Asylum Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Passion knows no boundaries.
Passion. Possession.
A psychiatrist's wife encounters one of her husband's charges, an inmate at a maximum security asylum in the outskirts of London. Her curious attraction to this man, who was found guilty in the murder and disfigurement of his former wife, grows stronger as he's placed on the job to restore the asylum's conservatory, mere steps from her home.
| Natasha Richardson | Stella Raphael |
| Hugh Bonneville | Max Raphael |
| Gus Lewis | Charlie Raphael |
| Ian McKellen | Dr. Peter Cleave |
| Joss Ackland | Jack Straffen |
| Wanda Ventham | Bridie Straffen |
| Sara Thurston | Mrs. Rose |
| Alwyne Taylor | Monica |
| Maria Aitken | Claudia Greene |
| Hazel Douglas | Lilly |
| Anna Keaveney | Mrs. Bain |
| Marton Csokas | Edgar Stark |
| Robert Willox | John Archer |
| Judy Parfitt | Brenda Raphael |
| Sean Harris | Nick |
| David Mackenzie |
6.00 out of 10 (958 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Pretty Good
posted on 22 May 2009I enjoyed this movie. I thought it was good, though not great. The plot was good, and the characters were interesting.This was the story of a wealthy bored housewife in the fifties who meets a patient of the nearby mental hospital. He was on a sort of work/release program and his assignment was to do work on a nursery (I think that's what it was) outside of her families home. She is ahead of her time and is completely put off by being forced by her husband to play her wifely role and conform with the other stepford wives. She has her own mind and opinions. When she encounters this man he represents everything she desires; passion, desire, freedom, and a free spirit. She sees herself as sort of a prisoner, even though HE is the one who is imprisoned. Her affair with him is an expression of desire, freedom, and a chance to break out of her unhappy existence, overbearing husband, and evil mother in law. She does however have a son who she really loves.She decides to run off to be with her lover who managed to escape from the asylum. When she learns of why her lover was institutionalized she is a little unnerved and when he starts exhibiting these reasons she is fearful, but not enough to end her obsession.It seems that the entire affair is orchestrated by one of the doctors who is competing against her husband for the same big promotion and this lover of hers wasn't really an accident so much as he was a plant.The story goes on and gets more complicated, and comes to a climactic ending.All in all a story of life, love, passion, lack of passion, obsession, and how it intoxicates and can destroy you, and those around you. You saw her descent into madness illustrating how her lover became mad in the same way.My problem with this movie is that there were several scenes within the movie that were meant to be serious, and me, and the rest of the audience in the theater where I was were laughing...hard. I don't think it was intended to be funny, but it was. Aside from this I thought it was a good film.
neeewbs!
posted on 18 May 2009Asylum is a dreadful, insulting, misogynistic affair unworthy of cable TV. Do not hesitate to avoid it at all costs, and you will be saved the nausea it induces. After a promising start with auspices of campy intrigue, it becomes apparent that the filmmakers are woefully inept and incapable of crafting characters with real, human characteristics, much less any genuine comic value. What we get are one-dimensional figures with no sense of personal dignity or free-will, making the whole thing dreadfully predictable if not always boring. The story is contrived and makes little sense. I have nothing against contrived and senseless stories when accompanied by redeeming qualities in direction or character building, but herein lies not a single grain of inventiveness. The dialog is sometimes witty, and more often sub-par, formulaic banter that advances our plot but allows no greater insights into the motivations of the characters.By far the most annoying element is the manner in which our wife, played sufficiently by Natasha Richardson, consistently makes the stupidest decisions possible, ruining any semblance of sympathy (absolutely essential for this type of film) she might evoke from the audience, and making a mockery of the central themes and ideas of sexual obsession emerging from female sexual boredom. Imagine Bunuel's Belle de Jour being directed by some fresh-out-of-film-school, Tarantino-fan-boy hack intent on making the next juicy psychological thriller, and you have an idea of what our finished product looks like, with neither legitimate psychological elements, nor any thrills to be found.In summary of plot: Our respectable bourgeois wife and mother of darling boy Charley falls madly in love with an ax-murdering mental hospital inmate, and devolves into something not unlike that stereotypical impulsive and insecure teenage runaway who keeps going back to her sexy and abusive boyfriend for more sex and abuse. Even if our filmmakers knew how to show the confluence of female love and self-harming obsession in an appropriate light, the premise would still be ruinously goofy. I end up wondering if the filmmakers are even trying to mold a sympathetic protagonist, or rather are out to see how dumb and stereotypical they can make the film's only notable female character. So we get a helpless slave to passions, devoid of reason and self interest, and more easily manipulated than a plastic abacus, and bravo, you make James Bond look like Douglas Sirk in its empathy for sexually 'bored' women.Ian McKellan is in this movie too, by the way, playing a psych doctor who amusingly devolves into a completely unbelievable Hannibal Lector type engineer of social disaster, routinely treating his patients like white mice by steering them into the most unhelpful situations, like ballroom dances between fiendish wife-killers and vulnerable wives. Only in bad horror films are the circumstances and settings in which characters meet each others for moments of dramatic intensity so embarrassingly contrived and unlikely.Any time a film brings you to the point where you hope that all the fake and disgusting characters terminate their lives in suicide, you have an indication that the film has achieved nothing of particular value for those who think movies should be about humans. Fortunately, a key character DOES commit suicide, making for a healthy round of laughs from the audience. I won't tell you who, because that would be a spoiler, but if spoiling the ending would save you the price of admission, I'd consider myself a hero.
