Love and Death on Long Island (1997) User Reviews

Thoughtful & interesting interpretation of bridging the generation gap

[raymond-15 · 7/10 · 10 May 2004]

What a wonderful piece of acting John Hurt gives us as Giles a naive English writer visiting Long Isalnd for the first time. Completely obsessed with the discovery of all the modern electronic gadgetry, he purchases TV and video equipment, shuts himself away and enters a new and exciting world.

He becomes besotted with the image of a handsome young actor Ronnie Bostock (Jason Priestley) a favourite among teen-age movie-goers. It's as if he is starting a completely new life with a new warmth he has never known before.

The urge to help Ronnie in his career so that he will always be close to him is the predominant theme of the film. John Hurt's performance as the older man restraining his true feelings for a handsome young man of another generation is faultless and truly absorbing. Conversations between the two men are the highlights of the film and the confession scene extremely moving.

Ronnie Bostock's girl friend Audrey ( Fiona Loewi) is both charming and beautiful and adds a sweet touch to the story. She is responsible for bringing the writer and actor together. The story is punctuated with little episodes of wry humour brought about by people who live entirely different lives.

Altogether a very satisfying film that shows how some of us live in a cocoon unaware of the extreme joy and subsequent disappointment that lies beyond.

Fascinating, with great execution by John Hurt.

[Hermit C-2 · 8/10 · 4 October 1999]

John Hurt just doesn't get the credit he deserves, I think. He's a consistently great actor who often adds so much more to a film than many other bigger names would. This film is a prime example of him taking a role and truly making it his own.

Hurt plays Giles De'Ath, a most formal English author who, as a radio interviewer puts it, doesn't have much use for the 20th century. He would have even less use for a movie named 'Hotpants College II,' except that when he accidentally happens to view it, he's struck like a thunderbolt by the vision of an actor on the screen, Ronnie Bostock, played by Jason Priestly. From that moment on, De'Ath comes to life in his obsession for the young man and his elaborate plans to meet him. Having been taken care of by a housekeeper these many years, De'Ath struggles with the most ordinary tasks as he lives out his obsession. He buys teenage girls' magazines at the newsstand and furtively disposes of them lest anyone find out his secret. He purchases a videocassette recorder to watch Ronnie's films, not realizing that a television is also necessary for their viewing. Then when he goes to Bostock's home town on Long Island in hopes of tracking him down, he's almost like The Man Who Fell to Earth, being alone in such an alien culture. His behavior is as obsessive as any stalker, but he must be the most genteel stalker there ever was.

Watching Hurt go through this routine during the movie's first half is so fascinating and so entertaining that the film actually hits a bit of a stall when he finally does meets the object of his desire, but it rights itself quickly and comes to a nice conclusion. Some might hope for a more wildly dramatic ending, but I was satisfied.

Jason Priestly does a fine job here in what is basically a thankless role, in that by this film's nature, he's constantly upstaged by Hurt's performance, like Othello is by Iago, or Nick Nolte was by Eddie Murphy in '48 HRS.,' if that's not too jolting of a comparison. I found it fascinating, what some might call a "little" film except that it displays some large talents.

Giles And Ronnie

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 27 July 2009]

In the climax scene when John Hurt finally confesses to Jason Priestley why he's insinuated himself into his life, Hurt brings up such couples as Paul Verlaine and Arthur Rimbaud, Jean Cocteau and Raymond Ratiguet. Watching the film I thought of another of Cocteau's famous same sex liaisons, Cocteau and actor Jean Marais. It seems closest to what Hurt fantasizes for himself with Priestley.

With an obvious bow to Thomas Mann who wrote about a similar story in Rome, Love And Death On Long Island concerns a middle aged writer with the gruesome name of Giles De'Ath played by John Hurt. He's a cultured gay man who lives alone and has pretty much let life pass him by. He does without television, a computer, but is persuaded to go to the cinema in London which he hasn't visited in over 20 years because an adaption of one of E. M. Forster's stories is on the bill.

