Basil (1998) User Reviews

Nothing wrong with this movie

[Ramuna · 7/10 · 11 January 2002]

It's a tempting story about lust, deception, revenge and obsession. Nothing's wrong with this movie, the three eye catching main cast were doing fine for the film, but the story itself just lack the passion of becoming a powerful drama.

After the fast and intriguing pace from the midway of the movie until the edge, the movie was washed off by a poorly executed climax which made it ended up so cliché. It's not a mainstream ending but at the same time looks so lame and motiveless. Too bad.

But again I think this is still a better romantic thriller film than most teenage romantic movie you'll find everywhere this day. But it was surely a movie only to watch when you're in the mood.

I watch everything with Claire Forlani in it...

[Starbuck-13 · 5/10 · 13 October 2000]

... so I watched this one too. Well, it wasn't all that bad, but truth to be told, it wasn't that special as well.

The actors, not only incredibly gorgious Claire but also Jared Lehto (who is developing into being a very fine mime), know how to do their job and so the lack of originality in the story does not hurt too much. Still, I think the big drama and the element of surprise come short and the solution of the plot somehow seems to have been there before...

Still, time is never wasted when perfect beauty is displayed. Claire Forlani, have a great career!

..they are pretty good most times, but not always

[bjarias · 5/10 · 15 February 2017]

A twenty-six year old Claire Forlani might be one of the better reasons to give this film a try. But it's not enough to make you stick with it till the very end. For half way through you may become really challenged, and begging to want to abandon it, if you have not already. Just because it is a period piece, for those partial to them, it's not anywhere near one of better quality. Story-line and acting are just too weak, and it's believed the former detracts from the latter. Except possibly in the one actor's case, for try as I want, I've yet to see her perform with above average ability in any production to date. She's beautiful for sure.. to this day, and most especially here in her late twenties. She makes a great model, as for acting, she's no Jessica Biel.

Powerful Collins novel watered down; good but lacklustre

[hlogan2 · 25 October 2002]

WARNING: there could be SPOILERS ahead: it's difficult to make my comments without perhaps giving something away. But I'll try not to!

This is a reasonably interesting film that unfortunately suffers from deviating too wildly from the original plot by the Victorian writer, Wilkie Collins. To modern audiences this film may seem slow or without much point; a shame, since the Collins novel it is based on is extremely exciting (Collins was an unorthodox writer, considered very shocking by many people of his day - far more explicit re. violence and sex than say, Dickens).

Jared Leto stars as a young and naive aristocrat ('Basil')who suffers from having his friendships and imagination restrained by an overbearing and class-conscious father. He longs for excitement. When love arrives, he is overwhelmed, but learns that passion and duplicity bring suffering and dreadful consequences. Basil will learn that the world and other people are seldom as innocent as they seem. Basil is placed in situations where, as the film's jacket says, he has literally 'everything to lose'. Claire Forlani plays the woman with whom Basil falls in love. Forlani is a fine actress, but unfortunately isn't given much to do here. The luminosity, vivaciousness, and little-girl behaviour (which makes Basil love her) that her character has in Collins's book, just isn't there. The remarkable way in which Basil meets her in the novel is completely missing. Christian Slater also appears as Mannion, whom Basil befriends, but again the film script has entirely altered how he and Basil meet, and changes many dynamics of their relationship: he becomes Basil's friend, rather than an enigma Basil is intrigued with; not exactly Collins's intention. The wonderful Derek Jacobi also appears, but again isn't given much great material to work with. He remains a very important character but his behaviour and personality also differ from in Collins's 'Basil'; some important details are completely changed. Basil's relationship with 'sister' Clara also changes. Watchers could still enjoy this quite thoroughly if they don't previously know the book. Those, however, who know the book, will probably be disappointed. Modern films generally tend to try to intensify the plots of classic novels when they adapt them; this film instead dampens Collins's plot. The Collins book is considerably more intense: he was one of the best plotters in Victorian fiction, and great at character psychology. Clearly the intent here was not a faithful adaptation, but I see little reason why the director and screenwriter here didn't keep his major plot points.

