Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

deacon_blues-3 I find this version of TMA much better than the truncated Welles production. The cast is much stronger throughout.In 1942, only Cotten and Moorehead were really good. Holt was a total stiff, and Costello was barely part of the set furniture. In this new production, every role is played memorably by a strong performer. Of course each role is acted differently than in 1942, but even so, this one's much more memorable and detailed. The story is much livelier and compelling. Costello was especially disappointing in the original, whereas Stowe really brings Isabel to life. You can sense the tragic waste of a truly beautiful relationship that never happened because of George's selfishness and sick fixation on his mother and her mutual fixation on her son. In the 1942 version, George's tantrums are all about reputation and public scandal. In this version, we get a much deeper and more complex insight into their tragic relationship. Greenwood is no Cotten, as he would undoubtedly be the first to proclaim, but Morgan's character does not require the genius of a Cotten. If Cotten had been young enough, George's role would have been much better for him. There is no way that Tim Holt could ever hold a candle to Jon Rhys Meyers. Meyers is captivating and relentless. He keeps you guessing about his character's development to the very end of the film. Mol is also better than Baxter, but they are close. James Cromwell especially brings a whole new dimension to Amberson. Richard Bennet was another stiff piece of set furniture in 1942. Hootkins and Collins are a draw.The set design and production value are voluptuous and fantastic in this film. Ditto for costume design. But dittos for the 1942 version as well.All-in-all, I find this version much more satisfying. It boasts a much stronger lead and strong casting at every level and every station. Even the flashbacks are done well using the same actors.I especially favor this version since it fully realizes Welles' own script without truncations from meddling producers and studio moguls.

TomBRIDE2 The idea of redoing a classic movie is an intriguing one and the idea of doing one that allegedly got chopped by unfeeling studio hands, such as purportedly happened to Orson Welles and his version of this, is provocative, especially if they say are actually going to shoot from the original precut screenplay. At first, things seem promising and there are some fine actors doing some interesting things, and the production is handsome. But I could not figure out why I was not enjoying what was obviously a well- intentioned and lavish production. Then it dawned on me -- Rhys-Meyers performance was not simply of an unpleasant character, but a callow-seeming actor frowning and grimacing his way through an entire movie -- poisoning the drama at its core. It is truly the most painfully misconceived performance I can ever recall seeing in a major serious movie. It sinks the entire enterprise. The casting director and overall director must take responsibility. How could they not see at least halfway through the shooting of this that Rhys-Meyers work was an empty annoying hole at the center. Was he cast a a personal favor to someone? It seems inexplicable.

ohiomom I haven't read Orson Welles' book or have seen the 1942 movie, but have seen this A&E adaptation of The Magnificent Ambersons. This movie was almost painful to watch. Even though this was an all-star cast, I only felt that Madeleine Stowe (Isabel Amberson Minafer), Bruce Greenwood (Eugene Morgan) and James Cromwell (Major Amberson) were a credit to this movie. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (George Amberson Minafer) and Gretchen Mol (Lucy Morgan) may have looked their respective parts, but little else. Both Rhys-Meyers and Mol tend to overact their parts to a fault and Jennifer Tilly (Fanny Minafer) is outright hilarious, and not in a good way.This movie adaptation has been butchered in the worst way in that I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone. It's one of those movies that you see and tell yourself, "Well, that's 2 hours of my life I'll never get back.."

Roy A Fowler Poor OW, spinning like crazy in his grave. This "remake" is quite terrible, misguided, inept, badly acted, directed and shot, and is NOT the original Welles/Mercury script. Where, for instance, are Welles' elegaic prologue and voice-overs? And Stanley Cortez impreccable visualization? Presumptuous, insulting rubbish. Away with it!