Instead he buys a ticket for a teen sex comedy flick, Hot Pants College II and is struck dumb by the physical beauty of one of the cast members, Jason Priestley. It happens to all of us be it the same or the opposite sex, but Hurt decides he has to get close to him and never mind those pesky laws about stalking.

He researches his love object from, where else, those adolescent teen magazines. And finding out he lives in the Hamptons out in Suffolk County, Hurt goes to America and then takes that long ride from Penn Station out to the Hamptons to see if he can arrange an 'accidental' meeting.

It works beyond Hurt's wildest expectation, though Priestley's girl friend, fashion model Fiona Loewi doesn't know quite what to make of Hurt. How it all ends you have to see the film for.

Jason Priestley certainly didn't have to do much research to play teen idol Ronnie Bostock. He was fresh from 90210 as Brandon Walsh and certainly his life was its own research. He could have played it shallow and that would have been an easy and acceptable way out, but Priestley taps some deeper emotions in his performance.

Love And Death On Long Island was shot on Nova Scotia which certainly passes for the Hamptons. This review is dedicated to that duo that Hurt had aspiration of emulating, Jean Cocteau and Jean Marais.

Thomas Mann and Vladimir Nabokov visit Nova Scotia, 90210

[Philby-3 · 26 April 1999]

Anonymous (that prolific author) of Swarthmore (see below) has ably dealt with the plot line. Suffice to say that, echoing "Death in Venice" and "Lolita," stuffy old English haute culture writer Giles De'Ath (John Hurt) becomes obsessed by American teen junk movie starlet Ronnie Bostock (Jason Priestley) and goes to Long Island to seek out the gorgeous creature in its habitat. And, unlike Gustav in Venice who perved from afar, Giles actually befriends the creature and its girlfriend. Despite Giles's (comparative) intellect, it's not terribly likely that even a dim heterosexual lad like Ronnie is going to be persuaded to go off into the setting sun with Giles who is an old 60 and crusty with it, but it's fun watching Giles trying to make it happen. There are some interesting interchanges - a touch of Nabokov as European high culture brushes with American pop culture, largely in mutual incomprehension, though Ronnie is pointed to a little useful American culture (Walt Whitman) by his unexpected English visitor.

John Hurt, once a creepy Caligula in the 1970's TV version of "I, Claudius" and later the protagonist in "The Elephant Man" does a perfect Giles with wild emotion just in check beneath the old fogey exterior. He looks and acts very much the same as another great English actor, Michael Gough did as Ruskin, another literary panjandrum barely able to contain himself. I was also reminded of the late Sir Kingsley Amis, an angry young man and an engaging writer in his day who became a rather sorry figure in old age, bereft of his talent and full of spleen and booze. Giles, though, is much more controlled. Jason Priestley of "Beverley Hills 90210" is also perfectly cast, though he doesn't have to do more than be Brandon, the nice all-American male bimbo. As Ronnies' girlfriend Audrey, Fiona Loewi does a subtle job. Initially appearing to be no brighter than Ronnie, Audrey reads the situation much more quickly than he does. Or at least her turf protection instincts are pretty acute. There are nicely observed minor roles from Sheila Hancock as Giles's housekeeper, Elizabeth Quinn as a motel proprietor and Maury Chaykin as Irv, chef at the local Diner.

Locationwise, this film is a bit of a fraud. Having promised us Long Island in the title (and storyline), the producers gave us Halifax, Nova Scotia instead, in return apparently for a bit of government film corporation money. Well, it looks the same as Long Island, but if I were the Nova Scotia film corp. people I'd feel a bit foolish. What's the point in using public money to promote your local landscape and character when people think its somewhere else? It's true most films can be made anywhere (look what comes out of Fox in Sydney) but in some films the geography is crucial. I just hope they don't make "Shipping News" in Long Island instead of Newfoundland.

