Gormenghast (2000) User Reviews

Real World - Gormenghast

[Jan Kjellin · 8/10 · 20 September 2002]

I've read Mervyn Peake's books over and over again. To me, the story of Titus Groan, 77'th earl of Gormenghast, is one that can actually compete with Tolkien's "The Lord Of The Rings".

So what do I think about the mini series? Well, obviously no one would dare do what Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema did with the aforementioned movie, so I guess a four part mini series was the next best thing. (Although I would have loved to see this in a cinema!) Good actors and an excitingly stylistic production makes this a worthwhile four hours. Some has been left out, of course, but there's still plenty of material left to build the characters of the story.

This is not a fantasy movie. It has no or few classic fantasy elements at all in it. I would rather see it as a fantastic movie, where the laws of the "normal" world aren't broken - just a little bent out of shape...

Gormenghast will provide a glimpse into our own world, and even though it's not always pretty, it's always done in beautiful colors.

It's so hard to find outstanding villians these days.

[C00L_HAND_LUKE · 8/10 · 9 January 2003]

WOW! Outstanding in every respect. Original, bold, fresh, topped off by outstanding acting by all, but most notably, Christopher Lee. One of the BBC's FINEST. Setting and costumes are impressive and unique to say the least. Cinematography once again, worth mentioning. Nothing mundane here, all around impressive. Characters, unlike most of the crud we get from Hollywood have some depth, which was more than welcome with me. It's so rare that characters actually capture you for their uniqueness; my personal favotire is Mr. Steerpike. All you have to do to see what I mean by villian with depth is watch this, and then something like Die Another day. This character relies on his witts rather than his muscles. I wanted so much for him to achieve his goal, but then realized...well, you didn't think I would tell you everything did you?? Watch it, a truly remarkable film.

Ossified Medieval Culture

[LBytes · 8/10 · 7 September 2004]

This BBC mini-series is actually a combination of the books Titus Groan and Gormenghast. In 4 - 1 hour parts, being from the BBC they're really close to a whole hour as opposed to the usual 45 minute network episodes.

Gormenghast is an ancient kingdom that must be located somewhere in Europe, since it is populated with Europeans. More specifically, it is populated with really odd Europeans, which sounds more like Great Britain. In fact it is a fictional location in which Mervyn Peake has created an extremely ossified culture, technologically stagnant, that indulges itself in numerous obscure rituals that cover almost all routine events, written down in huge books and applied as if their lives depended on it.

The story centers around the Groans, who's male heirs rule as Earls. Titus is set to become the 77th Earl of Groan, and as he matures he sees it as his doom rather than his destiny, and comes to despise Gormenghast.

At first, however, he's just a baby and the story centers on his father and the odd ducks that are his family and servants. Into this mix is added Steerpike, a kitchen boy of huge ambition that finds ways to ingratiate, titillate and extort his way to a much higher position, hardly killing anyone at all to get there. The Groans and Gormenghast in general are so dense and caught up in the minutiae of their lives it takes them years to realize that there's a raccoon in the chicken house, so there's plenty of story to take up a 4 hour mini-series.

I read these two books once upon a time and hardly remember them. I believe the BBC series plays Steerpike a bit more sympathetic than the books did. The trilogy has been compared to LOTR and the Thomas Covenant trilogy, both of which I liked more than Gormenghast. Gormenghast is fiction not fantasy, there are no dragons, orcs or hobbits. The kingdom appears to be mostly medieval with some touches of modernity here and there. The closest thing to monsters are the huge Death Owls.

What makes the mini-series work is a very talented cast that bring their characters to life. They make it a pleasure to watch, if only once. 8/10

The 2 DVD set has a Making Of, Cast interviews, a few unrelated trailers. It is all shot in a peculiar not-quite 4:3 or 16:9 format, at least the way my hardware decoded it to the screen. Video and audio are strictly TV quality, with video colorful if a bit smeared and audio all upfront mono as far as I could tell. The DVDs get a 6/10 for getting it on my screen but not much else.

Interesting, sumptuous adaptation.

