"The Golden Bowl", a period piece circa 1900's, turns a microscope on the innerworkings of the relationships of four people, two men and two women, bound by blood, marriage, love, duty, etc. and scrutinizes them to the exclusion of all else. Sadly, the people aren't sufficiently interesting or charismatic to support such scrutiny for 2.2 hours. Amidst the sumptuous splendor of grand costuming, locations, props, makeup, etc. with some heavyweights behind the film, "TGB" is an earnest effort which comes off as much ado about nothing with the one steamy and passionate relationship underdone while the emphasis lingers on the minutia. Somewhat awkward and staged at times, the film doesn't rise to the level of it better period predecessors but will still be a worthwhile watch for those into films about wealth and aristocracy.
73 Reviews
Long, Drawn Out Social Criticism Amidst Beautiful Costumes
noralee10 October 2005
"The Golden Bowl" felt more like recent Edith Wharton adaptations like "Age of Innocence" and "House of Mirth" than its Henry James provenance, because the focus is more on the social criticism of a society that forces the impecunious upper class into marriage with pecunious upstarts than the individual faults of people this hypocritical society produces.
But maybe my mind wandered as this was a bit over-long as I seemed to have missed some crucial epiphany when characters changed their relationships where they find true love a manipulable characteristic -- with the audience responding with sharp intakes of breath.
I was surprised how good Uma Thurman was in a costume drama as I had thought of her only as a modernist, while I thought Nick Nolte far too subdued to be a robber baron.
The costumes and settings were gorgeous.
The audience was typical Merchant/Ivory fans -- the woman on my right chastised me during the opening credits for eating my popcorn too loudly, while the guy on my left was snoring almost as soon as the movie started.
(originally written 5/13/2001)
But maybe my mind wandered as this was a bit over-long as I seemed to have missed some crucial epiphany when characters changed their relationships where they find true love a manipulable characteristic -- with the audience responding with sharp intakes of breath.
I was surprised how good Uma Thurman was in a costume drama as I had thought of her only as a modernist, while I thought Nick Nolte far too subdued to be a robber baron.
The costumes and settings were gorgeous.
The audience was typical Merchant/Ivory fans -- the woman on my right chastised me during the opening credits for eating my popcorn too loudly, while the guy on my left was snoring almost as soon as the movie started.
(originally written 5/13/2001)
My brief review of the film
sol-29 July 2005
A luscious Merchant-Ivory film, though far from being a satisfying one, the times and the setting are both depicted well, but the story is very dry. The characters are never really well introduced, and to begin with it is hard follow. Once one had figured out just what has happened though, the story has nothing left in its power to grip. Uma Thurman also feels a tad out of place, like she does not belong in the context of the film. However, there is not really much overall that one can definitely fault the film on. It is mostly just a very dry story, one which is lacking in depth and excitement, which is the downfall of the film.
Not everybody's cup of tea. But the cup is lovely.
rps-27 November 2002
I'm a sucker for anything set in Edwardian England, good or bad. This is neither. The plot is clever but a little wooly. It takes a while to figure out just who is doing what to whom and why. A father and his daughter each married to the partners in a torrid affair. Rather gives a new meaning to "menage a trois." (Or is it "menage a quatre"?)I don't think even Y&R has tackled this one yet! However the performances are flawless, the settings lush and the cinematography superb. The use in a couple of places of old newsreel footage is especially innovative and interesting but doesn't seem to serve much dramatic purpose. And the symbolism of the golden bowl is a little too obvious and overworked. Nevertheless I liked this movie a lot!
Good adaptation with some editing and acting flaws
Filmmakermom22 January 2008
The film is very effective in conveying the spirit of the novel. By the end you will have that bittersweet taste in your mind, as it usually happens with Henry James stories... Not a single character can say that their heart is completely content.
Once again, as in other Merchant Ivory productions, the cinematography and art direction is impeccable. Also, the costume design is both classic and risky (Uma Thurman at the ball is exotic and sensual).
Now, the main flaw in terms of editing is pacing. While this type of narrative calls out for a slower pace, at times it just didn't feel right. It is like different hands took over parts of the movie.
As for acting, it is quite good in general. Kate Beckinsale starts out very stiff, but warms up throughout the story. As for handsome Jeremy Northam, his Italian accent seemed contrived and was a bit distracting.
Once again, as in other Merchant Ivory productions, the cinematography and art direction is impeccable. Also, the costume design is both classic and risky (Uma Thurman at the ball is exotic and sensual).
Now, the main flaw in terms of editing is pacing. While this type of narrative calls out for a slower pace, at times it just didn't feel right. It is like different hands took over parts of the movie.
As for acting, it is quite good in general. Kate Beckinsale starts out very stiff, but warms up throughout the story. As for handsome Jeremy Northam, his Italian accent seemed contrived and was a bit distracting.
I don't think it will appeal to the average fan of period movies
philip_vanderveken17 August 2005
Despite the fact that I'm normally not a fan of period movies, I've seen two in a row now. The first one was "The Remains of the Day", the second one this "The Golden Bowl. Much to my surprise I must say that I liked both, although there was a big difference in the two. While the first one was very compelling and sometimes close to perfection, I didn't always have that feeling with this movie.
In the early 1900's Adam Verver, an American billionaire, lives with his daughter in London. When she is introduced to the Italian Prince Amerigo, it doesn't take long before they get married. But the prince has a secret. He has a relationship with Charlotte Stant, Maggie Verver's best friend. Because Maggie doesn't know that Amerigo and Charlotte know each other, she sees no harm in introducing her to her widowed father and therefor allowing her to become a member of the family once she marries him. Charlotte is very happy with this match of course, because all she wants is to be close to Prince Amerigo. All this leads to one big masquerade full of deception, lies and unhappiness which can't be revealed...