Simple film that works

[refinedsugar · 7/10 · 7 November 2001]

Love and Death On Long Island follows Giles (John Hurt) a semi recluse English novelist who wonders through his life with very little intense purpose or any sense of being 'alive'. That all changes when one day when he gets locked out of his house. Eventually he ends up wandering to the local cinema and mistakenly walks into Hotpants College II. "What rubbish". He's just about to leave when Ronnie Bostock (Jason Priestly) appears on screen. He's mesmerized.

When he leaves the theater he's a different man. It's not long before Giles thinks and does nothing that doesn't revolve around Ronnie Bostock. He buys teeny bopper magazines featuring anything involving Ronnie. Makes a Ronnie Bostock scrapbook from hand including the pictures from the magazines and eventually he makes sure to view all of Ronnie's other movie exploits. He's a man consumed by one thought, one action. Obsession has taken over. Things get deeper as you can imagine when Giles sets out and actually meets Ronnie and befriends him.

John Hurt turns in another great performance in a long list of great performances and it's nice to see Jason Priestly doing something of worth. The supporting players are apt too. Sheila Hancock as Giles housekeeper kept reminding me of the God and Monsters Lynn Redgrave as James Whale's housekeeper. Fiona Loewi as Ronnie's girlfriend is a mite refreshing. She's not stupid or naive. We can see at one point she's figured out what is going on and what the "real" story is.

Filmed in my hometown of Halifax, Nova Scotia there's many recognizable places that were fun to see appear. 'Love and Death on Long Island' is a good watch on a rainy day.

A somewhat disconcerting but curious film

[Laitue_Gonflable · 7/10 · 11 July 2005]

Love and Death on Long Island is an interesting, moody film, but it's difficult to decide if I truly felt satisfied having viewed it.

What we are presented with is essentially a fish out of water story about Giles (John Hurt), an ultra-conservative English gent who begins slowly to reform his technophobic, insular lifestyle when he develops an interest in a young American film star (Jason Priestley). The nature of this interest is explored minimalistic ally, although there is obviously more to it than just a belief in the boy's acting talent or potential.

We are then treated to a myriad of culture shock as Giles enters the universe of youth and as we see this very quaint man with his very quaint, idyllic lifestyle interact with very common, happy-go-lucky people, his character becomes increasingly complex. This culminates in a rather impressionistic, elusive finale where his true interest in the film star, Ronnie, is finally explored and brought to light.

The film is at times wryly amusing and at other times cringingly awkward. For all its moments of social faux pas and clumsiness it reminds me a lot of Alexander Payne's films. The difference as I see it though is that Payne knows when to draw away from an embarrassing moment to make us empathise, but not altogether pity, the character. Here, the director Kwietniowski tends to hold our focus on such scenes which makes it notably less comfortable to watch.

Having said that, Kwietniowski does handle a number of the film's elements remarkably well. Firstly, his cast is used to their full potential. In particular, John Hurt's wonderfully expressive face is used to explore a plethora of human emotion throughout the film. Secondly, the interaction between the generations - old age, middle age and youth - is handled with a soft focus that is ever-present but very understated. Even if one feels a lack of rewards from the somewhat alienating story, at least we have the pleasure of hearing John Hurt say in a very charming British accent, "Hey dude, how's it hanging?" And basically, the plot is also downplayed to the point where the film is far more an exploration than an anecdote. Its pace is very deliberate and its threadbare cast of characters is rich and complex for all that they're worth. I would find it hard to truly love this film but it is still a very capable, interesting effort.

***1/2 / *****

A gem of a film

[MeYesMe · 9/10 · 9 August 1998]

After viewing this film I wished it was 20 years ago, back when you were allowed to just stay in your chair and see the show a second time.

