1/5 Et in Arcadia ergo....
  by Jet Jock (Washington, D.C.)
...but only if you watch the TV version. This is a pathetic remake. The acting is lousy, the script a 'Reader's Digest' version of the epic novel, and the cinematography abominable. The sets are nice...except they, too are borrowed from the Granada version. It's the same house, same everything. Waugh's book deserves a long, detailed version, and 1981 masterpiece was as nearly perfect as one can possibly expect. So the question is begged, as other reviewers have posed: Why? What was the point of remaking a classic? I don't get it. Somethings are best just left alone. We are not amused.

1/5 Stay clear! An absolutely deplorable adaptation
  by BigBri (USA)
Whatever you do, don't watch this terrible film! If I could rate this movie a negative fifty I would not hesitate to do so. If you have not read Brideshead Revisited, this film version will poison your mind and ruin your chance to enjoy an incredibly well-written work of literature. Thank god I read the book first!

Wanting to share the story with a friend, I was horrified by the extreme license taken by the director. There are so many changes to the plot that the story was almost unrecognizable. Particularly egregious is the overlapping of the two love affairs, making it appear that Sebastian's drinking and decline are a direct result of being spurned by Charles in favor of his sister. This is only one of many awful changes--note to lit students--you are sure to get an "F" if you watch this in lieu of reading the text!

Even to call this film an adaptation would be stretching the truth. The key theme of longing for past luxuries in a world changed by war is completely missing. The tone of the film is also off--In the book all of the characters have redeeming qualities--even Boy Mulcaster is an amusing cad. In contrast, I had little sympathy for any of the characters portrayed in the film.

Many reviewers have mentioned how much better the 11 hour mini-series with Jeremy Irons is. I would sure hope so! This film was such torture that it will be a while before I am ready to give the mini-series a look.



1/5 Brideshead Absentis
  by Gene Giordano (Virginia)
Having read Waugh's classic on the "tugs" of faith and watched the original mini-series more times then I remember over almost thirty years now, I seriously doubted this story could be condensed into two hours. A last, I was not disappointed! It wasn't the same story. The movie twists and turns in directions never written by Waugh. (Sadly as Andrew Davies, one of the films writers, has done excellent work over the years.) This, however, is not another version of Brideshead Revisted but a new creation; a creation built more on pretty scenery and anti-climatic moments lost to all depth of the characters.

The underlying issues of faith and religious up-bringing are totally lost, spun into a broad statement about Catholicism rather then its personal meaning to individual lives. The central message of the book has been stripped to a minor secondary theme. The faith journey is lost.

Charles' relationship with Sebastian is dumbed down to mere sexual experimentation rather then human bond. This Charles would never carry his feelings for Sebastian throughout his life. Without the former, you cannot truly grasp the latter relationship with Julia. The relationships are separate not concurrent, they are paths on his journey to faith. Sadly the desire and depth of Charles and Julia's relationship, so strongly captured in the mini-series "Orphans of the Storm" episode, is totally lost here. In this, their reunion seems more like a 3AM quickie.

Take the $20 you planned on spending for this, add another $20 and buy the mini-series instead. The larger investment returns so much more....so much more!

2/5 Not the Brideshead I Expected !!
  by Art and Soul (Texas)
I have to agree with Martin from the Netherlands, this is not a Brideshead I want to re-visit. I would never have finished watching it if not for the locations/scenes, costumes. I decided on the two stars for those things alone. I greatly admire Emma Thompson, but she was not given great writing here. In fact, I think it was the writing for all the characters that simply wasn't there....They all come off as boring and uninteresting. Spend your money on something else. If the jacket photo appeals to you, try buying Gosford Park.

3/5 Revisiting a Classic, with mixed results
  by Hikari (Lima, OH USA)
It's been nearly 30 years since I watched the miniseries with Jeremy Irons and Anthony Andrews, falling immediately and irrevocably in love with both. I knew going in that a 2-hour movie treatment could only scratch the surface of a 12-hour series, but I was curious, especially given the raves for Emma Thompson. I confess that's it's been far too long since I saw the series, but some elements seemed completely foreign to me, including the blatant homosexuality on display as well as the horrific coldness of Lady Marchmain. Emma Thompson bravely plays against her usual warm persona and braver still, makes herself 20 years older as the chilly matriarch of a screwed-up aristocratic family. The screwed-upness is due entirely to her and to her obsession with the Church, this version says. I think given another decade and a few more plummy parts like this and Ms. Thompson will be known as Dame Emma Thompson, and rightly so. Hayley Atwell (recently seen as Kiera Knightley's romantic rival in "The Duchess" wears bobbed hair and red lips fetchingly, but doesn't really project the emotional heft to make herself worth a man selling his soul for.

The central friendship between Charles Ryder and Sebastian is what drives this story, despite all the pretty set dressing surrounding it. In contrast to Irons' and Andrews' dark/light dynamic, both actors here are brunet and their chemistry together feels discordant. Ben Whishaw is so physically slight and vaguely creepy-looking, it's hard to accept him as the bon vivant of Oxford that Sebastian supposedly is. His physicality is all the more fragile when set beside strapping Matthew Goode. Mr. Goode is the real jewel in this cast . . . in some angles he startlingly resembles Jeremy Irons, and his voice is so like Irons', one wonders if he watched the miniseries and practiced his line readings. Mr. Goode is better-looking than his predecessor and captures Charles' outsider status wonderfully. And if I didn't know better, I'd think he was Irons' son.

The production design and costumes are beautiful, but as rendered here, Waugh's tale becames a superficial and silly proceeding, populated by only self-serving, stupid individuals. Much like the similar period piece "Atonement", one is left wondering quite what all the fuss was about.