[Piotr-9 · 20 February 2000]

I was at first apprehensive to see what were some of my favourite books ever written being made into a film. Upon reading the books, I had always dreamt of adapting this work to the screen myself... though not everything was quite the way I envisioned it, the BBC has done an exemplary job in casting and set design, recreating the askew world of Gormenghast in a fashion that Mervyn Peake himself would have most probably been proud of.

Though the time limitations make for a very accelerated version of the slow, brooding books, and a few liberties are taken with the plot, Gormenghast is a very competent, excellently acted gothic fantasy drama. Though a little too bright & colourful and betraying the BBC's penchant for filmed stage dramas (it seems very much like a play), Gormenghast the miniseries does the brilliant books justice as much as any film could.

brilliant steerpike in fantastic mad world

[eb_redbaron · 10/10 · 17 April 2002]

i happened to see the last episode of gormenghast in the middle of the night one day and was instantly intrigued. although i had no idea what was going on i was glued to my seat by the surreal sets and costumes and, above all, by the intense and brilliant acting!

i bought the books and dvd at once and soon realized the difference. the books are beautifully written and have a life of their own that does indeed compare to tolkiens middle earth. but the tv-series is marvelous. i think the whole story is very close to the books and all the actors are amazing.

jonathan rhys meyers as steerpike is the main focus of attention, every time hes onscreen the whole story gets incredibly dynamic and his villain is the most attractive person ive seen in a film in a long time. his characters brilliance, but also suffering, are the main themes of the film, since titus doesnt really seem convincing. most of the other characters are rather one dimensional, but thats intended, since no one wants to change in gormenghast except steerpike. even fuchsia, who is so miserable cant overcome her prejudices in the end.

whats strange in the film is that, given rhys meyers steerpikes attraction and intelligence and force, still everybody is unwilling to accept his qualities. he stays forever the kitchen boy, even when the whole castle couldnt do without him anymore. his despair and ultimate madness are the result of that constant rejection.

the books especially, but also the film, are ultimately a description of a world without love, compassion or warmth. everyone is doomed to remain unhappy within the strict hierarchy and no talents whatsoever will elevate you.

steerpike in the books is primarily a monster and sadistic murderer, whose motive is simply to gain power. why mervyn peake wrote him as the one to propel the whole story forward and at the same time didnt make him into a positive figure, i dont understand. i know its criticising the british monarchy, but thats what makes the books so depressing, in my opinion.

in the film steerpike is the central character, hes extremely good looking and has plenty of emotions, mostly rage and the supressing of rage, (contrary to the books i think, where hes always cold). still the ending is inevitable, because in gormenghasts world no one is allowed to succeed.

the film itself is beautifully shot, the music is great, the sets a little disappointing, but the costumes are truly beautiful. what does outshine most other tv-productions however, is the brilliant acting from the entire cast, but mainly rhys meyers powerful performance.

Almost Wonderful

[tonstant viewer · 10/10 · 10 February 2002]

No, all of it doesn't work, but enough of it does that it's a welcome respite from the childishness of Lord of the Rings.

At least this story isn't about a bunch of Cub Scouts on a Quest. And it's nice to have women characters who aren't simply hallucinations out of Burne-Jones paintings.

Good acting, inconsistent direction. A perfect change of pace for fantasy lovers, with a lovely musical score to boot.

amazingly interesting.

[broken_dreamz · 9/10 · 26 August 2002]

Gormenghast...once i heard the title of the mini-series, i wanted to laugh. what an awful name! at first glance, it appeared to be terribly confusing, what with the birth of the new heir, the kitchens, Steerpike, his manipulative ways...

But after watching it, i have to admit the show is great. Jonathan Rhys Meyers gives a stunning performance as the shewrd, cunning kitchen boy Steerpike, who slowly worms his way to the top by murdering anyone who gets in his way.

for me, the most impressive scene had to be in the last episode, when he nearly gets killed by the twin sisters Cora and Clarice, who sets up a trap for him. the rage and horror mixed on his face, together with the obvious sense of relief he displays is amazing. and when he did his little 'insane dance' around the skeletons of the twins - now that was scary. there was a general atmosphere of madness that somehow managed to be conveyed, without the usual cliches that get in the way. just pure, sheer madness.

it's a wonderful mini-series. too bad there isn't a sequel to it. and check out the set designs, they give Gormenghast a very realistic feel.

gnawing dissatisfaction with the series as a whole

[merie · 6/10 · 22 May 2000]

May I be the first non native (English) speaker to add my comments?

