Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Marcin Kukuczka Although Charles Sturridge's movie is based on the classical novel by E.M. Forster, one does not have to be knowledgeable about the literature of the period in order to like the film. The source novel seems to be marginalized in many reviews and, consequently, I do not intend to discuss the content of the movie and its faithfulness to the novel. What has caught my attention in Sturridge's movie, in particular, are the cast and the locations. Those seem to be the right spots where people fall in love with, where I fell in love with... the movie.The cast are worth appreciation. Helen Mirren, who has gained great success and popularity thanks to many significant roles, also here supplies us with a particularly insightful portrayal as Lilia. Lilia is an Englishwoman who appears to be absolutely torn apart and, therefore, quite unhappy with her family and disappointed with her misalliance marriage with Gino Carella (Guido Guinelli). Nevertheless, she does not give up the struggle to live her own, short but genuine life... Another very interesting performance is offered by Helena Bonham Carter who, in 1991 when the role was given to her, was already acquainted with the genre after Ivory's ROOM WITH A VIEW. Here, she fits well as Caroline, a seemingly indifferent observer who opens herself masterfully in the end. Among the female roles, I would also make a note about Judy Davis (Harriet) who crafts well the depiction of coldness and reluctance to the foreign culture.As for the male roles, Rupert Graves as Phillip, a cold English gentleman, and Guido Guinelli as Gino, a spontaneous Italian 'macho', are outstanding. In their characters, or more to say, in the contrasts between their natures, culture clash is convincingly depicted. Phillip is extremely cold and phlegmatic. He feels confused about any spontaneous behavior and rather thinks over the plans than takes quick steps. Gino, though extremely choleric and furious, is authentic, genuine and straightforward. He teaches others not to be ashamed of feelings. Although Phillip feels uncomfortable with this Italian authenticity at first, these features appear to take over in his life too. Consider certain points of the film where the two are particularly memorable, just to mention the opera scene, the evening at the cistern, or Gino's witty games with his sweet baby, the unfortunate victim of jealousy.The locations of the film together with artistic features galore are worth high praise, too. Tuscany...that says for itself... Who hasn't seen many great films made in this pearl of Italy. Just to name a few: Audrey Wells' UNDER THE TUSCAN SUN, Bernardo Bertolucci's STEALING BEAUTY and Roberto Benigni's LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL. Tuscany is the certain aspect for any moving picture to be a breathtaking piece of art. In WHERE ANGELS FEAR TO TREAD, the views of medieval Siena and San Gimignano with the fabulous music by Rachel Portman make you fall in love with Italy in the similar manner as it happens with the characters. I particularly liked the moment of Lilia walking at the towers of San Gimignano. A place to fall in love with!Summing it up, the artistic features make the film unique. As for the source novel, saying it is accurate would be nothing but a conjecture. I am not going to evaluate the movie in certain terms. All I want to say is: WHERE ANGELS FEAR TO TREAD is no masterpiece but a nice movie where you will find something for yourself. The delightful scenes, lovely Tuscan views, great performances to admire with a glass of Chianti in your hand. Only those who hardly know the pleasures of wine will reject it. Enjoy!

Robert I believe I've seen every film adaptation of Forster's work, and I have to say that this is probably the worst of the lot. It has none of the charm of "A Room With a View", and none of the poignancy of "Howards End". Instead, it's a long, slogging story with shrill characters that I could not muster a shred of empathy for. Many of the characters (particularly the elderly Mrs. Harriton and Harriet) are played so far over-the-top that they border on farce. The character of Gino is underdeveloped, which makes the way some characters come to feel about him ring utterly false.Forster was a homosexual, an Italophile, and scornful of Edwardian British mores and (perceived) hypocrisy. I have no problem with any of those things, but in this, his first novel, it's as if his main intention was to telegraph these things to the audience, and he sets his characters up to that end, but it's never convincing as the natural actions of real humans. If you must watch it, enjoy the Tuscan scenery while you can, but you may want to fast forward through the second-half. For completists only.

Movie Lover I found Judy Davis very engaging as well I am scratching my head a little about the ending Can anybody tell me what actually happened at the ending? Why was her blouse splotched with purple? Was it from dust from the train window? I found the characters lacking in much emotion except for Judy Davis. I was distressed that there was not a closed captioning option. I couldn't understand some of the mumbling. The movie seems to not have a real message to me. Anyone agree at all ? ............................................... ................................................................... ................................................................ .......................................................

Martin Bradley Charles Sturridge's large-screen version of E M Forster's tragicomic masterpiece of class and culture clash is as buttoned up as the corsets and starched shirts it's characters wear. The movie is wrong-footed and scenes don't build to anything. Everything is held in reserve until the whole film seems on the verge of disappearing, (which it finally does, unsatisfactorily, racing through the final scenes). While Helena Bonham Carter and Rupert Graves just about get their characters, (you want to slap them, and hard, but at least you feel as if they are real), and Helen Mirren is full of life, (until she dies in childbirth), Judy Davis' performance as mad aunt Harriet takes her usual screaming harpy to unrestrained heights even for her, while Giovanni Guidelli's bland, handsome romantic hero is hopelessly inadequate. This is the team that made "Brideshead Revisited" for television; perhaps if they had six hours of TV time they might just have pulled this off as a decent series. Nevertheless, I can't help feeling that as it stands Merchant/Ivory could have made the masterpiece that Forster's book so obviously is.