John Hurt is astounding as an English author who discovers beauty the last place he'd expect to find it - in an American "B" movie actor's performances. Hurt's character, Dr. De'Ath, is a true original, totally out of step with the 20th century. He simply had no need nor interest in modernizing his ways. He stumbles upon the work of Ronnie Bostock (Jason Priestley, in a heckuva good, self-effacing performance) and sees in him talent and passion. That's about all I can say without going too far into plot - but if I were able to physically compel people to see it, I certainly would. It's a lovely piece of work.

fabulous acting by John Hurt but very incredible story

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 31 December 2005]

First I need to point out that John Hurt, as usual, does a fabulous job of acting in the film. I have always loved his work and he does himself credit by his performance. So, I feel a little bad about not liking the movie more than I did. The problem, for me, is that the plot and the pairing with Jason Priestly just didn't seem to make any sense. You see, Hurt is an elderly writer who is living WAY behind the times--owning no television, going to see no movies and living a quiet quiet and isolated life. Then, on a lark, he finally decides to go to a movie and enters the wrong theater. Instead of an E. M. Forrester film (or some other respected British writer), he walks into a theater showing a brain-dead teen movie (sort of like Porky's). However, once the movie begins, he is captivated by the actor, Priestly, and becomes infatuated with him. Then, he spends the next 75% of the movie going from Britain to Long Island to try to find and befriend Priestly. This just didn't make ANY sense at all. It's not because of the homosexuality, but it would have been equally silly and unbelievable if he'd fallen for some young female in the movie and spent the movie pursuing her.

Think about it--it would be like a writer with perhaps the reputation of a John Updike or Joseph Heller seeing Britney Spears on MTV and then dropping everything to pursue her!

Subtle and compelling

[jwalzer5 · 10/10 · 10 December 2004]

Teaming a veteran like John Hurt with Jason Priestley would seem to be a casting director's nightmare. Surprisingly, this film takes that premise and runs with it - very convincingly. John Hurt plays a tired, lonely writer (Giles) who is completely out of touch with the modern world, and Jason Priestley, in a touching and thoughtful performance (keep in mind that part of his performance is self-parody), is the object of Hurt's desire. Hurt first comes across Priestly as, "Ronnie Bostock," a forgettable, hunky presence in Grade-Z cinematic atrocities like, "Hotpants College II." Some viewers have mistakenly seen this film as a reworking of Mann's, "Death in Venice," but this film is different: while retaining the poignancy of old age (Hurt), it injects new life into Pristley's character, and allows the viewer to think of him as much more than an object, fruitlessly pursued. There is a key scene at a roadside café late in the film, where Hurt makes an offer he has no right to offer, and Priestley is confronted with a choice he shouldn't have to make. It is a key moment in the film, beautifully handled by both actors, and illustrates the simple power of human drama, devoid of a $100,000,000 special effects budget. And there is, thank God, no happy, artificial, manufactured resolution. This is a film for connoisseurs, and is well worth a look. One last note: the explicit "gayness" of John Hurt's character brought out the worst in some homophobic critics. Their whining only validated John Hurt's performance. Giles is paranoid and defensive because he's never been offered an alternative. Society has not treated Giles with either civility or decency, and he bears the scars of that mistreatment. A life lived in the closet is a waste, and Giles' insular life, uncontaminated by humanity, is a brutal commentary on the destructiveness of such an existence. Both Ronnie and Giles, one straight man and one gay man, are prisoners of society and the quality of their lives, to society's discredit, have been needlessly compromised and diminished. A wonderful film and a deeply disturbing commentary.

Strange pursuit...restrained acting by William Hurt...uneven results...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 11 October 2006]

There's a DEATH IN VENICE quality to this low-key story about a British writer's consuming interest in the career of a handsome young man (JASON PRIESTLEY) whom he only knows from his reflection on the silver screen in a bunch of puerile teen flicks. He becomes so obsessed with his fantasy of meeting the lad that he, on the advice of his agent, takes a vacation--all the way to Long Island where the actor is spending time before heading back to his next film in Los Angeles.