Not being familiar with the books, I was still a bit disappointed with Gormenghast. It all breathes a very literary, very theatrical atmosphere and never really turns into true television. An interesting story (almost a gothic fairy tale) nonetheless - although I felt it lacked character development - excellent casting, beautiful staging. And still this gnawing dissatisfaction with the series as a whole. Even the gorgeously evil Jonathan Rhys Meyers couldn't make up for it.

The Books / The Movie tug of war. (for people who have seen the movie otherwise you are to be lost, also, possible spoiler)

[Dia Klain · 10/10 · 1 August 2001]

Ahh, Gormenghast. It is one of those movies, those special case movies, that everyone seems to either adore, or despise. But what is this element in the movie that makes it so? No it is not an individualistic, almost surreal character, that marks certain movies that some just can not appreciate, while for others they become absolute obsessions (as Lost Highway) No, there is a definite plot, brilliant characters, great costumes (thought not outlandish), and absolutely fantastically chosen actors. The controversial factor in this moving picture happens to be the `it'; the inevitable ancestor from which many movies lately spring to life. It is, of course, The Book..; in this case Mervyn Peake's cult classic, Gormenghast. (Actually a trilogy, though the movie is based on the first two of the books, Titus Groan and Gormenghast, and not the last, Titus Alone). Now, This trilogy is one of those, somewhat well known (in the UK from what I have gathered) and hardly ever heard of (in the US). In other words, if you Americans go to your local library there may be a copy… but don't count on the local book shop to sell it. Still, this is one trilogy that has a very tight mass of devoted fans. All of these, of course, saw this movie with, perhaps, apprehensive interest, and, undoubtedly, many felt that it was just not `the real thing'. It, or so I have discovered is almost NEVER `the real thing' to many people. Sometimes movies do come along that are JUST as good as the book, if not better, such as Clockwork Orange and Lolita 1997. Gormenghast may not be one of these. As you watch it, some aspects might seem different to the vengeful Gormenghast lover then what they pictured in their minds while applying eyes to the sacred text. For those who do not feel that the movie and books are `as one' may want to try and see them as totally separate accounts on the same story line. This may work better then trying to substitute the images in the movie while thinking of the book, and then getting frustrated and upset over the experience. I found this technique especially gratifying when, after long knowing the book Interview With The Vampire, suddenly stumbling on the movie. Both, I thought, were great, but the movie just was NOT the book. The movie was the movie, and the book stayed the book. With Gormenghast I had no such troubles, though some did. While reading the trilogy I try to comply with Peake's descriptions of Steerpike which, I know, are not physically all that accurate to Jonathan Rhys Meyers. And yet as I read he inevitably slips in to my image anyway. Same with Lady Fuchsia and Nanny. Still, the movie is `different' in some aspects then the book, however pleasing the characters, for example, the exterior of the castle. For some reason I just never can imagine it to be exactly like that of the movie, though I have no problem with it, and did not see any fault with the generated graphics. It is just that I pictured it differently, somehow, thought I am not sure how differently. I suppose it would be easiest to say that I fancied it to be darker, though, when one puts their mind to it, there is no reason for darkness. These people are pretending they are living content happy lives… this is not, after all, vampire town where all try to look as depressed as humanly possible. The one character who just didn't seem `comfortable' in the movie was Flay, who's minimal word speech irritated me. But, alas, you have to give the movie it's due, he HAD to speak so otherwise he would not be portraying the book, so what can one do? My favorite character was Steerpike (though this is probably prejudiced since I found out about this movie though him). Now, a word (or, knowing me, a couple) on this book that everyone is oh so found of. For one thing, it is not for everyone. Why? Well, two reasons. For one, it is a bit surreal (a big anti for some), also, it is ever so unbelievably elongatingly methodically stretched out that in the middle of `book one' (sorry to admit I am not a full pledged specialist) I find myself wandering whether Peake wasn't friends with Kafka. This, however, does not bother me for I love stretched out action to the point that it feels like action no longer but frame by frame showing. Also, some of the scenes, though written in the most lovely twists of the English language and most pleasant to read, are just unnecessary. Still, From what I read (up to the actual burning) the movie captured the events brilliantly! I especially want to point out the scene were Steerpike first meets the good doctor (and consequently Irma). In the book this scene takes up 23 pages. During these 23 pages I enjoyed every second (one of my favorite parts so far in the book, And also in the movie), but when it came right down to the overall impression of the scene this soapy spreadness made it hard to picture. In the movie, so I believe, they took the best of the book and captured it with more vigor and sharpness. On the other hand, the part where Slagg goes for a milker from the village she talks a lot less in the movie and I believed the scene is a bit rushed. Some of the superior attitude of Slagg to the carvers is, thus, lost. Another, if not rushed, then not properly expressed scene is where Steerpike climbs on the roofs. In the book utter suffering on his part is portrayed, while in the movie it was not so even with all of Jonathan Rhys Meyers hungry munching, panting and the collapsing walk. The scene may have gained somewhat by showing him hungry, cold, and dejected sitting on the roof at night (by the way, where's his pipe!). Right before this is the accidental, or not (?), drop from the window onto the clock. Alright, he unscrupulously dropped so then he had to climb up or, well, hang for ever. In the book his somewhat unscrupulous, though calculating nature is better shown with his looking up out the window and measuring out each step he could take if he so choose to risk his life by climbing out and escaping rather then staying and waiting for whatever Flay has in store for him. What has all this to tell us? Some love the movie, some the book, and some *gasp*, actually love both. Both have their minuses which stand out somewhat obviously for both when each fan meets it's object of affection's rival. I have found both to be rather brilliantly done, for all it's minor trivial downsides. And the last thing this movie is ever so long (especially when viewed in one sitting as I viewed it), but, it never gets dreary.