Despite the fact that I'm normally not a fan of this kind of movies, I must say that this one was OK. Especially the acting made it all worth watching. Thanks to the famous, but also well-acting cast which includes people like Kate Beckinsale, Anjelica Huston, Nick Nolte and Uma Thurman, I was able to enjoy this movie. Does that mean that it is a perfect movie? No, not exactly. The story for instances sometimes lacks a bit in power, making it not always very interesting to keep watching this movie for more than two hours. But on the other hand I must also say that it all could have been a lot worse. The story was perhaps not exceptional, but it sure was decent enough.
In the end I don't think this is a movie that will appeal to the average fan of period movies. First of all is the time period not exactly correct. I believe that those movies situated in the early 19th century are a lot more popular than one which is situated in the early 1900's. But since I'm not such an average fan and because I've always been interested in the time period 1900 - 1950, this was quite interesting for me. It's only too bad that the story wasn't a bit more exceptional. Now I give this movie a rating in between 7/10 and 7.5/10, mostly because of the fine performances.
In the early 1900's Adam Verver, an American billionaire, lives with his daughter in London. When she is introduced to the Italian Prince Amerigo, it doesn't take long before they get married. But the prince has a secret. He has a relationship with Charlotte Stant, Maggie Verver's best friend. Because Maggie doesn't know that Amerigo and Charlotte know each other, she sees no harm in introducing her to her widowed father and therefor allowing her to become a member of the family once she marries him. Charlotte is very happy with this match of course, because all she wants is to be close to Prince Amerigo. All this leads to one big masquerade full of deception, lies and unhappiness which can't be revealed...
Despite the fact that I'm normally not a fan of this kind of movies, I must say that this one was OK. Especially the acting made it all worth watching. Thanks to the famous, but also well-acting cast which includes people like Kate Beckinsale, Anjelica Huston, Nick Nolte and Uma Thurman, I was able to enjoy this movie. Does that mean that it is a perfect movie? No, not exactly. The story for instances sometimes lacks a bit in power, making it not always very interesting to keep watching this movie for more than two hours. But on the other hand I must also say that it all could have been a lot worse. The story was perhaps not exceptional, but it sure was decent enough.
In the end I don't think this is a movie that will appeal to the average fan of period movies. First of all is the time period not exactly correct. I believe that those movies situated in the early 19th century are a lot more popular than one which is situated in the early 1900's. But since I'm not such an average fan and because I've always been interested in the time period 1900 - 1950, this was quite interesting for me. It's only too bad that the story wasn't a bit more exceptional. Now I give this movie a rating in between 7/10 and 7.5/10, mostly because of the fine performances.
See the hospital scene in 'The Sixth Sense'
SILENCEikillyou5 October 2002
Right now I am treading a very fine line, here. On the one hand I see this film for what it was... a period piece/drama. Then again, its about the moments fore and aft of two peoples' frustrations over their spouses' lack of interest for them and what they do about it. Therefore, one would think that there might be some sort of -what the French call a certain -I don't know what. Whatever the plot to this story needed -- it wasn't there.
Keep in mind, when I see a movie like this I've already decided that I need to be in the mood for lots of dialogue and scenery and deceptions. However, this movies lacked intrigue. One (at least I) already knew what was going to happen right near the beginning when we find thar person A finds out that person B is getting married and they've had a past relationship. What we get is a disecting of something that need not be dissected. Here's the fine line: 1) It was kind of cool to see Nick Nolte in such a different role for him. He proves once again that he's a very diverse actor. 2) All the performances were right on for projecting the emotions of their characters; and I mean all the performances... very well done.
What worked: Like I said, the performances. Beautifully done and quite an accurate portrayal. In fact, I debated giving this film more points for the actors' work, alone. However, good acting alone does not a great film make.
What didn't work: The story had the skin of a plot and with that plot great potential that was untapped. I think a story should have twists and turns and things happening out of the blue to keep the audience interested. But nothing, in my opinion, happened out of the blue. It was all quite straight-lined right to the end with no ups or downs or mystery. Having said that, if you want to see a film on how people lived in the early 20th century; this movie should fulfill you.
I'm reminded of the scene in 'The Sixth Sense' where Bruce Willis tells the story of the man who got in a car and drove and drove and drove and drove. Then, he stopped and though he'd drive some more. So, he drove on and drove... You get the point. Then, Cole speaks up and suggests that the doctor needs some twists and things to make the story interesting.
5/10 - all five points go to the performances of every artist in the cast for doing the parts they were given.
thank you
Keep in mind, when I see a movie like this I've already decided that I need to be in the mood for lots of dialogue and scenery and deceptions. However, this movies lacked intrigue. One (at least I) already knew what was going to happen right near the beginning when we find thar person A finds out that person B is getting married and they've had a past relationship. What we get is a disecting of something that need not be dissected. Here's the fine line: 1) It was kind of cool to see Nick Nolte in such a different role for him. He proves once again that he's a very diverse actor. 2) All the performances were right on for projecting the emotions of their characters; and I mean all the performances... very well done.
What worked: Like I said, the performances. Beautifully done and quite an accurate portrayal. In fact, I debated giving this film more points for the actors' work, alone. However, good acting alone does not a great film make.
What didn't work: The story had the skin of a plot and with that plot great potential that was untapped. I think a story should have twists and turns and things happening out of the blue to keep the audience interested. But nothing, in my opinion, happened out of the blue. It was all quite straight-lined right to the end with no ups or downs or mystery. Having said that, if you want to see a film on how people lived in the early 20th century; this movie should fulfill you.