***POSSIBLE SPOILER***

He manages to sneak his way into the lives of the actor and his girlfriend while interesting Priestley with his talk about becoming a more fully-rounded actor in the English tradition of Shakespeare and so forth...and perhaps even writing material for him. But the payoff to the whole story of this pursuit comes during the last ten minutes when he invites Priestley to a diner where they can have a quiet talk about Priestley's future--and more importantly, Hurt's confession of love.

It's this final scene in which the two men really show their worth as actors. Hurt is excellent as he slowly gets to the point--a point that Priestley is slow to get--and once made, the look on Priestley's face is priceless as the camera stays on his inscrutable expression before he takes his leave. A very touching scene, extremely well acted.

Summing up: Not for everyone, slow to develop its theme but very effective once Hurt actually meets Priestley.

Love and Death on the Long Beach

[rajdoctor · 2/10 · 5 April 2007]

Love and Death on the Long Island Pathe chain of movies screen more than 50 films every 2 months of different genre, and I knew that they are going to screen this "gay classic" in one of their night shows. I read the reviews on IMDb and was keen to have a go at the movie. I had several motivations – first, it was called a "classic", second, I had never been to a night show alone in Amsterdam (so wanted to venture out and feel the city) and third, with curiosity I wanted to know more about the gay people of Amsterdam – who this people are? How do they behave? Are there any peculiarity / characteristic they possess? The movie is about a widower - who falls in love with a film icon while watching a movie, meets him, builds a contact, discloses his true love for the hero, and gets rejected.

Does not it sound familiar? So many times in our lives we have adored and loved our film icon. The premise was good. Sometimes the adulation turns into devotion and obsession. I know about physical and sexual fantasies one has around these film icons – mostly of hetero-sexual nature. But this film provides a new premise of love and sexual longing within the same sex. That concept is interesting, and the liberal mind of mine was able to empathies and accepts such story-line.

But the movie was badly made. The script was weak. It looked like a stage drama. The screenplay was also staged and over expressive. John Hurt seems to be a good actor but in this movie he was in wrong hands – the director, Richard Kwietniowski, who is famous for making short gay movies (and most of them are very poorly rated). Richard was lucky that he got John Hurt for this role.

The direction was poor. The movie looked like a "B" grade movie. Only saving grace was – at times – very good visual shots by cinematographer Oliver Curtis.

The dialogues were funny – but suitable for a stage drama. I heard some laughs during the movie and I could not make out whether it was because the scenes were funny or ridiculous.

Just a trivia, that the movie hall was 80% packed – with mostly middle aged and old men who came in couples or gangs. There were very few lonely riders like me. I guess there were only three women in the show – because those persons had long hair.

I give some grace for the concept and give 2.5 stars out of 10.

(Stars 2.5 out of 10)

A slow-burn character study....

[lancekoz55-1 · 8/10 · 28 January 2017]

I recently re-saw this some years after my first viewing, and in spite of its humble mission and budget, it's still arresting and touching. A mere plot summary does not do justice to the excellent acting, the thoughtful details and dry British wit that bubbles throughout. I highly recommend it to anyone who cares about stories based on clever scripts, great acting and real characters... and especially if you value the stories of the closeted gays who lived among us.

I would give it a 9 or 10 if it did not provide some strange side trip details that don't add much except minutes to the consistency of the whole. Small complaint for a strong movie. Impress your friends/lovers with this one, almost no one has seen it in the States, I bet.

An unexpected treat

[Tom D. · 7/10 · 13 May 2000]

Despite the solid reviews, I approached this film with trepidation; It had Jason Priestly in it -- how good could it be. However, it was a Saturday night with nothing good on pay-per-view and that other 90210 guy surprised me in the film, "Real Life," so I thought, "Why not?"

I found the movie to be surprisingly moving and offbeat. This is easily one of John Hurt's best performance. He brings wonderful subtlety to what could be a cartoonish role. Priestly was adequate, which is fine since his was merely a supporting role. The story moves brisquely, and although you know its inevitable conclusion, you'll pull for Dr. De'Ath.