Austin Movie Show review
posted on 13 Nov 2008The root of the word "hysteria", hyster, comes from the Greek word for womb. So, the psychological disturbance, termed "hysteria" in the 18th century, was originally believed to be a disease of women and resulted from some disturbance in the uterus. What on Earth, you ask, does this have to do with the movie Asylum? The answer is – everything.Natasha Richardson is soulful and sensual as Stella, the wife of a cold and controlling psychologist who has a new job at mental hospital in 1950s London. Stella is bored out of her mind until she meets Edgar, a mental patient who looks just like Russell Crowe, but hotter. Passion erupts, and Stella allows herself to be seduced by Edgar, knowing full well that he's in this hospital for killing and mutilating his wife.Yes, Asylum is a film about mental illness, but it's also a comment on the historical control and oppression of women. The mentally ill were seen as sick, dangerous, and incapable children who needed constant supervision and control. For much of Western history, women have been viewed and treated in much the same way. Is Stella hysterical, or was she simply a lonely and depressed woman driven to the edge by a patriarchal society that tried to keep her quiet, docile, repressed, oppressed, and under control?
Natasha Richardson such a lovely actress
posted on 04 Oct 2008I did not realize Natasha Richardson was the daughter of Vanessa Redgrave and what a lovely, talented actress she is. Sounds just like her mother. Beautiful people. And did anyone notice how the gentlemen in the film, Martin, Ian and Hugh, were marvelous at showing her off? She is, after all, the center of this Anna Karenina-like drama. I don't know why folks are referring to Stella as a "cold" person though. This was not my impression at all, but to each his own. It seemed to me that Stella appeared to be too passionate about her feelings toward the institution and the people around her to the point that she sent everyone around her spinning out of control. She seemed to feel that every person around her had no compassion at all and she was living in an uncaring world. I mean, does anyone like this woman in the movie except her son and Peter? Her own husband treats her with contempt and disgust, so why wouldn't his mother? Even Edgar, right from the start, has no respect, and is unable or refuses to control himself around her, while they are dancing; what was she supposed to do? Slap him in the face and call for the guards to remove him immediately? Probably. But, no, she was a lady and carried on with the dance. And, I guess that's the last time she was a lady because at that point on she basically decided "to heck with this lady business". Which was her downfall. And the whole point of the movie. She broke the patient-doctor's wife trust barrier that is mandatory for every patient's health by allowing herself to become deluded into thinking she could cure a killer (well, to her, he was just a handsome sculptor whose life had been ruined by the hospital) by being with him and, even worse, he should be free. I'm afraid, Peter, Edgar's psychiatrist, was right. She was delusional. So delusional, she was unable to save her beloved son from drowning because she was so lost in her thoughts about Edgar. The shame of it all is that no one in that community of pleasant and cheerful women surrounding her reached out to help (Peter should have asked one of the ladies for help)her. Yes, Peter tried to. And I believe his intentions were good, but he did it the only way he knew how, as an administrator whose entire daily life was surrounded by ill people. He would have no background to deal with a woman, wife and mother, from the "real world", in any other way, except to say "we may have to keep you here" (thinking of her protection). Obviously, Stella took this the wrong way, probably thinking she would be admitted as a patient. I don't think that's what Peter would have done though. As far as Peter being "a queen", it may have been true that Peter was fond of Edgar, but I didn't get the impression that he broke the patient-doctor relationship by having a tryst with him. And Edgar blew him off anyway when he said, "What would she want with an old queen like you?" Peter was amused himself. I mean, these guys knew each other, for 6 years. They were laughing about it. No, I think he was really trying to help Stella by marrying her. He could see she really mucked things up, had nowhere to go, no employment prospects, no son to live for, truly was delusional about Edgar who truly was a danger, yet he, the honorable man that he was, just might be able to come to the rescue and save her. This is why, underneath it all, I think his underlying motive was to help her (he had a need to help) with the possible benefit that maybe they could have a relationship that would warm through his silver years and be good for both of them after all. Yes, even if he was a "queen". And Edgar? He was just an attractive guy who had been and could be a monster, but people were so sparkled by his good looks, they forgot about that "oh so dazzling" monster inside. Anyone heard of a story like that before? I did notice that the movie was dedicated to the patients of an institution, which I thought was very touching and is a clue that the film might have been about caring for the people around you and how hard it is to do that sometimes. Well done.