I'm reminded of the scene in 'The Sixth Sense' where Bruce Willis tells the story of the man who got in a car and drove and drove and drove and drove. Then, he stopped and though he'd drive some more. So, he drove on and drove... You get the point. Then, Cole speaks up and suggests that the doctor needs some twists and things to make the story interesting.
5/10 - all five points go to the performances of every artist in the cast for doing the parts they were given.
thank you
The vase
jotix1004 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Charlotte Slant, an penniless American socialite, left her country to settle in Europe. This way, perhaps, her reduced means would go further in the Europe of the last part of the XIX century. In Florence, she meets, and falls in love, with an impoverished Italian prince. They become lovers, but neither one has the money to live well in the society both loved. When Charlotte goes to London, her good friend Fanny Assingham, an American with a lot of social connections, has a plan to marry her to Adam Verver, the first American billionaire, whose own daughter, Maggie, happened to be Charlotte's friend.
Amerigo had followed Charlotte to England, but he was seeing Maggie, a possible meal ticket, a way out for his money problems. One day, Charlotte and Amerigo visited an antique shop where they found a gorgeous vase decorated with gold. The owner tells them it is a perfect piece. The price though, kept it out of her budget, besides, she was not completely sure Maggie would like it. Amerigo's marriage to Maggie is a match made in heaven for Adam, who now can add a noble title to his future grandchildren.
Maggie and Amerigo divided their time between the house in London and her father's splendid palace he rents in Leicestershire. Charlotte, now married to the older Adam, had not stopped loving Amerigo. Their passion is stronger, if anything. One week-end Charlotte and Amerigo go to a country estate where a celebration is happening. When they are to return to London, they decide to stay overnight at Gloucester, where they spend the night at an out of the way inn. Maggie is worried, but when they reappear, Amerigo explains how they wanted to see the magnificent cathedral. In doing so, he mentions something he has not the correct answer. Who is buried at the cathedral? Was it Richard II, or Edward II? Maggie, who obviously knows the answer is upset.
Maggie, shopping at the antique shop is offered the golden bowl. The owner explains she can have it for less since he discovered a flaw in the crystal. When the merchant goes to deliver the piece, he notices the picture of Amerigo and Charlotte on a table. He mentions to Maggie this was the couple interested in buying the precious vase a few years ago. Maggie realizes the deception. Adam, noticing his daughter's distress, decides it is time for him to go back to America where he is building a museum to house all his European treasures. Charlotte, reluctantly, is made to go. In spite of her distaste for her native country, Charlotte will become a bigger socialite because of Adam's money, but in the process, she loses Amerigo.
If there was anyone meant to bring Henry James' novel to the screen, it was James Ivory, a man that had made excellent adaptations of mostly English classic authors. The adaptation was entrusted to Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, an usual collaborator, who had done well transferring the original works into cinematic terms. Unfortunately, this venture did not pay off the same way that most of the other efforts did. Part of the blame must go into the casting of the four principal roles, and the almost static staging of the novel. Henry James' work presents some difficulty for the transfer to the screen.
Uma Thurman is a ravishing creature. Her Charlotte is not exactly what one would have thought it could be. Complicating matters, there is no chemistry between her and Amerigo. Jeremy Northam's accent is not convincing for a noble Italian prince. Nick Nolte, who had worked with Mr. Ivory before, has a minor role. Kate Beckingsale, as Maggie is also not at her best. The only one that seems at ease is Anjelica Huston, whose Fanny is the best thing in the picture, but she is only a minor character.
The film is gorgeously photographed in authentic settings. Tony Pierce-Roberts' camera captures those great places in all its splendor. The musical score is by Richard Robbins.
Amerigo had followed Charlotte to England, but he was seeing Maggie, a possible meal ticket, a way out for his money problems. One day, Charlotte and Amerigo visited an antique shop where they found a gorgeous vase decorated with gold. The owner tells them it is a perfect piece. The price though, kept it out of her budget, besides, she was not completely sure Maggie would like it. Amerigo's marriage to Maggie is a match made in heaven for Adam, who now can add a noble title to his future grandchildren.
Maggie and Amerigo divided their time between the house in London and her father's splendid palace he rents in Leicestershire. Charlotte, now married to the older Adam, had not stopped loving Amerigo. Their passion is stronger, if anything. One week-end Charlotte and Amerigo go to a country estate where a celebration is happening. When they are to return to London, they decide to stay overnight at Gloucester, where they spend the night at an out of the way inn. Maggie is worried, but when they reappear, Amerigo explains how they wanted to see the magnificent cathedral. In doing so, he mentions something he has not the correct answer. Who is buried at the cathedral? Was it Richard II, or Edward II? Maggie, who obviously knows the answer is upset.
Maggie, shopping at the antique shop is offered the golden bowl. The owner explains she can have it for less since he discovered a flaw in the crystal. When the merchant goes to deliver the piece, he notices the picture of Amerigo and Charlotte on a table. He mentions to Maggie this was the couple interested in buying the precious vase a few years ago. Maggie realizes the deception. Adam, noticing his daughter's distress, decides it is time for him to go back to America where he is building a museum to house all his European treasures. Charlotte, reluctantly, is made to go. In spite of her distaste for her native country, Charlotte will become a bigger socialite because of Adam's money, but in the process, she loses Amerigo.
If there was anyone meant to bring Henry James' novel to the screen, it was James Ivory, a man that had made excellent adaptations of mostly English classic authors. The adaptation was entrusted to Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, an usual collaborator, who had done well transferring the original works into cinematic terms. Unfortunately, this venture did not pay off the same way that most of the other efforts did. Part of the blame must go into the casting of the four principal roles, and the almost static staging of the novel. Henry James' work presents some difficulty for the transfer to the screen.