Excellent job with difficult material

[sissoed · 7/10 · 10 May 2007]

I first read the Gormenghast trilogy when I was a moody teenager and they carried an impact I still feel years later. It is a shame the video could not capture the languid atmosphere of the books but I suppose it can't be helped given the limitations of video. I was concerned that the presentation would contradict my own visualization of the characters, but to the contrary the presentation was dead-on. Rather than contradict the books, watching the video was more like seeing the same story but from a different perspective, focusing more on the characters and less on the environment.

My main criticism is that the screenwriter (or director or producer, whoever controlled the script) didn't really understand one of the main messages of the books. This comes through in the mishandling of the key character of the Master of Ritual, called the Secretary in the video. Changing the title was a mistake. And so was the change in the character. In the books the first Master of Ritual is old, quiet Sourdust, who helps set the elegiac mood before Steerpike starts to interfere. Steerpike then kills him (accidentally) in the library fire (this is why Steerpike in his later delirium says the sisters make 5 -- Sourdust, Nanny Slagg, Cora, Clarice, Barquentine). (Steerpike did not kill and did not know what happened to Sepulchrave or Swelter, only Flay knew).

Steerpike's fire brings nasty, cussing Barquentine into the book, and that is what first causes the mood to change. But in the video, it is nasty Barquentine from the start (although because he isn't named until much later, you think at first it is supposed to be Sourdust). Sourdust is simply deleted.

The result is that in the video you always have the nasty element, and Steerpike has no responsibility for it. A key point of the books, however, is that Steerpike's ambition is what causes the mood of the castle to change. I should have thought the screenwriter would be more careful about cutting Steerpike's first murder. The author, Peake, knew what he was doing by starting with Sourdust and having Steerpike kill him.

The title of Master of Ritual is important for another reason, a reason that should have prevented the director from changing the title to mere Secretary. It is such an important point: in that castle, Ritual is master, so the Master of Ritual is the true master of the castle. Steerpike wanted to be Master of Ritual because he knew that in that role he could control the law; it was where the real power was. As Master of Ritual he could surreptitiously change the rituals, because no one else could understand their intricacies. In this way he could set everyone dancing to his commands. The Groans were puppets of the Master of Ritual.

In the books ritual is all-powerful. Recall that in the video Barquentine complained that Sepulchrave's breakfast was not part of the ritual. The meeting in the library came about only because of the breakfast, wherein Sepulchrave defied the control of ritual, to plan an act (the breakfast) intended to show his love for his son. Yet that led to the burning and Sepulchrave's madness and death. Sepulchrave's penalty for defying ritual was terrible.

