Diagonaldi Very well executed

Clevercell Very disappointing...

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Maleeha Vincent It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

trimmerb1234 Ruskin was a dominating and influential public figure. Driven, dogmatic, intensely serious, argumentative and over time self-contradictory. His great two volume "Stones of Venice" were essential for the bookshelves of Victorians wishing to be seen as cultivated and engaged, with a deep interest in both architectural and religious questions. Ruskin,father of the Gothic Revival,wrote the "Stones of Venice" as a very elaborate and extensive - and tenuous - justification for Gothic as the only true Protestant architectural style comparing the historic governance of Venice with that of England. Ruskins obsessive advocacy spawned the hundreds of churches and dozen of town halls built in the Gothic style in Victorian England. It is possible I think to form something of a picture of Ruskin's character from his writings - and even for high Victorian England it does not bode well for any future marriage partner. Ruskin was much photographed so his appearance is well known. His demeanour could be guessed at. Apart from his voice one might form a fairly detailed picture of him. So close was Greg Wise to my picture of Ruskin, particularly his demeanour that it was quite a startling experience. Effie though was a perfectly normal young woman. Her lover, Millais too was a very normal man. She had the misfortune to marry a very gifted but tightly buttoned up - in a number of senses - man.It does however mean that the interest - because of its oddity - was Ruskin - and his parents, immensely proud their odd offspring. Top portrayals of the parents and notably too, Derek Jacobi as Effie's solicitor. Emma Thompson's screenplay has such fidelity to the manners and mores of the period, the difficulties of speaking about matters then of great delicacy. It is an antidote to the unspeakable screenplay for "Victoria". The normality of Effie and Millais - and the relatively colourless portrayals - made these parts of the film drag. However I only caught the last quarter of the film or less so look forward to seeing it on DVD asap A 7.5A footnote is a recent book which questions Ruskin's impotence as the cause of his problem with Effie (the writer suggests it was money) but as it was Ruskin himself who wrote (to his solicitors) as an uncomfortable admission that the "circumstances" of Effie's body were not such as to inspire (his) passion - it is difficult not to believe this as anything other than the real cause. Nobody knows exactly what he meant but seems decisive.

raquelzepeda I knew nothing about John Ruskin prior to watching this film. However, the theme of psychological abuse of women is all too common and familiar.What is truly amazing about this story is that a woman was able to stand up against such odds. When you consider that John Ruskin was a man of power, fame, and wealth; it was quite an accomplishment. God bless Effie and everyone who fights for their happiness.

Watcher Watcher Oh Emma what a major disappointment! You didn't even bother to add some text at the end to say what happened to Effie. She went on to marry Millais and had several children with him and by all accounts lived happily ever after. The Scotland scenes were slow and boring though the rest was OK. certainly the TV series Desperate Romantics re the pre- Raphaelites was far more dramatic re Effie and Millais. It will be interesting to find out which was the real situation. Such a pity - the acting was OK and the costumes beautiful. The lighting was really weird though- going from dimmish to really dim in the same scene- if that was supposed to be some sort of filmic effect it failed. It made me think there was something wrong with my TV. I was also disappointed with the sound quality nod several times thought they were speaking in a foreign language - and I don't mean the scenes shot in Venice either!For people who know nothing about the Ruskin/ Effie/ Millais situation, which was a very unique, scandalous and shocking situation that made Ruskin a laughing stock, it failed miserably. If you are going to pluck stuff from history it really needs to be far more accurate.

Reno Rangan The movie was delayed a year to hit the screen due to the copyright issue. A biographical picture from Britain set in the late 1840. The movie revolves the story of Euphemia Gray shortly known as Effie Gray and her married life. She was from Scotland and only 19 when she married to the British art critic John Ruskin. But she was kept under certain limits of space by her laws. It makes her a lonely soul in the house, which surface a serious threat to their loveless marriage. Can it be held or not is the movie's final conclusion.Dakota Fanning, like I saw her yesterday in teen movies, but now she's in a grown up movie. Felt kind of hard to accept, and then after a while begin to like her performance. That does not mean it was a powerful act, somehow convincible to the viewers. That is mainly because of the story. Actually it's a simple story, if it was set in the today's world. For those periods, it was a big affair to deal publicly as well as family's prestige.The movie's settings and locations were good. As usual in a period drama the costumes are very good. It's always pleasure to learn the history through movies than the school textbooks. Other than that it was an average or just above. The thing is, it was a too slow and a little long movie, thus its not a commercial film. Many people aren't ready to pay watch it in the theatres, that is understood. So in my opinion, it should have been a television movie instead, with sliced into 3-4 episodes. Anyway, not for everyone, but for those who love slow presentations would have a good time.6/10