Uma Thurman is a ravishing creature. Her Charlotte is not exactly what one would have thought it could be. Complicating matters, there is no chemistry between her and Amerigo. Jeremy Northam's accent is not convincing for a noble Italian prince. Nick Nolte, who had worked with Mr. Ivory before, has a minor role. Kate Beckingsale, as Maggie is also not at her best. The only one that seems at ease is Anjelica Huston, whose Fanny is the best thing in the picture, but she is only a minor character.
The film is gorgeously photographed in authentic settings. Tony Pierce-Roberts' camera captures those great places in all its splendor. The musical score is by Richard Robbins.
Dull, unintelligent
fkkemble30 November 2009
Good caste, appalling script and transparent plot. My wife and I love period drama's but this wasn't one. I turned it off after an hour. I have to say that Henry James is generally pretty dismal as a writer in my opinion and so the movie was seriously hamstrung from the start. I really like Jeremy Northam but his Italian accent made me want to punch him. I think that Uma Thurman is a good actress but I don't see her in this genre sadly. The British are the absolute kings of period drama in my opinion and so the US producers should really concentrate on the big screen thriller or sci-fi movies which they are so good at. If the British had produced and directed this movie there may have been improvement but they would never have picked it in the first place.
Startes off awful, becomes riveting
triple829 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS THROUGH:
The first half of The Golden Bowl was, for me, almost unwatchable. As mentioned by many, the formal stilted dialog was really really tough to enjoy and since I didn't know a whole lot about the plot(haven't read the book) much of the movie made no sense. This is a very hard movie to follow and I was also put off by the lack of emotion in the performances. At times it seemed like the performers were just reading dialog and I really did almost turn it off.
But the thing is, the second half of the movie is really interesting. It's like the movie and performers come into their own and all of a sudden, I got sucked into the whole story. By the time the end rolled around I was riveted. And the performers went from stiff and stilted to really really moving.
So I asked myself what in the world do I rate a movie like this? It really is a tough movie to decide if I liked or not when the first half was absolutely awful and the second half was not just good, but riveting. So finally I gave it a 7. It's really interesting in that I started off thinking all the performers were miscast and ended thinking they were all really good. This really is a movie that takes it's time in sucking you in.
I do wish it had been a little easier to follow( movie seems to assume that it's audience is familiar with the book) and some of the stilted dialog had been dropped. I understand that the period it was taking place in contributes to the dialog but it did make it very hard to become involved in the story and as mentioned, the performers came off initially as stiff and just not very comfortable, though that changed greatly as the story went on.
Beckinsale and Nolte were, in my opinion, the best and all the characters stay with you after. Uma Thurman, while originally seeming the most miscast, winds up delivering with one of the most powerful scenes in the film at the end and that one scene alone makes her character extremely memorable.
The landscapes were also very lovely and the story, in spite of the difficulty in following it, was compelling and the movie really does linger with you in a way that one might not expect, particularly during the first half. In my opinion, the ending was also way to rushed but since I haven't read the book I have no idea if the movie was just following the book. I'd see this again and will recommend it to fellow moviegoers I know. At the same time, if someone loses patience with the story and turns it off midstream I can understand that too because a lot of patience is needed in the beginning. It's definitely worth seeing though especially for period movie lovers. My vote's 7 of 10.
The first half of The Golden Bowl was, for me, almost unwatchable. As mentioned by many, the formal stilted dialog was really really tough to enjoy and since I didn't know a whole lot about the plot(haven't read the book) much of the movie made no sense. This is a very hard movie to follow and I was also put off by the lack of emotion in the performances. At times it seemed like the performers were just reading dialog and I really did almost turn it off.
But the thing is, the second half of the movie is really interesting. It's like the movie and performers come into their own and all of a sudden, I got sucked into the whole story. By the time the end rolled around I was riveted. And the performers went from stiff and stilted to really really moving.
So I asked myself what in the world do I rate a movie like this? It really is a tough movie to decide if I liked or not when the first half was absolutely awful and the second half was not just good, but riveting. So finally I gave it a 7. It's really interesting in that I started off thinking all the performers were miscast and ended thinking they were all really good. This really is a movie that takes it's time in sucking you in.
I do wish it had been a little easier to follow( movie seems to assume that it's audience is familiar with the book) and some of the stilted dialog had been dropped. I understand that the period it was taking place in contributes to the dialog but it did make it very hard to become involved in the story and as mentioned, the performers came off initially as stiff and just not very comfortable, though that changed greatly as the story went on.
Beckinsale and Nolte were, in my opinion, the best and all the characters stay with you after. Uma Thurman, while originally seeming the most miscast, winds up delivering with one of the most powerful scenes in the film at the end and that one scene alone makes her character extremely memorable.
The landscapes were also very lovely and the story, in spite of the difficulty in following it, was compelling and the movie really does linger with you in a way that one might not expect, particularly during the first half. In my opinion, the ending was also way to rushed but since I haven't read the book I have no idea if the movie was just following the book. I'd see this again and will recommend it to fellow moviegoers I know. At the same time, if someone loses patience with the story and turns it off midstream I can understand that too because a lot of patience is needed in the beginning. It's definitely worth seeing though especially for period movie lovers. My vote's 7 of 10.
well acted, but pretty dull
Quinoa198412 May 2001
This was one of the few films in a long time that actually made me feel drowsy and dull. The film is another Merchant/Ivory film, which (very obscure Dennis Miller reference ahead) mean that afterwards, your girlfriend or wife will owe you some sex. ...anyway, the film has a very good cast including Uma Thurman, Nick Nolte, Anjelica Houston, Kate Beckinsale and Jeremy Northam, as Northam plays a guy who is starting to feel the only joy in his life to another woman (Thurman). Sounds good, but overall, the tone of this piece is just really not good. Nothing good, but still, it's not horrible crud either. C+
Just right
ruthgee27 May 2001
Ruth Prawer Jhabvala has made "The Golden Bowl" come to life. Henry James's last novel, a rather difficult read, has been told very simply without missing the point of the novel. I have read a lot of criticisms of this movie and cannot understand why a lot of the critics say that it was a difficult movie to understand. The constumes, sets etc. recreated the time most wonderfully. The splendor of the great homes, the decay of the Italian Castle, the history of Amerigo's family, the under currents of feelings between the characters all seemed so right. For some, the movie might feel a little long, but Henry James is a most difficult author to translate into film. I liked the use of old black and white movies for the scenes in New York, it added to the stmosphere.