The story bares some resemblance to "Gods and Monsters" and De'Ath's ignorance of common technology is a bit of a stretch. However, the film is wholly enjoyable and you might take away the wondering: Could something so unexpected throw my life into such an upheaval?

First Movie I've Ever Walked Out Of

[Skachica · 2/10 · 31 March 1999]

I went to see this movie with a group of friends, who had read a review saying it was the funniest movie Britain had produced since The Full Monty, and it was awful. It was dull, anything but funny, and *extremely* slow. I found myself wishing that it would just stop with the movie and show one of the "B-Movies" they had clips of, which starred the actor. After sitting through it for a long time, one of my friends leaned over and asked if we would like to go. Everyone agreed heartily and we left to eat Thai food and discuss how bad it was.

Ultimately, a slow, witty work with one outstanding feature.

[walshio · 15 December 1998]

"A puerile romp without a single redeeming feature."

That's what an imaginary Sight and Sound review gives the trashy teenage exploitation film Hotpants College 2. However, for "erstwhile fogey" and famous English writer Giles De'Ath (John Hurt) this Porky-esque flick, which he watches purely by accident (he meant to see an E.M Forster adaptation) has one very redeeming grace. It contains the love of Giles' life – Ronnie Bostock (Jason Priestley).

This witty and poignant film, which divides itself between London and Long Island, may have faltered badly if it had been left in lesser hands than John Hurt. However, Hurt is simply mesmerising. He is one of the few actors who never shies away from making the audience utterly ill at ease – watch 1984, the monster shooting out of his stomach in Alien or The Elephant Man for confirmation.

Self-exiled from the modern world in his stuffy flat, with a picture of his recently deceased wife by his writing desk, and a fussy maid (Sheila Hancock) tending to his every whim, Giles' emotions are thoroughly repressed. Until, that is, fate lends a hand and exposes Giles to, amongst other things, terrible American teenage movies, video stores, fax machines, One Man and His Dog, and, finally, to his own sexual desires.

Love and Death in Long Island is brimming with quirky cameos, including weirdo diner owner Irv (Maury Chaykin), a motel manager (Elizabeth Quinn) reminiscent of Shelley Winters in Lolita, and a surprisingly good Priestley (lampooning his "bimbo" soap background much like Maxwell Caulfield in The Real Blonde).

However, it is ultimately a "warts and all" performance from Hurt that holds our gaze. Dignified, perplexed and slightly tragic, Hurt makes Giles one of the most touching "stalkers" in film history. Much like James Mason's Humbert in Lolita, Giles is a man of culture finding beauty in youth, in coarseness - in "all that I myself have never been."

Ultimately, a slow, witty work with one outstanding feature.

great John Hurt in some awkward fun

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 15 August 2015]

Giles De'Ath (John Hurt) is a reclusive British author and widower. He is disconnected with the modern world. He mistakenly goes to a Porky's like B-movie called "Hotpants College 2" and becomes obsessed with actor Ronnie Bostock (Jason Priestley). He collects every scrap of information about Ronnie and even goes to his home in Chesterton, Long Island.

This has some good awkward comedy. John Hurt is amazing. A couple of things struck me as a little off. First, it would be much more understandable if Giles lives in an isolated setting. He could be more clueless and more compelling as an absolute recluse. Second, the Hotpants movie is cute for a minute with the recognition of its Porky's origins. However, it would be more disturbing if Jason Priestley is the star of a 90210 like TV show. In fact, it would be great if he is simply Jason Priestley, the star of 90210. Nevertheless, this movie has some awkward fun and John Hurt is terrific.

For some strange quirky reason....I actually liked this film..

[mikehamilton · 7/10 · 21 November 2001]

Maybe it's because the film is strange and quirky....but when it started I had no idea what it was about or what genre. So in the beginning (when it is a little slow for awhile - stick with it - it improves)....I was reading too much into it, then a friend watching with me said, "It's supposed to be like that!". I went...duhhhh...oh - now I get it.... From then on it was very funny and I really enjoyed it.....good acting, interesting script, quirky characters. Not a bad evening viewing - I gave it 7 out of 10.

