of line of growth. He's utterly shallow and unintentionally funny, at the beginning of the film, but by the end he has understanding and a certain amount of wisdom. The other thing Grant succeeds in doing, which no actor before has ever succeeded in doing, is making Byron human. He doesn't just sneer caddishly; he displays at least a bit of layered emotion (although admittedly not much, and Grant gives the part more than the writing offers).

That being said, Grant is pretty much all the film has going for it. Gasp! at the size of the women's bonnets. Titter! at the almost completely one-dimensional portrayal of Shelley. Wonder! why the monster has to pause after every word. Roll your eyes! at the movie's determination to substitute previous fictional versions of incidents for what actually happens. And most of all, Recoil in horror! from Elizabeth Hurley's massive caterpillar eyebrows. Wow, did she ever change substantially once she shoved herself into that Versace dress and got famous.

After all this, I still would absolutely rather sit through this than through the repellently inaccurate "Haunted Summer." That movie is a disgrace to fact and to those who are interested in the Romantics.

As a person who considers herself a keen student of the lives and works of the subjects of this film, I was highly disappointed by it. After watching it I can't think of a single scene that plays out even fractionally accurately - to give 2 examples - Polidori should be in his early 20's, but looks 40: Shelley's meeting with Byron in Venice was NOT with Claire and Mary in tow, but alone - Mary was sent for after he arrived... the list, sadly, is endless, and lacks any real sense. Whilst some biopics of this cabal are entertaining enough that the liberties they take with history are of little matter, this film has little to redeem it.

The acting is largely poor (Grant and Hurley are particularly wooden), the script banal, the pacing diabolically bad (although I do hear that the original cut was a good 30 minutes longer), and the transfer to DVD so bad that flaws in the film are visible, with not attempt made to restore the film it seems, and the sound quality is appalling, with a constant hiss and crackle audible throughout.

Valentine Pelka is perhaps the only occasionally bright spark in the whole production, playing a rather more robust Shelley than most writers or filmmakers see fit to give us - a welcome change, but not enough to save the film.

Anyone wanting to see a film based on the events of the "Year without a Summer" would do better to track down a copy of the 1988 film "Haunted Summer" starring Eric Stoltz and Philip Anglim, which whilst it takes frequent liberties with history, does at least make its characters recogniseable to those who know them from their biographies, letters and works, its errors being more of ommission, than of commission.

Rowing with the Wind I'm afraid makes even the crude excesses of "Gothic" look good by comparison - and even the Highlander episode "The Modern Prometheus" looked better!

Avoid.

Mary Shelley ponders the literature that is "...the one nobody's written yet, where the imagination could give life to matter making it into a living poem." The historical drama Rowing with the Wind (1988) depicts this concept by dramatizing an influential time in the lives of three literary geniuses plus Claire Clairmont (Elizabeth Hurley). Radical political thinker turned poet Percy Bysshe Shelley is portrayed by Valentine Pelka. Mary Godwin Shelley--often proclaimed post mortem as the best woman novelist of that time--is diminished to being represented by Lizzy McInnerny. Revered as a poet but scandalized for being a bad boy, Lord Byron is depicted by Hugh Grant in a slightly watered down version that is probably due to the script instead of Grant's choice. Writer and director Gonzalo Suarez's movie does not quite scream "It's alive!" The hack and slap editing is reminiscent of the jerky motion of classic depictions of the creature in Frankenstein. Another major problem is the assignment of actress to roles that do not correspond with their acting ability. Rowing with the Wind does have strong qualities such as the set design and scenery, choice of music, and a few of the acting performances. The costume design is gender biased and curiously inconsistent in garment quality and degree of historical accuracy.

Rowing with the Wind is rated R for nudity, both female and male. The female nudity is mildly gratuitous but not unexpected or disruptive to the plot. Maybe it even put one actress in her element; Lizzy McInnerny's only half believable performance starts with her getting out of a bathtub and then wandering around towel-headed in a bathrobe. "Sexy Hugh Grant" does not even take off his shirt... despite the description on the video box that cheapens the purpose of the movie and just plain false advertises for anyone who cares.

The film begins appropriately with a voice over of Byron's "Darkness", a poem written during the summer in Geneva when he met the Shelleys. There is an artic scene reminiscent of the beginning of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in which she professes to be alone, waiting to meet the Creature conceived by her imagination. Mary is introduced as the narrator, retelling the story from memory: "Such strange memories: Shelley, Byron, Claire. Imagination and life are confused as waters of the same lake, our lake, where together we rowed."