Tedious, but beautiful, period film
wave5410 January 2002
I had great expectations for The Golden Bowl, yet it seems that I felt as many others did.
The sets and costumes were exquisite -- the story just droned on and on without any connection between the characters. Kate Beckinsale was flat and lifeless, Jeremy Northam couldn't fool anyone as an Italian prince. His accent was all over the place. When he tried to sound somewhat Italian, it was cartoonish and contrived.
Too bad -- such an enormous effort for so little reward. TGB won't be loved or remembered years from now. It should have.
6 out of 10 for the elegant and richly detailed sets.
The sets and costumes were exquisite -- the story just droned on and on without any connection between the characters. Kate Beckinsale was flat and lifeless, Jeremy Northam couldn't fool anyone as an Italian prince. His accent was all over the place. When he tried to sound somewhat Italian, it was cartoonish and contrived.
Too bad -- such an enormous effort for so little reward. TGB won't be loved or remembered years from now. It should have.
6 out of 10 for the elegant and richly detailed sets.
do yourself a favour! Go see this movie!
kchynes13 May 2002
Do yourself a favour: go see this movie.
The story, the acting, the costumes, the cinematography, the subtle directors wit. Its all there.
All these things combined will enable you to have the best sleep you've had in years....
Though be warned, if you can't sleep, watching paint dry (or the grass grow) may be a preferable pastime...
The story, the acting, the costumes, the cinematography, the subtle directors wit. Its all there.
All these things combined will enable you to have the best sleep you've had in years....
Though be warned, if you can't sleep, watching paint dry (or the grass grow) may be a preferable pastime...
Jarvis and James and Ms. Houston's varying accent
gloss24 June 2001
I agree with Timer, and, frankly am tickled that someone else noticed the resemblance of the antique dealer Jarvis to Henry James himself. I have seen too many of James Ivory's films to feel that this was accidental. But I didn't really see the resemblance until Jarvis came to deliver the bowl. (His shop was rather dark, and he may not have been wearing his cut-away coat at work.) I also thought it interesting how at least twice Jarvis put his hands out to catch the bowl should someone drop it, thus calling our attention to its fragility. (This was crystal, not glass, and who knows whether it will break when dropped?)
The movie was over-long, of course. But it was a feast! There were many scenes that could have been edited down or eliminated, but the luxury of seeing the extra footage was wonderful. It reminded me of another favorite, wonderful(and long) movie, Mike Leigh's *Topsy-Turvey* (about the partnership of Gilbert and Sullivan).
And interestingly, there's the same continuity/accent problem in both. In *The Golden Bowl* Angelica Houston plays some scenes with a distinct American Southern accent and some without. In *Topsy Turvy*, Sullivan's lover is quite British in one scene, chatting on about young Winston, yet at a piano recital she speaks in an American Southern accent. Wouldn't you think someone would have noticed in both instances and just re-looped the audio?
Finally, the only reason I knew that Jarvis resembled Henry James is a book that my wife and I wrote for Harcourt. It's called *About the Author* and contains "juicy-bits profiles" of 125 favorite (living, dead, male, female, etc.) novelists. To put it another way, we assume that the reader has access to most of the boilerplate info on each author (Web searches, encyclopedia articles, textbooks, etc.). So we focus on the stuff you won't find in most of those sources.
As part of our research, we learned that James's novels were often inspired by conversations and stories he heard at the many dinner parties he attended in London. (Between 1878 and 1879, he dined out 140 times.) Shades of Truman Capote?
Although born in New York City in 1843, he became a British citizen in 1915. Henry James also attended Harvard Law School between 1862 and 1863. His father was a friend of Thoreau, Emerson, and Hawthorne. He himself, at age 26, arrived in London and soon met Darwin, George Eliot, Ruskin, Rossetti, William Morris, and others.
He felt that criticism was intellectually superior to creative writing and considered himself primarily a critic. At the time of his death in 1916 at age 72, his novels were all but unread. Only after the observance of his 100th birthday in 1943, when World War II had focused America's attention on Europe, did critics realize that he was one of the greatest novelists of the 19th century.
The movie was over-long, of course. But it was a feast! There were many scenes that could have been edited down or eliminated, but the luxury of seeing the extra footage was wonderful. It reminded me of another favorite, wonderful(and long) movie, Mike Leigh's *Topsy-Turvey* (about the partnership of Gilbert and Sullivan).
And interestingly, there's the same continuity/accent problem in both. In *The Golden Bowl* Angelica Houston plays some scenes with a distinct American Southern accent and some without. In *Topsy Turvy*, Sullivan's lover is quite British in one scene, chatting on about young Winston, yet at a piano recital she speaks in an American Southern accent. Wouldn't you think someone would have noticed in both instances and just re-looped the audio?
Finally, the only reason I knew that Jarvis resembled Henry James is a book that my wife and I wrote for Harcourt. It's called *About the Author* and contains "juicy-bits profiles" of 125 favorite (living, dead, male, female, etc.) novelists. To put it another way, we assume that the reader has access to most of the boilerplate info on each author (Web searches, encyclopedia articles, textbooks, etc.). So we focus on the stuff you won't find in most of those sources.