Those who like this film should perhaps read the book: they will then know a far better version of the story, especially a far more powerful version of Mannion (I thought Slater miscast, or his role basically wrecked). Basil is meant to be naive and honest, but too often in this film we see him doing or saying things that don't make sense or go too far (again, deviations), yet Leto isn't as intense in his portrayal of Basil as I would like (Basil's mental instability is mostly missing); still, he is easy to like, and certainly remarkable-looking. He is the best among the cast; the others are not particularly engaging. The scriptwriting and editing, as other reviewers noted, are not so good, but the film looks beautiful and has good locations and period detail. A 6.5 out of 10.

Sober, if deferential

[khatcher-2 · 6/10 · 5 February 2004]

To talk of the Victorian novel, and any film derived from them, generally imposes the theme of the sociological novel: these works were frequently what might be called a social critique, unbehest by the landed gentry of the times, ignored by the reigning sovereign, much encouraged by the publishing houses, lapped up by the intelligencia of the public at large, but in general lacking the more profound humane sentiments of, say, the Russian novel. The result is sometimes rather sanctimonious, at others preachy, not to mention parsimonious. Wilkie Collins embarked on such ideas, and found fame with his two most well-known novels - `Moonstone' and `The Lady in White'. However, his themes suffer from certain overladen stylism, absent from novels by his very good friend Charles Dickens.

Thus any serious attempt at transposing such works to the screen is bound to bump into all kinds of problems; however, Radha Bharadwaj resolves most of them with a certain degree of panache, such that the end result in this film is more or less acceptable. There is that sense of proprietary so correct to the times in question which pervades the essence of capturing those times of social inequality, rule by power, the burgeoning heavy hand of the upper-class bourgoisie, the India-rich dwellers of mansions in London and the far-flung provincial counties. But it must be said, Wilkie Collins drove himself to his own despair, and this is clearly shown in his novels, though not so clearly perceived in this film. He tried the Russian technique, thus missing out on the Dickensian style - much more to the point - incorporating ideas which could only come to fruition a little later by such novelists as Joseph Conrad. If you like, he was the masculine equivalent of Virginia Woolf who also drove herself to despair and attempted suicide. But do not compare this film with the recent `The Hours' (q.v.), nor even with `The Portrait of a Lady' (q.v.), Jane Campion's exquisite film based on the novel by Henry James.

Notwithstanding (how good that word sounds in Dickens' novels!) the film has its interest; not necessarily because either Christian Slater or Jared Leto have anything special to offer on which to comment, as they are both merely acceptable, nor for Claire Forlani's part, nor for yet another appearance by yet another member of the Bonham-Carter family - in this case Crispin, cousin to Helena. The film stands up for its merits as a carefully directed and produced period piece which is nicely photographed, within and without London. How much of the film is made in Cornwall or even Yorkshire will have to be guessed.

An interesting film for its story-line, with not much real tangible evidence as to the Victorian scene, but which worked hard to transport the book to visual contemplation.

No Brits

[kelly-gaudreau · 6/10 · 22 April 2021]

For a film set in England, neither of the two leading actors were British. This made the movie difficult to watch.

My Goodness this is bad on all levels

[jmckinzey-26860 · 1/10 · 3 February 2019]

I'm guessing the people who like this are simply satisfied to stare at Jared Leto for an hour or so, because I can't image anyone likes it for the story. You can immediately see why the Director never made another film. I quit at the 40 minute mark because this film wasn't in the "so bad its' good" category, it was just bad.

Its really hard to know where to begin with describing how bad this film is, since its bad in every respect, though I guess it was in focus, so cheers to the Camera operator I guess. The dialogue is atrocious, the lighting is awful, the transitions between scenes is jokingly bad, and the acting.... Oh my, where to start.