Steerpike wanted to marry Fushia and thus combine in himself both the control of the ritual, and be the central player in the ritual. But the dedication of the loyal servant of ritual, Barquentine (who burned Steerpike and made him mad) and the loyal servant of nobility, Flay (who relentlessly tracked Steerpike) along with the goodhearted, intelligent Prunesquallor and the heir, Titus, defeated Steerpike, preserved the ruling family, and thus preserved the ritual. Then Titus, having preserved the ritual, flees it, because he knows it is too powerful to defeat. I think a more understanding screenwriter would have developed these themes more clearly and still had a compelling drama.

Lastly, I was disappointed in the flooding sequence and the hunt for Steerpike, which was very compressed in time and in visual scope; this should have been developed with sweep and steadily-building tension. I would have preferred they cut or compress the Bellgrove/ professor sequences entirely to devote the time to a really powerful climactic flood/hunt sequence.

What a waste of a great book and a stellar cast.

[WynneL · 1/10 · 8 June 2002]

My full agreement with the fellow who said "the scriptwriters should be executed".

Perhaps the worst thing about Gormenghast is the horrendous, galling waste of what could have potentially been the best movie ever made. Look at those actors! Anyone who can say "the movie was faithful to the book" is either comparing it to the most outlandishly unfaithful adaptations of all time or simply did not read the same novels I read (and I read them before the movie, so you know I'm going to be riled... although I am generally very open-minded and don't expect a movie to match a book exactly, I )

Some of the warpings are forgivable and understandable, but far too many are appalling. Most notable is the way that they tore the heart out of Fuschia's chest and stuffed it into Steerpike's, ruining what is perhaps the most captivating aspect of Mervyn Peake's generally spellbinding fiction--that is, besides the gothic beauty (which ended up as campy bright pastel fantasy castles in the movie).

In the books, Steerpike is not a 'nice guy deep down' who just goes wrong because he isn't loved by the foolish, selfish woman. I suspect the scriptwriters were misogynists. No, in the books, Steerpike is perhaps the most compelling and hideous villain ever concocted... exactly what makes him so unique is that he is at once ~entirely sympathetic~ and ~entirely wicked~. No, wicked is not the word... more like soulless, heartless, devoid of any human emotion. He values... ~things~, not people. That Mervyn Peake has written him so it takes you nearly the entire series, up until the VERY end to finally hate him with a black passion that will never die, is quite a marvel. How brilliantly the author sets you up.

Fuschia, in the movie, is nothing but a brat who never grows into a woman--in fact, she worsens into a brainless child with no willingness to choose love over safety. This is flagrant reversal of the true character.

Fuschia was THE most sympathetic character in the entire book. At the end, I literally felt like all the beauty had gone out of the world. I cried my heart out as if my own sister was lost to me. She would never have rejected Steerpike, NEVER! She would have sooner cut her own throat! She was bored with the stuffiness and suffocated by the traditions and so full of loneliness and heartache deep down. She was smart and had a good heart, but she had no real pride--she was just brought up in nobility, and her prejudices were an idiocy she grew out of. She longed for someone to care about and love her... the reason she rejected Steerpike in the end was because despite how high she held her torch for him, some part of her always knew that he had no soul underneath that charm. When he spoke to her in anger and was violent with her, that was the last straw. Good for her. A brave and true heroine, if a tragic and slightly pathetic one.

There are good points to the movie, but the fact that they are present in such a chaotic caricature of the true story just makes it all the more painful. It is upsetting to me that it started out rather well but became unbearable towards the end. There were also some bad actors (including the bore of a snore who butchered Fuschia), particularly whoever did grave injustice to Sepulchrave, who in the book was not a tubby unprepossessing white-haired man which you would remember with a snort as 'the hooting loony'. Below I will list those that made the film bearable.

I actually liked all three Tituses. Very similar to the way I pictured them, and though young, I found them quite talented... and surprisingly, I liked Titus himself ~better~ in the movie than the book. The only difference, but still, one good thing I can say.

Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is utterly spectacular. I was so thrilled when I heard he was playing Steerpike; I knew only he could do the role. Sadly, he was not given the chance, as he was handed a fake, watered-down/dumbed-down version of that role.

Gertrude was the one perfect point. Not only did they not really butcher her character, but everything about her in the movie was frighteningly similar to my imaginings, indeed, beyond my wildest dreams and too a spooky degree. Every gesture, every detail, her physical appearances, her apparent moods, her facial expressions, her hair, her size, her voice, EVERYTHING was perfect.

Flay, Christopher Lee as we know him, was of course brilliant. Not quite how I would have imagined Flay looking, but he acted Flay so well that I didn't really care, and he is the right height for it. Just beautiful.

I suppose on the whole I would still recommend the movie for these fine performances... but please, DON'T just say to yourself "I'll watch the movie first." It's not worth it. A good number of the 'actors' are putrid, and the sights and sounds of this miniseries will ruin all the lovely mental images Mervyn Peake could have created in your mind. Better to have them established ~before~ you see it, so that afterwards, you can more easily pick and choose as you like.

whirlwind fantasy without American pomp

[wrenfalling · 10/10 · 11 January 2003]

The world of Gormenghast is beautifully illustrated and true to Peake's novels. All of the actors perform amazingly, especially Jonathan Rhys Meyers (always a treat). Great if you like whirlwind fantasy without all the pomp of American films!

Beautiful but no soul

[Luuk-2 · 6/10 · 10 August 2001]

Gormenghast was an interesting experience. It started off somewhat childish, very much in the British manner, with over the top sort of comedy which raised a smile every now and then, some excellent acting and quite a captivating story. Unfortunately, after about an installment and a half I found myself walking around, doing odd things while the program was still running. In short, it failed to keep me interested. I made an effort and watched the last two installments as well, and must conclude that Gormenghast is a missed opportunity. It looks quite good, the acting is over the top (fitting), but good, but the characters have no soul. You lose interest in them. Who cares what happens to them? The society they inhabit may well be weighed down by rules and regulations, but none of the characters rise above that, save perhaps Titus, but that has to wait for the final installment. They do not grow, now if they had been human to start with ... and that is where the over the top characterisation, which can be quite amusing, starts to work against them ... they can never be anything but quaint. What a pity.

Travesty with no redeeming qualities

[steven-222 · 1/10 · 3 October 2011]

I read Mervyn Peake's novels as a boy, and just reread them this summer (the centenary year of the author's birth). They're truly unique, and at its best Peake's writing is close to miraculous, able to capture sensations and states of mind I would never have imagined another human being had experienced, much less found ways to set down in words.

So yes, I'm a fan of the books.

And while I didn't expect a great deal from this TV version, I was surprised at just how awful it is. If the filmmakers had deliberately set out to create a total travesty, they could hardly have done a more thorough job. Production design, dialogue, acting, casting, costumes—everything is a horrible mishmash. This is like a cruel parody of Mervyn Peake's vision.

At the heart of the books is Steerpike, whose villainous plots drive the story; and at the heart of this misbegotten movie is a truly terrible performance by Jonathan Rhys Meyers. He's badly miscast as Steerpike to start, and even for the watered-down, prettied-up Steerpike given us by this movie, his meager talents are far too inadequate. He seems to think he's playing a naughty Peter Pan, not one of the most complex and compelling villains since Macbeth.

Nothing in this movie captures the mesmerizing language, byzantine plotting, grotesque characters, or haunting Gothic atmosphere of the Gormenghast books. Even the look and lay-out of the castle, so unforgettably described by Peake, is missing, and instead we see some second-rate designer's colorful world of whimsy. Gormenghast has been recycled as a generic children's fantasy flick, and that's a shame.

Good looking adaptation

[Dodger-9 · 5 January 2000]

This looks like being the year of big budget gothic adventure (all featuring Christopher Lee) with Sleepy Hollow packing them in at multiplexes around Britain and The Lord of the Rings trilogy currently shooting in New Zealand - not to mention this lavish mini-series which is one of the biggest fantasy productions ever staged on British TV.

Gormenghast spent five years in production and it seems like all the hard work was worth the wait.