As part of our research, we learned that James's novels were often inspired by conversations and stories he heard at the many dinner parties he attended in London. (Between 1878 and 1879, he dined out 140 times.) Shades of Truman Capote?
Although born in New York City in 1843, he became a British citizen in 1915. Henry James also attended Harvard Law School between 1862 and 1863. His father was a friend of Thoreau, Emerson, and Hawthorne. He himself, at age 26, arrived in London and soon met Darwin, George Eliot, Ruskin, Rossetti, William Morris, and others.
He felt that criticism was intellectually superior to creative writing and considered himself primarily a critic. At the time of his death in 1916 at age 72, his novels were all but unread. Only after the observance of his 100th birthday in 1943, when World War II had focused America's attention on Europe, did critics realize that he was one of the greatest novelists of the 19th century.
Decent really
hhfarm-114 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Merchant-Ivory-Jhabvala films are mostly pretentious, precious, coy, and overlong. Scenes, glances, stares, long shots, and dialogues seem to be designed for length=art. I appreciate some of MIP but overall find it artsy.
James was a great novelist but most of his later works ponderous and captious to the extreme.
James & MIP are much alike and combining MIP with James can be a disaster eg. The Bostonians.
Golden Bowl was a pleasant surprise. Thurman, usually nicely understated, overacts; Northam, typically in control of his role, isn't; Nolte is out of time and place; Beckinsale, a fluffy TV actress, is clear in her character and does a nice job.
It all works (except maybe Nolte).
It's a bit modernized: James had his characters "making love" via a quick glance; Northam drives Thurman towards orgasm with his hand in her crotch.
It's almost as if MIP decided to make a crisp and tough film version of James. Or perhaps they saw themselves in James and overreacted. In any case, it's a decent movie overall and mostly worth seeing.
James was a great novelist but most of his later works ponderous and captious to the extreme.
James & MIP are much alike and combining MIP with James can be a disaster eg. The Bostonians.
Golden Bowl was a pleasant surprise. Thurman, usually nicely understated, overacts; Northam, typically in control of his role, isn't; Nolte is out of time and place; Beckinsale, a fluffy TV actress, is clear in her character and does a nice job.
It all works (except maybe Nolte).
It's a bit modernized: James had his characters "making love" via a quick glance; Northam drives Thurman towards orgasm with his hand in her crotch.
It's almost as if MIP decided to make a crisp and tough film version of James. Or perhaps they saw themselves in James and overreacted. In any case, it's a decent movie overall and mostly worth seeing.
Golden Bowl was good enough
jordondave-2808518 October 2023
(2000) The Golden Bowl
HISTORICAL DRAMA
From the makers of Ivory and Merchant who were responsible for time period films such as "Howard's End", "Remains of the Day" and "Room Without A View"! This is yet, another time period film with the set up, Charlotte Stant (Uma Thurman) marrying a much older fella so that she can be near a much younger male person (closer to her age.) And is committed to be engaged to the daughter of the older fella (Nick Nolte). Long film with a satisfying conclusion! The problem with this film is that with it's running time of more than two hours is too long for some to even care about this love triangle! To generally sum up this film is, mature adults handling mature situations without the need for unnecessary physical violence for it demands a viewer's patience! Good but not great.
From the makers of Ivory and Merchant who were responsible for time period films such as "Howard's End", "Remains of the Day" and "Room Without A View"! This is yet, another time period film with the set up, Charlotte Stant (Uma Thurman) marrying a much older fella so that she can be near a much younger male person (closer to her age.) And is committed to be engaged to the daughter of the older fella (Nick Nolte). Long film with a satisfying conclusion! The problem with this film is that with it's running time of more than two hours is too long for some to even care about this love triangle! To generally sum up this film is, mature adults handling mature situations without the need for unnecessary physical violence for it demands a viewer's patience! Good but not great.
An Utter Disaster
philip-125 May 2001
This is by far one of the most tepid art films I've seen in a long while. I went into the theater with tremendous expectations. These were the people who made Maurice, Howards End, Room With a View. How could it fail?
There are three death blows dealt to this film.
One. James Ivory's direction is slow, uninspired, and mediocre. He doesn't create any tension or passion. The movie's story (which is not complicated) meanders along like a Wagner opera without great music or voices!
Two. The screenplay is very badly written. The actors sound stilted reading it and it makes Henry James seem like the worst author ever to achieve classic status.
Three. The casting is a disaster. Everyone save Anjelica Huston is miscast. Not a single character has any chemistry with any other character. Uma Thurman is simply horrible. She's boring, dull, and unable to create any real interest in this central character. Jeremy Northam is totally unbelievable as an Italian Prince. Chico Marx had a better accent. He creates not an iota of romantic tension or Mediterranean warmth, and they've made him look like Mandy Patinkin!!! Roberto Bengnini would have at least been more interesting! Kate Beckinsale is as vacuous as Thurman and annoyingly bland throughout the movie. And when are the Merchant Ivory people going to realize that Nick Nolte doesn't work in a period costume epic. Listening to him do the lines was liking listening to a high school play. Ughhhh!
The one plus for this movie is the art direction. It's stunning. But you can't look at sets and costumes for 2 1/2 hours without any sparks. And thank God for Anjelica Huston who brought energy that seemed to be lacking everywhere else. Possibly a cast of Julianne Moore, Antonio Banderas, Kate Winslet, and Michael Caine could have breathed life and interest into James's story.
5 thumbs down. Wanted to walk out, but like a fool, I stayed til the bitter end.
There are three death blows dealt to this film.
One. James Ivory's direction is slow, uninspired, and mediocre. He doesn't create any tension or passion. The movie's story (which is not complicated) meanders along like a Wagner opera without great music or voices!