I rarely criticize production design but it can't go unmentioned for this film. There is an opening voice over about how the mansion is run down, and it looks like the Production designer had 5 dollars and about 5 minutes to make the mansion look old.

To be fair, a lot of what makes this film laughably bad is because of what must've obviously been severe budget constraints, as it had scenes that clearly needed many extras, but only had a few to fill the background.

But you can't blame lack of money for bad dialogue, bad acting, and some atrociously bad accent work by Leto and Slater. I've seen those actors be good in other things, so I have to put a lot on the really bad dialogue they had to speak. It's George Lucas Phantom Menace level of bad dialogue.

I'll stop now, because this movie deserves no more of my life or your time spent reading this review.

Cheers.

Not Terrible

[dansandini · 6/10 · 15 August 2019]

Slow to start and then the rush to the end. The acting certainly is on mark and the writing not altogether terrible. Basil's life is saved by a stoke of unbelievable luck but not is all as it seems ...

Stop!

[my_movies_and_me · 2/10 · 8 September 2006]

Please take my advice and don't subject yourself to the horror of watching this movie. I suppose the cover should have warned me, but I thought the adequate cast might save it from the first impression the DVD cover made. I was wrong. There were multiple scenes that I cringed at the dialogue and the acting was horrible. I generally like Jared Leto's choice of roles, but this was a major blunder. It just didn't suit him. In his defense, though, I don't think the script could have been saved by anyone. Basically it was a dismal, fragmented movie that lacked flow from short unimpressive scenes that served no purpose but to hold the frail story together. But if you'd rather, see for yourself. Maybe I missed the deeper meaning... :)

Potential, but poorly done.

[qbraco · 1/10 · 20 October 1999]

I watched this film at home this week. Made it through the whole movie without falling asleep. This film has the worst editing job I have ever seen. Really chopped up. The cast was good, the acting creditable, even the story line had potential but the directing was awful. Someone took a good story, some great actors and made a really poor movie. Too bad.

Bizarre and unexpected - worth a watch

[phd_travel · 8/10 · 1 October 2012]

This movie is based on Wilkie Collins' (author of Moonstone and Woman int White) little known 2nd novel "Basil". The story is an unexpected combination of a Victorian Gothic novel with lust, passion, betrayal, revenge and more. It comes across as more sensational and modern than one would expect from a story from the mid 1800s. I think the screenplay expanded upon the novel. The plot twists are quite startling and some aspects of the story don't make that much sense in a but it's a suspenseful and satisfying yarn to watch on screen.

The filming is quite well done with atmospheric locations and sets. The cast is interesting with Jared Leto and Christian Slater both playing English characters with accents that aren't quite spot on of course. Half Italian Claire Forlani plays an English lady although she has a slightly Mediterranean look.

Instead of watching another adaptation of Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights give this one a chance.

Literature Hasn't Been Slaughtered, But A Middling Adaptation

[Heres_Johny · 4/10 · 6 September 2016]

*Minor Spoilers*

Basil, starring Jared Leto and Christian Slater, isn't a movie most film-buffs will recognize. Even fewer people know that it was an adaptation of a nineteenth century novel by English novelist Wilkie Collins, which – unlike the vast horde of ignoramuses who also never saw the movie – I happen to have read.

So if you're wondering whether I'm gonna be that guy, the answer is 'Heck yes', but with a crucial caveat.

Most filmmakers, tasked with converting a novel from the 1800's to a film palatable to today's viewers, take the low road. The easy way out. They "Bay-ize" plots, modernize characters, and in doing so strip the themes entirely. The end result is at best a somewhat decent movie which shares many similarities to an amazing novel, but with a lot more zing. Sometimes they just literally throw in explosions, or zombies, or whatever, which if you ask me (nobody has) might be the better way of going about it. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, at the very least, does not purport to be a straight take on Austen, nor does it affect any high-class bearing.