In the fabled summer of 1816 young lovers decide to run away together. Shelley and Mary, with Claire in tow, visit Lord Byron in Lake Geneva, Switzerland. John Polidori--Byron's physician and personal secretary--is there when the threesome arrive. At Lord Byron's suggestion there is a horror story writing contest to show that life is always more terrifying than the scariest story imagined. Mary begins writing Frankenstein; none of the contributions from the others are mentioned. Soon after there are three deaths, all ruled suicides. Mary begins to fear the monster which she has created in literature has manifested in real life. Beyond her control, born of her own inner darkness, Mary believes the monster that she has seen with her own eyes is now a harbinger of death. The story covers the Shelleys, Claire and Lord Byron's life and travels through Europe for several years until after the death of one or more of the key participants. The above-quoted reference to rowing and the title are a hint at rather confusing embellishment at the ending which kills whatever euphoria that might have been caused by watching the movie.

There is not considerable enthusiasm due to the lack of momentum building, mostly courtesy of film editor Jose Salcedo. The editing is mutilated and crudely sewn together with some essential chunks of meat missing, not unlike the Creature in Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein. The United States version has been cut from 126 to 95 minutes. There is a cut and paste feeling, blaringly lacking transition between the scenes. In at least one place it is very obvious that the scene has been ripped and another one tacked on unceremoniously afterwards.

It is also very obvious that the female cast should have been reshuffled based on acting. Lizzy McInnerny should not have the lead role of Mary Shelley, period. Kate McKenzie does exceptionally well in her small role as Jane Williams. Ms. Williams makes the story come alive and creates a little bit of suspense to see more. Elizabeth Hurley is believable and energetic, but the script for her character Claire made little use of that. Even at times when she is supposed to be scared or elated in love, Lizzy McInnerny's performance completely lacks anything but monotony, utter flatness and apathy so detestable that if on trial for criminally bad acting the jury would have no sympathy for her... like she has no heart for the role. Perhaps McInnerny's motivation is to seem self-controlled and strong, but she is playing a 16-year-old girl at the beginning of the movie, one who is full of passion and ideas. The actress' facial expressions, body language and even her posture do not match what she is saying. That is so odd that it distracts the reader from becoming immersed in the movie, nearly knocking the whole film down to the B movie class in itself.

Hugh Grant does well with what he is given. It is not that he received better lines than the other principals, as one might originally assume, it is that he could actually perform them. However, the script completely fails to portray his dark and moody personality well. Both Grant and Jose Luis Gomez stand out for their ability to use facial expressions and inflections in speech, making it sound realistic.

Those are tasks that Valentine Pelka does adequately at times when the character's melodramatic suicidal gestures are not taken into consideration. Another actor could have taken the character of Percy Bysshe Shelley to higher level. Pelka also comes short of driving home philosophical and thought provoking lines meant to be key elements in understanding the atmosphere of the time.

The selling point of this movie involves the inner settings and the outer scenery, as it is filmed on location in grand beauty in Spain, Switzerland, Italy and Norway. The scenery is breathtaking and much is made of natural lighting and breathtaking landscapes. The mansions used for the interior scenes are lush with spacious rooms. For example, the ceiling is so high in Lord Byron's Venice home that it makes a giraffe standing in it seem amazing small.

Alejandro Masso's choice of music is as effective as it could be given the unharmonious editing. Featuring all classical music, the score includes the works of Greig, Beethoven, and Mozart. The music is enjoyable and adds to the atmosphere, partly filling in the gaps left by some of the actors and a script that isn't very conducive to the cutting age of the time featured.

The costume design of Ivonne Blake consists of some over-the-top costumes for the character Lord Byron and some plain gowns for the ladies, mostly in drab white. Claire Clairmont does wear a pant suit once. Jane Williams wears a colored dress that at least looks tailored, unlike the boring gowns hanging off Mary and Claire in Switerzland. The eccentric costuming for Lord Byron has historical basis if Portrait of Lord Byron in Albanian Dress, a painting by Thomas Phillips, is considered. However, Percy Bysshe Shelley's clothing is rather functional, plain and cheap looking, contrary to accounts of Shelley wearing expensive clothes even if they were wrinkled. At least an outfit of John Polidori had some detail on the sleeve.