Two. The screenplay is very badly written. The actors sound stilted reading it and it makes Henry James seem like the worst author ever to achieve classic status.
Three. The casting is a disaster. Everyone save Anjelica Huston is miscast. Not a single character has any chemistry with any other character. Uma Thurman is simply horrible. She's boring, dull, and unable to create any real interest in this central character. Jeremy Northam is totally unbelievable as an Italian Prince. Chico Marx had a better accent. He creates not an iota of romantic tension or Mediterranean warmth, and they've made him look like Mandy Patinkin!!! Roberto Bengnini would have at least been more interesting! Kate Beckinsale is as vacuous as Thurman and annoyingly bland throughout the movie. And when are the Merchant Ivory people going to realize that Nick Nolte doesn't work in a period costume epic. Listening to him do the lines was liking listening to a high school play. Ughhhh!
The one plus for this movie is the art direction. It's stunning. But you can't look at sets and costumes for 2 1/2 hours without any sparks. And thank God for Anjelica Huston who brought energy that seemed to be lacking everywhere else. Possibly a cast of Julianne Moore, Antonio Banderas, Kate Winslet, and Michael Caine could have breathed life and interest into James's story.
5 thumbs down. Wanted to walk out, but like a fool, I stayed til the bitter end.
Worth slogging through the first 20 minutes
PolitiCom11 January 2002
A Cracked Bowl, Indeed.
slhughes2016 June 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Note: Spoilers ahead
I can't say that I have ever come across a film in which I felt every single major role was miscast until this one. Here we have the usual major Jamesian themes: European experience versus American innocence (or stupidity in the case of the merry band currently under discussion), the treachery of the human heart, and the poor young woman desperately in pursuit of her true love who, alas, does not have the one thing that she cannot live without. And by that I mean money. The true love becomes secondary in this case.
The sad fact is that there is not an instance when a word coming out of the actors' mouths seems sincere-or even rehearsed. I am one who nearly always forgives a poor accent, but Jeremy Northam's attempt at Italian-accented English and Angelica Huston's Southern accent cannot meet even my low standards. The Regency aristocrat and Gangster's Moll they have previously played so successfully are much closer to their true callings.
The plot is typical James (and if you haven't figured it out, James is not my favorite author)-Penniless Italian Prince (Northam) loves Penniless Heiress (Thurman) but must marry Fabulously Wealthy American Heiress (Beckensale) because her First American Billionaire and Art Collector Father (Nolte) is, well, a billionaire, and can afford to help Penniless Italian Prince fix up his run down palazzo. Now how about this for a plot twist: The Penniless Heiress just happens to be the best friend of the Fabulously Wealthy American Heiress, who doesn't realize that her husband was intimate with her best friend. In the meantime, Penniless Heiress ingratiates herself to First American Billionaire and eventually becomes his wife. Things move forward predictably from there.
The dialog and settings are so archly symbolic they seem almost silly. Case in point: The Prince walks into a dark room where his gullible wife sits and asks, `Why are you sitting in the dark'? Soon after, the light will come on in her dim but sweet little mind. And of course, as fitting with a Merchant Ivory production, there are enough plush costumes and palatial rooms to fill up the average convention center. The gasps, significant looks, and shocked, heartbroken expressions could also fill a bushel basket. By the time the first hour was over, I looked at my watch, expecting that I had been watching for at least three hours, such was the slow pacing.
Perhaps if Beckensale and Thurman had switched roles, things might have gone better, but aside from the rotten accents, Nolte looks like he would be more comfortable wearing a hardhat, flannel shirt, and jeans, perhaps leaning against the wall, drinking a beer at a San Francisco Gay Bar, talking to guys who look just like him. His modern haircut and facial hair, body language, and 20th century diction show him to be every bit as uncomfortable in the role as he must have been dressed in his evening clothes, as he was throughout the entire film. His relationship with Beckensale is just creepy, Freudian in the worst sense.
It is hard to say exactly why a film like this goes wrong. Merchant Ivory hits the mark so often one expects them to come up with a near masterpiece every time. Next time they need someone to play a broke Italian Prince, they might think about casting an English-speaking Italian.
I can't say that I have ever come across a film in which I felt every single major role was miscast until this one. Here we have the usual major Jamesian themes: European experience versus American innocence (or stupidity in the case of the merry band currently under discussion), the treachery of the human heart, and the poor young woman desperately in pursuit of her true love who, alas, does not have the one thing that she cannot live without. And by that I mean money. The true love becomes secondary in this case.
The sad fact is that there is not an instance when a word coming out of the actors' mouths seems sincere-or even rehearsed. I am one who nearly always forgives a poor accent, but Jeremy Northam's attempt at Italian-accented English and Angelica Huston's Southern accent cannot meet even my low standards. The Regency aristocrat and Gangster's Moll they have previously played so successfully are much closer to their true callings.
The plot is typical James (and if you haven't figured it out, James is not my favorite author)-Penniless Italian Prince (Northam) loves Penniless Heiress (Thurman) but must marry Fabulously Wealthy American Heiress (Beckensale) because her First American Billionaire and Art Collector Father (Nolte) is, well, a billionaire, and can afford to help Penniless Italian Prince fix up his run down palazzo. Now how about this for a plot twist: The Penniless Heiress just happens to be the best friend of the Fabulously Wealthy American Heiress, who doesn't realize that her husband was intimate with her best friend. In the meantime, Penniless Heiress ingratiates herself to First American Billionaire and eventually becomes his wife. Things move forward predictably from there.