That isn't what happened with Basil. They either didn't change enough, or changed too much, without adding anything useful. It's a failure in adaptation, since they're taking a novel several hundred pages long and condensing it into ninety minutes. Obviously some fundamental changes are required to trim the fat and focus on the meat of the story. If you don't, you end up with the '98 adaptation of Basil: a flat, obtuse take on nuanced literature (whose themes, quite frankly, didn't have a lot to offer your average 21st century moviegoer in the first place).

The eponymous hero is played by Jared Leto, of recent (undeserved) acclaim for his minuscule role in the latest Superhero crapfest, Suicide Squad. The first sequence, however, features Basil's boyhood and a series of traumas brought on by his over-bearing aristocratic father. The father's shown browbeating any sign of creativity or independence from Basil, culminating when he exiles and disowns Basil's older brother for the crime of loving a woman below his station.

The very next scene reveals his hypocrisy and the root of his prejudice: yup, you guessed it, fornicating with one of the serving girls out on the manor grounds.

By the time Jared Leto steps into Basil's shoes it's obvious he's on the path to rebellion. A chance meeting with mysterious John Mannion from London (Christian Slater) kicks Basil's rebellion into full gear. John introduces Basil to a common man's world, an experience utterly foreign to the sheltered nobleman which culminates when John introduces Basil to Julia Sherwin (Claire Forlani). Despite her cold reception, Basil's instantly infatuated by Julia, and to add fuel to the narrative fire, she's the daughter of a London merchant. Sure, her house makes mine look like a refrigerator box in an alleyway, but a London merchant is to an aristocrat what Burger King is to a five-star steakhouse. The forbidden love blossoms over the course of several scenes, delving into a world of intrigue and betrayal which Basil's father wouldn't have approved of even if it was all roses and daisies, which it's anything but. Julia Sherwin, one way or another, is bound to be his ruin.

(Sidenote: I racked my brain for a specific example in the above metaphor, but I guess I'm just a classless pauper: the nicest steak-house I've ever set foot in was a particularly well-appointed Longhorn with a killer porterhouse.) Radha Bharadwaj ambitiously produced, wrote, and directed Basil, and I think it's obvious he was in over his head. They Bay-ize some of it, sure, replacing a few of the novel's turning points and climaxes with scenes more likely to appeal to the modern audience who won't settle for anything less than over-the-top. But it's not as if Bharadwaj butchered the thing; I can't point to any single example so egregious as to claim they've fundamentally, irreparably ruined the story.

What Basil lacks is depth and nuance. Wilkie Collins worked in the realm of literary prose, utilizing a set of authorial tools entirely separate from those in film. It might as well be the difference between a water-color painting and *opera*. So much of the nuance of character and story is lost when it's compressed into a film of any length, and Bharadwaj's take is continually flat. The relationship between Basil and John Mannion – despite the underrated Slater's noble attempt to carry the weight of the entire film on his shoulders – ends up looking more like a Buddy Movie or Bromance in the first half of the flick, abandoning novel-Basil's infatuation with a more enigmatic John Mannion.

Furthermore, Wilkins was a master of the serial and is often cited as singlehandedly inventing the modern detective story. His style is apparent even in a novel as early in his career as Basil, relying on chapter-by-chapter suspense and all the hooks and cliffs you'd expect of his more famous contemporary, Dickens. There's nothing about any single scene in Basil's adaptation which hooked me or left me on a cliff; it drags ponderously, even for a historical drama. The twist is predictable even to someone unfamiliar with the work.

I can't call the movie a total fail. Certain audiences would eat it up; it would probably do well on Lifetime or Hallmark. But I, if you couldn't tell, am not the kind of person who'd be caught dead watching anything on Lifetime.

So no, it's not 'The Hobbit' (ugh). Cherished literature hasn't been slaughtered, here. It's a decent movie on its own right. The costumes, scoring and cinematography are all proficient, if not engaging.

Yet in the end it's just another middling conversion, and that's probably the best I can say of it.