If you need a laugh; this is unusual....

[MarieGabrielle · 8/10 · 11 September 2006]

John Hurt is understated and quite funny as a repressed British author, who, on one quiet evening happens to rent "Hot Pants College" starring Jason Priestley as Ronnie Bostock.

The premise sounds silly and under-developed, but it isn't. John Hurt perfects the role, and becomes an aficionado of Ronnie Bostock's film "career" eventually learning that Bostock lives on "Chesterfield" Long Island, a fictional NY suburb.

He decides to visit, and help Bostock develop his career. Hurt is hysterical, as a capable Shakespearean actor quoting Walt Whitman, and educating Priestley as to what film roles he should take. Jason Priestley is also pretty funny, trying to get decent film roles as an American is not easy-..."he's so sick of playing stupid kids"... (his girlfriend whines).

John Hurt also makes a few endeavors to get Priestley to relocate to London- ..."you know Rimbaud and his patron/lover Paul Verlaine had quite a successful partnership"... Priestley thinks that Rimbaud is "Rambo"- if you don't get the joke, then you have the same problems Ronnie Bostock/Priestley has.

At any rate, this film is worth viewing. Intelligent and funny. 8/10.

John Hurt on Long Island.

[anaconda-40658 · 7/10 · 10 June 2015]

Love and Death on Long Island (1997): Dir: Richard Kwietniowski / Cast: John Hurt, Jason Priestley, Fiona Loewi, Sheila Hancock, Maury Chaykin: Intriguing film that examines the longing for youth. John Hurt plays a professor who attends the film College Hot Pants 2 so that he may gaze at Jason Priestley. He wishes to view these films privately but being out of touch with life has him searching a V.C.R where microwaves are for sale. He vacations to Long Island where he rents a room and stalks the star's home. He eventually meets Priestley when he encounters his fiancée. It is not clear what Hurt's intentions are and the conclusion provides no answer but it is a fascinating character study. Sharp directing by Richard Kwietniowski with a flawless performance by Hurt as a man bent on seeing his youth relived. Priestley is effective as his inspiration who takes great compliment to the attention given from this stranger yet for both he and his fiancé frustration will dawn. Fiona Loewi plays his fiancé who encounters Hurt at the supermarket . Other roles are not as broad and seen mainly as brief appearances, which is unfortunate since the casting here is quite ambitious compared to other films within the like. While the narrative isn't totally clear, it is likely that the theme regards obsession and youth and our longing for a rerun of past emotions and memories. Score: 7 ½ / 10

An Interesting "Love" Story

[EmperorNortonII · 8/10 · 15 May 2002]

"Love and Death On Long Island" has a fascinating story to tell. The hero is John Hurt as Giles De'Ath, a cultured, stuffy English writer with no grasp whatsoever on modern technology (he doesn't know you can't use a VCR without a TV!). He accidentally sees the slob comedy movie "Hotpants College II," and becomes enraptured with pretty-boy actor Ronnie Bostock, played by Jason Priestly. This inspires an obsession in Giles seen more commonly in teenage girls. This sudden burst of celebrity worship in Giles brings him to put forth the concept of finding beauty where one least expects it. The whole movie presents an intelligent story that Giles De'Ath himself would admire.

Love and Death on Long Island

[henry8-3 · 7/10 · 8 July 2020]

A rather stuffy intellectual writer (Hurt) with little knowledge of the modern World accidentally discovers the existence of a young American film star (Priestly) and falls in love with him. Every aspect of the American's life is explored until Hurt goes to Long Island to seek him out.

There have been a number of justified comparisons with Death in Venice and in the last 20 minutes or so, as things come to head, it does indeed become moving and just a little bit sad. It must be said that the great pleasure of the film is John Hurt, giving yet another towering performance and the first hour of the movie as his character, ignorant of modern society, seeks the man in his many film star guises - film, magazine often to very witty effect. A touching and often quite wonderful film and, incidentally, not remotely arty.