The drastic over-editing and the casting for the lead female character Mary Shelley prohibit a rating above neutral. Tragically, this movie had potential to be much greater. This film receives a 3-star rating for the general adult public. The recommendation is significantly but not profoundly higher for those who are interested in the historical people portrayed; in that case it should be purchased in a gently used condition at a discount. If available free of charge from the library Rowing with the Wind should definitely be checked out by people seeking something slightly out of the mainstream that heaps with artsy culture.

It is hard to classify this film, for in many ways it is a horror film and in other ways it is a study of a highly original group of people who lived on the edge of society and were both creative and years ahead of their times in terms of their sensibilities. The films interior scenes are often ghostly and the nighttime exterior scenes are filmed in an idealized surreal landscape. The film covers a brief period in the careers of Percy Shelley, his wife Mary, his sister-in-law Claire Clairmont, and the international superstar bad-boy poet, Lord Byron. The two men, Byron and Shelley, were both friends and competitors, for both were considered by different factions to be the greatest living British poets. Hugh Grant plays bad-boy Lord Byron, a strikingly handsome and amoral man who doesn't really have to chase women because they are always chasing him. Percy Shelley is played by Valentine Pelka. Percy is a highly sympathetic character in the film and in life. He feels competitive with Byron and also in awe of this great talent. He leaves his wife and children to run away with 17 year old Mary Godwin, the child of radical social reformer William Godwin and feminist Mary Wollstonecraft. Percy and Mary Shelley and Claire Clairmont visit Byron in Switzerland. Here he is attended by his physician played by Jose Luis Gomez and his faithful valet Fletcher, played comically by Ronan Vibert. During this visit Byron challenges them all to write ghost stories. The 20 year old Mary Godwin Shelley pens the famous novel Frankenstein due to this challenge. Lizzy McInnerny plays Mary Shelley perfectly in this film and despite the bravado and beauty of the two lead males; it is Mary that gradually begins to become the center of gravity for the entire movie. Mary's sister Claire Claremont is a pitiful case. Elizabeth Hurley plays her as an impulsive, sexually uninhibited woman of poor judgment. Hurley chases Byron until she catches him, becomes pregnant, and then is amazed that he wants nothing more to do with her. However after the birth of a daughter, Byron gradually gets control of their daughter and has her reared in an Italian monastery by nuns. It is half way through the film that it begins to diverge from the biographic record and the character of Frankenstein begins to haunt Mary, as if the novel had created this monster in reality. Then many tragic deaths begin to occur around Mary and her family and friends. I am not sure of the point in turning this biographical film of the 19th century's avante garde into a horror story but this is where the director takes us. The group joins with ex-patriots Edward Williams and his wife. Jolyon Baker plays Williams and is tied to the tragedy that results in both Williams' and Shelley's deaths. The lush music of Vaughn Williams' Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis is integrated into the film. The film will probably stimulate many viewers to read more about Percy Shelley, Mary Shelley, Lord Byron, William Godwin, Mary Wollstonecraft, and the entire collection of amazing characters that are brought together in history in one time and one place where their genius can develop.

Rowing With the Wind is a superb blending of reality with the mind's fantasy. It's eerie opening scene in the frozen arctic with the quiet, somber voice of Hugh Grant quoting a poem by Byron sets the audience's expectations for something darkly haunting, out of this world... This trick of the imagination becomes mingled with reality and purpose in first the mind of Mary Shelley as she creates her Frankenstein monster and, later, in the mind of her husband Shelley. The settings in Geneva and Venice are fantastic, the acting of all players is truly excellent, beautiful period costuming, wonderful music to fit the script.

. The whole plot s built on this developing fantasy of Mary Shelley and the happenings which she believes are a result of the darkness within herself. Yet, the character that stands out central and above all is Lord Byron, played by Hugh Grant. He does a marvelous job of acting and bring life and personality to the poet. Hugh is Lord Bryon, the self-centered poet who grows more humane during the story.

The movie would be more enjoyable if the quick nude scenes had been omitted. Otherwise, it is a very enjoyable film well worth watching repeatedly as you can get more out of it with each viewing.

a story that reveals once again that human soul is complex and full of desires. One of the best movies i have ever watched. It was a shock since i did not expect it to be so good. It is very easy to be misleaded if one seeks for a concrete story. This film is more about the pain of personalities in search of their lives and happiness to be found nowhere. It is a dark and subtle movie.Only for the patients though.It is very interesting to watch Hugh Grant as someone 'real' as well.