An English Soap Opera

[Scott-166 · 9 June 1999]

"Basil" is a film that has all the ingredients of a classic soap opera. There's plenty of love deception, jealousy, a rich man who falls in love with a poor girl etc. But that's not one more and forgettable soap opera like the others. First of all, the film is based on a novel written by Wilkie Collins, one of the most important English writers of the 19o. century (a great friend of Charles Dickens) and that makes a great difference. On the other hand, this film has a nice direction and a fine cast, never sliding in hollow sentimentalism. Maybe the only negative point is that the plot is too predictable but even though you can still have a good time watching the film.

Clearly not impressed.

[alsotoo · 2/10 · 4 August 1999]

The movie was boring and predictable, couldn't even finish it. Slater was not particularly inviting, the aristocrat had no personality, had no sexual excitement, was difficult to care who ended up sleeping with anyone since the plot was easily discerned after 20 minutes or so

Made for TV with a budget and script to match.

[DrChristers · 2/10 · 29 January 2018]

Very disappointing. The script suffers from extreme tell-a-life-story-in-two-scenes-itus leaving any tension or drama on the cutting room floor. Slater and Leto, who can normally make the best of bad writing, appear wooden and passionless. And Claire Forlani, who requires the intense drama of CSI to evoke any feeling, is preposterous as the love interest. One cannot believe she would tempt Leto to risk tuppence let alone his entire fortune, family and lifestyle. Not even the mighty weight of Derek Jacobi can make his character convincing. There is no mystery and no intrigue, which leaves the viewer with no care for what happens next. Dreary mood lighting supposedly meant to make the film dark, merely lends credence to the assumption that a minimal budget meant they couldn't afford professional lighting. With so many other excellent period dramas available, it is little wonder this movie ended up in the bargain bin.

Disappointing

[IrisNo11 · 4/10 · 17 April 1999]

I was disappointed in this film. I was hoping for something interesting or remarkable to happen later on, but it really didn't happen. Yet I do give credit for Jared Letto. He did a great job in this film, but the film itself is so boring!

Why didn't they release this in theaters?!

[Emily01 · 10/10 · 30 November 1998]

I watched this movie on AMC yesterday afternoon. I was glued to my television set for 2 hours. I didn't move a muscle. I must say that most of my faith in Christian Slater is restored. His work in this film is superb. I attempted to explain this movie to someone, but it was just too complicated. The story was excellent! Unfortunately, this film wasn't released in theaters. I certainly would have paid $6.50 to see it again.

WHY DO THIS MOVIE?

[deesestone · 2/10 · 20 March 2020]

This movie came off as pretty bizarre. Horny young man falls madly in love with dumb but hot girl after being introduced to her by Christian Slater, playing his usual role as a second rate version of Jack Nicholson. Without getting into the strange plot which seems to make no sense at all, suffice it to say that its strangeness can be explained after reading the book. The plot of the book is a potboiler aimed at Victorian audiences who no doubt were shocked by the sexual innuendos (way too subtle for a modern audience) and is also bizarre but much less so than the movie which has adapted it presumably for more liberated modern audiences and in doing so makes it stupid stupid stupid. And strips it of any depth or complexity that the book has. The liberties taken with the book are astounding -- and my question is WHY was this movie made?????

Very enjoyable!

[spacey-8 · 11 December 1998]

I must admit, Jared was the hook, but it was the story that kept me interested. Not quite 'Dangerous Liaisons' or 'The Remains of the Day', but this film was very enjoyable. Jared Leto and Christian Slater both did fine jobs playing Brits and I would recommend this film to anyone.

Boring and predictable

[louispeter-23057 · 2/10 · 10 January 2021]

Huge disappointment; stopped watching after a half hour. Derek Jacobi is good in most anything he does. Jared's British accent was HORRIBLE. Glad he has had some amazing roles after this one.