With an impressive cast including Celia Imrie, John Sessions, Warren Mitchell and Jonathan Rhys Myers, the BBC have ensured that Mervyn Peake's classic tale of murder, seduction and tragic events striking the family of a crumbling castle is a faithful version of a literary classic.

At one point, Sting owned the rights to the books and was planning to star in a movie version - he settled for playing Steerpike in an adaptation from 1984.

It's perhaps best that this ended up as a TV drama: The plot and scale of the original material is far too dense to do justice in a two hour movie.

The casting is excellent, the special effects are fine and direction by Andy Wilson is assured.

Well worth a look.

Peake's colourful tale of class action

[maatmouse-1 · 8/10 · 13 October 2007]

Having succeeded in reading the Mervyn Peake Gormenghast trilogy, I finally looked forward to the TV series of which there was much curiosity. Could Peake's sprawling tale of Steerpike's Machiavellian rise and grave descent really be translated that well on TV or would it be better realised as a film? The truth is it works very nicely on the TV and who better to do it justice than the superb cast who are the cream of British and Irish acting.

The tale starts with a brief look at the rituals and boredom of the Groan family who rule Gormenghast. Set in a sort of mad, medieval world of rules, rituals and regulations, the Groans are a tortured family of ageing upper class royalty. There is Lord Groan, played in brilliant torment by the late Ian Richardson, Lady Groan wonderfully realised by Celia Imrie and Fuchsia Groan, their lovely but half mad child-woman daughter. There is also the usual assorted collection of hangers-on and nobility such as Dr Prunesquallor and his sister, various servants like Flay (brilliantly realised by Christopher Lee) and Mrs Slagg and, much later on, grotesques like the Cook played by a horrific looking Richard Griffiths. Enter into this colourful mixture the youth Steerpike who comes from the kitchens and attempts to kill, drive mad or seduce his way into the Groan family.

The castle itself is a wonder to look at and the set design is why Britain is so good at making these sort of series.

Excellent

[blonde_ambition · 10/10 · 30 January 2005]

Should this come on TV again, or if you happen to come across the DVD, I strongly urge you to watch it. This mini series is possibly the best made-for-TV production in decades. It has an amazing cast of British greats including Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, Christopher Lee, Richard Griffiths, Fiona Shaw, Zoë Wanamaker, Lynsey Baxter and Stephan Fry, but don't think you should watch it just for it's star power. Had it been made with a cast of unknowns, it still would have been fantastic. Gormenghast is brilliant, it's plot is strange, twisted and dark and comes from a mind of great imagination. Originally a novel by Mervyn Peake, it has been conveyed perfectly to the screen. This is a series that is 100% deserving of a look in.

Beautifully crafted

[kellieknight · 10/10 · 30 August 2002]

Anyone who had read the books should find this to be an excellent companion. It follows the first two books fairly accurately and has an excellent cast. Very much an eye-candy piece for those interested in set/costume design. The acting is amazing, Jonathan Rhys Meyers shines as Steerpike. Neve McIntosh did a great job of capturing the childlike spirit of Fuchsia, while Christopher Lee was an amazing Flay. For Americans, it will be a great introduction to a British classic!

Grrrreat

[Fredrika-Markstedt · 7/10 · 15 October 2003]

These series are absolutley... well, they're great. You'll have to see for yourself. If you like fantasy-style you'll love this. The characters are totally abnormal and makes it worth watching. You might be a little annoyed that they're not acting like normal beings, but it spices it all up. If you think about it, they might not be so weird if you compare it to real life.

Sumptuous, bizarre and hilarious

[scruss · 10/10 · 18 January 2000]

Before I saw the first part of this, I was worried that my images of Gormenghast and its denizens would be shattered by poor scenery or casting. My fears were allayed from the very first minute -- it is more byzantine than I could ever have imagined.

The casting is excellent; Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is a suitably cunning Steerpike, charming his poisonous way up the House of Groan's hierarchy. John Sessions is frightfully camp as Dr Prunesquallor.

The BBC have taken this often overlooked classic, and made it shine. Don't miss it.