My brief review of the film

[sol- · 5/10 · 3 June 2005]

A carefully directed, although too slowly paced drama with a difference, it is not nearly perfect, but some interesting ideas and an effective performance from Jason Priestley are able to keep it afloat. There is too much time dedicated to Hurt alone on screen, as his fish-out-of-water scenes are dry and unoriginal. However, the final third of the film, when Hurt and Priestley meet, is definitely worth watching for, as the film starts to head into some original territory. Hurt is reasonably good, though not nearly as great as Priestley is, and the film has a few interesting things to say. It is hard to call this a good film as such - but it is certainly easy to recommend it for having interesting elements.

John Hurt Tour de Force

[gbheron · 8/10 · 30 November 1999]

John Hurt delivers a wonderful performance of Giles De'Ath, a stuffy middle-aged English man of letters, so insulated from the modern world he doesn't understand that a VCR needs a TV set to operate. Insulated until he inadvertently stumbles into the wrong movie theatre one day and falls madly for an American B-movie hunk played by Jason Priestley. He becomes obsessed by this man, and eventually treks off to Long Island in search of the object of his affection.

Oddly, given the subject matter, this is a heart-warming and life-affirming film. Hurt is magnificent; it's his movie, and Priestly also gives an excellent performance. I highly recommend renting the movie.

a very bad movie

[willt · 1/10 · 3 March 1999]

OK I tried to post a negative review for this ugly little flick the other night and was rebuffed, perhaps deservedly so because of my choice of a profanity to describe the entire production. Allow me to try again.

I perceive no merit in the "mission" of this film. Surely, each literary whatever must have a mission. We are not out there in the universe without some compass. Where is this film's compass?

This puker would have us believe that a lifelong suppressed homosexual (widower, I do believe) has been transfixed by a single appearance of a hunk mediocrity in a softporn nothing flick. (As opposed to a yucko English flick of equally yucko standards.)

Is there no hope for forebearance in the modern (British) world? Would a tweed really trade it all in for world class, and, btw, unrequited, love.

Has John Hurt ever been better?

[azeemak · 11 August 2002]

John Hurt is a great actor, and his performance in this film shows just how great. There have been plenty of reviews here that detail the plot and the essential characteristics of Giles De'Ath. What struck me even more on seeing the film a second time is what an extraordinary balancing act Hurt pulls off. De'Ath could so easily have been a caricature, a bumbling old fogey; Hurt shows that, while he is indeed out of touch, he is also highly intelligent and unapologetic about his fusty ways - and he also has the imagination to broaden his horizons. There were some lovely scenes showing other people's amused reactions to his naivety about modern ways, particularly those with his agent.

I've never seen Jason Priestley in anything else (hey, does that mean I'm like De'Ath, an old fuddy-duddy?), but he certainly holds his own in the face of an acting titan, just as Brendan Fraser did in Gods & Monsters - and yes, there are a LOT of similarities between the two films. And I really enjoyed Fiona Loewi's performance as his girlfriend - what else has she done? The smaller roles were extremely well cast (as others have noted, Maury Chaykin is a treat), even De'Ath's sister-in-law, who is only in one brief scene, but conveys a lot about how highbrow and inaccessible his novels are considered to be.

I'm also not the only one who has noticed echoes of Death in Venice, not only in the title and the storyline, but also, I'll swear at one point there was a Mahler symphony playing on the soundtrack - was that another nod? Then there is the artistic convention of the older mentor and the younger muse, which is explicitly raised in the film. There are a lot of interesting ideas about the nature of love, and about how even the most set in their ways can suddenly find a new lease of life.

This is a film that rewards more than one viewing. See it if only for a truly majestic performance from John Hurt, a masterclass in subtlety, defiance and thwarted passion.