The dialog and settings are so archly symbolic they seem almost silly. Case in point: The Prince walks into a dark room where his gullible wife sits and asks, `Why are you sitting in the dark'? Soon after, the light will come on in her dim but sweet little mind. And of course, as fitting with a Merchant Ivory production, there are enough plush costumes and palatial rooms to fill up the average convention center. The gasps, significant looks, and shocked, heartbroken expressions could also fill a bushel basket. By the time the first hour was over, I looked at my watch, expecting that I had been watching for at least three hours, such was the slow pacing.
Perhaps if Beckensale and Thurman had switched roles, things might have gone better, but aside from the rotten accents, Nolte looks like he would be more comfortable wearing a hardhat, flannel shirt, and jeans, perhaps leaning against the wall, drinking a beer at a San Francisco Gay Bar, talking to guys who look just like him. His modern haircut and facial hair, body language, and 20th century diction show him to be every bit as uncomfortable in the role as he must have been dressed in his evening clothes, as he was throughout the entire film. His relationship with Beckensale is just creepy, Freudian in the worst sense.
It is hard to say exactly why a film like this goes wrong. Merchant Ivory hits the mark so often one expects them to come up with a near masterpiece every time. Next time they need someone to play a broke Italian Prince, they might think about casting an English-speaking Italian.
Not as good as the book for me
jdmcox555 July 2023
Not as good as the book if you're like me and like clear thinking phrased very well, even though the idea may be unusual. It's a pleasure for me to read the book, and there's so much in the book that can't be spoken. I saw the movie some years ago (the 2000 one) but graded it fairly low. Now it's only available on Amazon as an expensive DVD. Try the book. And I guess I have to add that the characters are filled out nicely, and are not the usual characters you might find in a 19th century story, because one is a Prince with Islamic family as well as at least one Pope in his ancestry, and the other is a daughter of a rich American.
How do they get away with it?
Xanadu-212 May 2002
Merchant/ivory have cornered the market for costume dramas. Now it seems they´re running out of 19th century novels to film. Only the dullest ones are left!
It´s all just an excuse to put stars in fancy costumes in Italian and British castles. It´s almost a parody of a Merchant/Ivory film : rich white people saying nothing in grand salons. I have trouble feeling sorry for them.
There´s nothing new to see. Nothing happens for 2 hours and 20 minutes. That´s how long it takes for Kate Beckinsale to find out her husband is cheating and even then it´s undramatic. It goes on and on. It´s 'flawless' except that there is no story and not as "magical" as intended. Only the documentary footage is interesting.
Uma is an ok actress and a big star but quite uninteresting (tho she does have moments while wearing peacock feathers).
Snore
It´s all just an excuse to put stars in fancy costumes in Italian and British castles. It´s almost a parody of a Merchant/Ivory film : rich white people saying nothing in grand salons. I have trouble feeling sorry for them.
There´s nothing new to see. Nothing happens for 2 hours and 20 minutes. That´s how long it takes for Kate Beckinsale to find out her husband is cheating and even then it´s undramatic. It goes on and on. It´s 'flawless' except that there is no story and not as "magical" as intended. Only the documentary footage is interesting.
Uma is an ok actress and a big star but quite uninteresting (tho she does have moments while wearing peacock feathers).
Snore
Human nature changes so little, through the centuries, as this very good film shows!
inkblot1110 July 2006
Prince Amerigo (Jeremy Northam) has a castle on the verge of ruin and empty pockets. Although he lusts after a poor but beautiful lady named Charlotte, he decides to marry her very rich friend instead. His new wife, Maggie, is a lovely, innocent human being, totally unspoiled by wealth. Maggie hopes to see her widowed father happily remarried and encourages his interest in Charlotte. It happens. Charlotte agrees to marry America's first billionaire, what a tough gig. But, why? Does she have any affection for Maggie's father? Or does she want to stay in close contact with Amerigo? It seems the latter, for Charlotte and the Prince go everywhere together, now that it is acceptable for two "relatives" to gad about. What is happening here? The book was written over 100 years ago but this story of human nature shows that very little changes under the sun. Northam and Thurman excel as the egocentric and evil humans who are so very lovely to look upon, it hurts. Beckinsale and Nolte likewise give nice turns as the folks who still have hearts beating in their breasts, despite their riches. As period pieces go, the costuming, the scenery, the staging, and the cinematography here are sumptuous. True, the pace is somewhat slow and the tale is intricate and subtle, requiring a repeat viewing, perhaps. However, Merchant and Ivory fans and non-fans will be rewarded by sitting through this timeless and tantalizing tale. If anyone wants to arrange for friends to share a movie evening together, the Bowl will have everyone talking.
one of the few movies I've ever almost walked out of
tritisan28 May 2001
Perhaps I just wasn't in the mood that day. But the thing is, I usually love Merchant Ivory productions and period pieces (well, that period anyway). And I love Uma and Kate.
So how did they manage to make such an excrutiatingly boring film? As the credits rolled, I heard an elderly woman behind me say to her friend, "I think that was the longest movie I've ever seen." And it's only 2 hours and 20 minutes. Pearl Harbor is almost 3 for Peet's sake.
The only reason I stayed til the end was out of a sense of respect for the art of filmmaking. Every film deserves a chance, even Blood Sucking Freaks.
So how did they manage to make such an excrutiatingly boring film? As the credits rolled, I heard an elderly woman behind me say to her friend, "I think that was the longest movie I've ever seen." And it's only 2 hours and 20 minutes. Pearl Harbor is almost 3 for Peet's sake.
The only reason I stayed til the end was out of a sense of respect for the art of filmmaking. Every film deserves a chance, even Blood Sucking Freaks.
A crashing bore
Ron-1814 November 2001
A lengthy piece of eye candy hardly worth the time. My better half fell asleep halfway through. I had to work hard to wake her..since she probably preferred to sleep for the last hour. Beautiful sets and scenery, but that's all it has going for it. Stultifying.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
