VividSimon Simply Perfect

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

webmouse3 Gothic is the earlier of the two films on the subject of the 1816 meeting of Shelley, Byron, Polidori and the half-sisters Mary and Claire. Gothic simply seems to lose all its substance underneath overly exaggerated style. I found no reason to like nor to care about the characters, even though the cast is certainly an illustrious and capable one.Haunted Summer gives a much more nuanced look at the lives, loves, and tragedies of these pivotal persons. Gothic has far too much running about in madcap antics with very little focus on what actually drove these people to become who they were -- or to end the way they did. I only own this DVD to use as comparative filmography. As such it is a fine example of how even the most competent actors can not save a film.

James Nason This ranks as one of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune to watch.The subject matter is something I find fascinating, a period when the two greatest Gothic characters were conceived and this is the best they could come up with to bring this time to life?! I thought more of Natasha Richardson and Timothy Spall than to stoop as low as productions of such poor quality.If a subject interests you enough that you would make a film about it why would you do such a horrendous job of it?! The first thing you notice is how terrible the soundtrack is. Even by the standards of 1986 the music sounds like cheap, out-of-date electronics all of which fail to capture any mood in the film.It soon follows that you notice how terrible the performances of the 'actors' are with everyone but Richardson over-acting and 'hamming' up their parts, making them all seem overly eccentric.If you have the chance to watch this film don't bother! Read Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' in stead. It'll take a lot longer but will be a far less waste of your time than this film.

TheLittleSongbird Not a terrible film, but not one of Russell's best. It is very easy why one would be fascinated or dumbfounded, because it is a very good example of being a fairly unique film but a weird one at the same time, so you're not sure what to make of it(again very like Lisztomania). To be honest there's not a whole lot to add that hasn't already been said. The story is very jumpy and chaotic that it is not very easy to follow, sometimes in the middle verging on incoherent. There are a few dull stretches in the middle too, and the ending feels forced and structurally at odds with the rest of the film. Gothic can feel all-over-the-place tonally too, the subject matter- a good idea by the way- is relatively serious but is performed in a camp, theatrical way so it is not easy to take things seriously, considering that this is Ken Russell we're talking about that may have been the intent. There are not many directors quite like Ken Russell, and he is certainly an interesting one but also can resort to excess, and while not as badly as Lisztomania and the Richard Strauss documentary Dance of the Seven Veils this happens in Gothic. His touches do fit well generally within the decadent atmosphere but they are not always tasteful or relevant, sometimes overwrought, and they do swamp what's going on. Most of the cast are very good, taking on a characteristically(of Russell that is) theatrical approach, though Julian Sands' performance is a mix of soppy and over-exaggerated and Myriam Cyr's inexperience does show. Of the performances, Natasha Richardson for me gave the best performance, she was the most subtle actor in the cast and she does it with skill and allure. Timothy Spall is a total sleaze and so much fun to watch and Gabriel Byrne is mysterious personified. Some of Russell's excesses aside, Gothic is a well-made film, as Gothic as the title suggests and has the right amount of grandiose and decadent, which suits the tense and imaginative atmosphere to a tee. The photography was fine as well. Thomas Dolby's music score pulsates with eeriness and energy and not in an over-bearing way. The script doesn't always find the right tone, but I personally can't deny that the campiness was fun to watch and hear, even more so when the actors were uttering it with the amount of relish they did. The prologue at the beginning was beautifully done, it looked beautiful and had a real sense of atmosphere. On the whole, not an easy film to rate but while interesting and with a fair bit to recommend it was personally one of Russell's weaker films. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Michael_Elliott Gothic (1986)** (out of 4)Interesting take on how Frankenstein came to be from cult director Russell. The bizarre Byron (Gabriel Byrne) invites friends Shelley (Julian Sands) and his wife Mary (Natasha Richardson) over for what will turn out to be a strange night with one nightmare after another. This British production draws people in as it promises to show how Mary Shelley created her famous story but this here pretty much never happens. I knew enough about the film going in to know not to expect any type of biography or true-story take on the actual events. With that said, this movie is a pretty confusing mess from start to finish and I'm still not quite sure what it was trying to do. Heck, I'm really not sure if Russell knew exactly what they were doing except for trying to create something very bizarre. If the entire plan was to do that then they've pretty much succeeded as this is certainly a very strange movie. The final thirty-minutes goes off-the-wall in terms of weirdness. This is when all the characters really go overboard with one strange fantasy after another, which includes a strange creature living in the castle's basement, dead babies, weird orgies and this here isn't even half of it. We even get a very memorable scene where a woman's nipples are actually her eyes. It's these strange moments that make this film worth viewing but I think most people are going to hit the eject button during the first hour. The first hour is pretty hard to sit through as we basically get our characters going into one long speech after another and when they're not talking they're just screaming at the top of their lungs. The film pretty much left me bored for the first hour and when I wasn't bored I was trying to backtrack to try and make sense of what was going on. There's no doubt Russell has a certain style that he brings to the film and it's atmosphere is right on the mark but you still have to have some sort of plot. Byrne, Sands and Richardson are all fine in their roles.