Community College Film School attempt at Merchant/Ivory

[timoirish34 · 1/10 · 25 October 2023]

This would be in the running for my "Worst Films Ever" list if it only had tried a bit harder. As it is, it's an endless, sleepy affair starring my two favorite bad actors: Christian "The Cop Biter" Slater (woodenly delivering his lines in an undefinable accent) and Jared "Short Bus" Leto, who acts as if he's recently experienced a serious head trauma. Long a favorite of late, late nights on the cable movie channels, this stone of a film sinks, well, like a stone. Unsure of its location and time period (maybe London, perhaps in the 1870's, 80's or 90's), Basil plays like the fan fiction of a thirteen-year-old girl with a limited imagination. Avoid this and read a good book. You'll thank me.

I give "Basil" an A+++++++++++++

[cocokat_89 · 10/10 · 28 September 2006]

I give the movie "Basil" a very high 10+. I love time period films and think "Basil" is a wonderful movie. Jared Leto was fantastic in this movie. I love all of his work on the big screen, but I have to say that His portrayal as Basil in my opinion is one of his finest performances. This movie is not boring. It has a wonderful cast, wonderful story line, and the events that unfold, to a good watcher, will unfold from the very beginning. Jared Leto, Christian Slater, and Clair Forlani are just magnificent in this film. It's very tastefully done, and the scenery is beautiful. Proper in it's time, but still society itself was not at all proper. Aristicratic life was very demanding, and to this day, still is. In the end, we are all the same no matter what class we are brought up in. I congratulate the performances in this movie, and I would love to see more movies like "Basil" on the big screen. I highly recommend "Basil" to anyone who loves period films. Thank you.

Class

[tedg · 27 December 2004]

Yet another example that just plodding through a novel has little to do with making a tenable film. This one just thrashes through the story with nary a nod to cinematic necessities.

But it does have Derek Jacobi, an actor with so much presence it almost makes the trip worthwhile. Derek knows how to create a character that is in two minds at once. That way we know we have something to recall when new information is revealed.

Everyone else seems to lack direction.

The original story had promise because of the revealing layers and plots. But it is all so drearily presented one hardly cares.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

The Dark Side of Copperfield

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 6 February 2013]

Jared Leto plays the title role in a film adaption of a novel by Wilkie Collins, not a guy terribly known to today's audiences, but who had a good popularity in his day. He was a good friend of Charles Dickens and this film Basil is kind of like a dark version of David Copperfield.

Derek Jacobi lends his presence to this film as Leto's very proper Victorian gentleman father whose strict standards cause him to lose the affections of both his sons who grow up to be Ralph Bonham Carter and Leto. As a young kid Leto catches his father en flagrato with another woman so when his beloved and sickly mother dies, Leto is rather inclined to do like Dad does, not like he says.

All of which makes him putty in the hands of Christian Slater who has a deep seated hatred for Jacobi and you have to see the film to know what it's about. Content yourselves with what I've already told you Jacobi and you can figure it out. He and his girlfriend Clara Forlani set young Leto up good and proper and he becomes the second son to have been cast from his father and Bonham Carter was similarly thrown out.

Like David Copperfield we see the protagonist over the years grow from little kid to full adulthood and like Copperfield, Basil gets involved with two women, the second being the one that counts in the person of Rachel Pickup, a young girl taken in by Jacobi and whom he grew up with. But some truly dark impulses involving sex and infidelity that Dickens would not have explored for a protagonist of one of his novels are present in Basil and in Christian Slater's character of John Mannion.

Leto and Slater are present in this British Victorian novel clearly for American box office. Still both do an excellent job with Slater not even attempting a British accent in the tradition of Clark Gable from Mutiny On The Bounty. Basil is not in the league with that MGM classic, but it stands well on its own merits.

Great

[LuvinRob · 29 November 1998]

I saw this movie today on Romance Classics channel and it was great! A wonderful chick flick with 2 sexy men, Jared Leto and Christian Slater. I love the twist on the movie and the ending. Go see it.