I would have given this movie 6 stars if it hadn't spent so much of its time on the boring modern day researchers in the story. I have twice tried to read this book. The first time I returned it to the library almost entirely unread after losing patience with it quickly. The second time after being pressed to try it again by a friend who admired it, I tried harder but still gave up quite quickly. Frankly, I found it boring, wordy, and tedious in spite of an interesting theme. The writer just couldn't hold my attention.
I like period drama which is partly why I watched the movie, the other reason being the actors include three favourites of mine, Jeremy Northam. Trevor Eve and Toby Stephens. Regrettably, Stephens' potentially very interesting part as a villain, though starting well, ultimately is small and towards the end more or less forgotten. Eve similarly. Northam playing the Victorian poet would be expected to have a major amount of screen time along with his beloved, but this doesn't happen. The director concentrates on the most boring characters in the book, the two dreary modern characters plugging away interminably at their research and sparring with each other until one hardly cares what they find out or what they feel about one another as they simply aren't exciting characters.
I think my reaction clearly indicates this movie isn't as good as it could have been. A good movie should hold the attention even if not featuring all that much the actors you came to it for. So who's at fault - the story, the actors playing the modern researchers, or the director? I think the director. He had the opportunity to make a better adaptation of the book or to divide attention more fairly between the characters, and chose not to.
But of course it depends on your point of view. I've no interest at all in the modern researchers. Others may feel the Victorian story is a minor issue and the emotional interactions of the two modern researchers are all that really matters.
I like period drama which is partly why I watched the movie, the other reason being the actors include three favourites of mine, Jeremy Northam. Trevor Eve and Toby Stephens. Regrettably, Stephens' potentially very interesting part as a villain, though starting well, ultimately is small and towards the end more or less forgotten. Eve similarly. Northam playing the Victorian poet would be expected to have a major amount of screen time along with his beloved, but this doesn't happen. The director concentrates on the most boring characters in the book, the two dreary modern characters plugging away interminably at their research and sparring with each other until one hardly cares what they find out or what they feel about one another as they simply aren't exciting characters.
I think my reaction clearly indicates this movie isn't as good as it could have been. A good movie should hold the attention even if not featuring all that much the actors you came to it for. So who's at fault - the story, the actors playing the modern researchers, or the director? I think the director. He had the opportunity to make a better adaptation of the book or to divide attention more fairly between the characters, and chose not to.
But of course it depends on your point of view. I've no interest at all in the modern researchers. Others may feel the Victorian story is a minor issue and the emotional interactions of the two modern researchers are all that really matters.