Sumptuous, fatuous but strangely endearing

[lisarull · 7/10 · 14 September 2001]

I know it failed to connect with a lot of viewers but Jonathan R-D was an absolute revelation here (Velvet Goldmine anyone? pur-lease!) The cinematography and the sets were amazing but in an effort to encapsulate the weighty detail of the books a lot got lost in the translation. the cast was to die for with some hilarious cameos (did they love making this I wonder?) and Neve MacIntosh especially was as luscious as ever. But overall its excess seemed to lose momentum and though I kep watching - hey it was better than a lot of TV - it ultimately seeming rather fatuous. A bit overblown...

I read the books afterwards, my partner long having outgrown them (they're not really 'suitable' for children but they're still on his shelf of fiction) and I really enjoyed reading them. Peake was a strange old bird and if you feel you didn't get a handle on the mini-series because of the relation to the books then maybe reading a good biog of Peake may help.

I went back to the TV series recently and I still found it beautiful in its own peculiar way. And though Steerpike is an evil little bs, and his motives always unclear, I did find it quite endearing as a work of television drama. (But wasn't Titus insipid!)

Gormenghastly!

[dr_foreman · 3/10 · 17 September 2006]

I'm normally a lover of British fantasy (Harry Potter, Doctor Who, etc.), so I've been interested in checking out Gormenghast ever since it was first released. I happened to catch the first two episodes on PBS last night - and realized that I was better off skipping the rest of it!

Gormenghast is a distillation of everything I find irritating about BBC productions, without any of the usual benefits of their house style. The acting is ludicrously over-the-top; after a few minutes, I got sick of watching normally respectable actors making stupid grimaces, shouting, whooping and generally carrying on like twits. The direction is rigid and unimaginative, and the film quality is cheap-looking, particularly in the bright outdoor scenes.

Perhaps unusually for a BBC production, the sets and the costumes look great. However, the special effects are predictably woeful (I've seen better-looking models on Blakes' 7!)

I was hoping that the script might contain a whiff of wit or social satire, but I'm afraid it failed to impress me. The jokes are pretty predictable, particularly those involving the university professors, who all fall asleep during their lectures and speak in mock-academic language. Talk about taking potshots at an easy target! As for the other characters, they tend to have dull and portentous dialog, such as "There is much that needs to be done." In fact, I think that particular phrase is uttered about six times in the first two episodes.

I can't say if the original book is better. But I can say with confidence that this miniseries (or at least the first half of it) is rather rubbish. Unless, of course, you really relish the idea of watching venerable character actor Richard Griffiths attack venerable character actor Christropher Lee with a meat cleaver, while simultaneously making funny faces and snorting like a pig. Pfft!

Good but not dark enough

[slapdab · 8/10 · 28 May 2007]

This was a good dramatisation of the book but was not dark enough in any sense. Gormenghast (the place) was too bright and airy although it looked right otherwise. Also the sinister side of the story, which is most of it, was underplayed. When I read the book I hated Steerpike more than any other character I have read but this did not come out on the screen enough. Perhaps it is the restriction of turning such a long, detailed story into a drama. Nonetheless it looked good and all the performances were excellent. If you haven't done so yet - read the book. It is one of the greatest stories I have read and there are a couple of extras not included in the dramatisation. These are the third book "Titus Alone" which is very different from the first two books, and a separate episode in the life of the young Titus called "Boy in Darkness". Again, different from the first two books and quite surreal.

A.Ma.Zing.

[emilyharmsen · 7/10 · 24 March 2003]

This is one of the best miniseries I have ever seen. It's like Lord of the Rings, only without the Hobbits. If only they would show us the lovely face of Steerpike again...sigh... They don't make them any better in my book. The acting, the background, the lines: all brilliant!

A truly dismal film

[annaleah · 1/10 · 9 July 2001]

After viewing just the first half hour of this show, I was convinced that it was pointless to watch more. However, I tried to give it another chance by continuing to watch it. Read this list:

-THE CHARACTERS- You were never close to any of the characters, or even felt the tiniest bit sympathetic. They were all petty and unreal. If you'll pardon my language, they just p***ed me off.

-THE PLOT- What plot? The story line didn't make sense. The whole thing was very hard to follow.

-THE SETTING- It really grated on my nerves. One could see the outline around the people, showing that it was a cheesy green screen production. The special effects were just plain BAD.

If you still wish to view this film, I don't pity the four hours of bewilderment you will have.