Movie well worth seeing!
posted on 10 Sep 2008I just saw Asylum last night (it is not actually out yet) and I really enjoyed it. The performances were excellent; as were the settings, the drama and the dialogue. It's complex, unpredictable, intense, beautiful and Gothic. I loved the erotic scenes the most, but the whole movie was brilliant visually and dramatically. There is only one real complaint I have with the movie. At the end of the movie Ian's character does something and I cannot figure out what motivated the character to do this. I personally think the character should not have and would not have done this. The only reason I can see the character doing what he did was for dramatic effect on the audience. Of course, I have not read the book and if I did, this may well shed light on this act. Either way, go see the movie whenever it does come out!
The Filmmakers of Asylum Deserve an Asylum
posted on 18 Jul 2008Well, the summer movie season is definitely on, which means there are lots of lackluster blockbusters and--for those of us that prefer something a bit more intellectual--independent films. "Asylum"--which stars Natasha Richardson as a woman who leaves her phycho-therapist husband for a mental patient and then goes insane herself and Ian McKellen as her lover's doctor--has all the pretentiousness of an intellectual, entertaining independent film but fails to live up to expectations."Asylum," or as I call it "This Summer's Swimming Pool," has all the elements that a good film should have. It has a story about adultery, violence, and insanity, three elements which left alone could create a compelling story and thrown together should be absolutely riveting. The film also features a stellar cast and a noteworthy screenwriter, Patrick Marber, famed for writing the stage and screen versions of "Closer," another film I felt particularly raped out of ten dollars by. In all fairness, I saw "Asylum" at a free sneak-preview show and also had a complimentary glass of wine beforehand, so the experience wasn't a total waste of time or money.The main problems in "Asylum" come from poor writing and directing. Some of the lines in the film were so poorly written and cheesy that the entire audience was laughing hysterically at certain points; definitely not the desired reaction to a dramatic piece. Other scenes seemed barely stitched together or crafted. For example, after building the tension between the woman and the inmate she eventually falls for, the director totally lost all energy and chemistry between them during their first sex scene. The lovemaking between the characters lasted a dismal minute and a half, making me and half the audience laugh. A ninety-year-old man could last longer than that, and if the writer or director doubt that they could have asked Ian McKellen as he was on set.In short, if you're in the mood for a good independent film, I hear "My Date With Drew" and "March of the Penguins" are quite good. But stay away from "Asylum" as the creators of it should have been put in one.
Wild and Tragic Passion
posted on 08 Jul 2008In the 50's, the psychiatrist Max Raphael (Hugh Bonneville) is hired to work as superintendent of an asylum in the outskirts of London, and he moves with his wife Stella Raphael (Natasha Richardson) and their son Charlie (Gus Lewis). Stella has a passionless marriage and is ignored by Max; her boredom changes when her son befriends the handsome inmate Edgar Stark (Marton Csokas), an sculptor that in a crisis of jealousy had killed and disfigured his wife, and that is treated by Dr. Peter Cleave (Ian McKellen), an ambitious psychiatrist that aspired Max's position. During the afternoons, Stella has a hot adulterous affair with Edgar until the day he escapes and their affair is discovered. Stella has to take a decision between her family and her wild passion for Edgar."Asylum" is a sort of combination of "Madame Bovary" with "La Ragazza di Trieste", telling the wild and tragic passion of an ignored and bored woman and her descent into a hell life with a madman. The narrative is sexually tense, and the still sexy Natasha Richardson has a fantastic performance in the role of a woman that becomes obsessed by her destructive desire. Her chemistry with Marton Csokas is amazing, combining tension, madness and eroticism in a stylish cinematography. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Paixão Sem Limites" ("Passion Without Limits")
strong example of self destruction
posted on 21 May 2008Natasha Richardson has really been superb, her performance is in my opinion the surprise of the film; not that she wasn't credited as a valid actress, but her role is played perfectly - she's also surrounded by an excellent cast - and is probably the key point to this gloomy and fascinating story. She dominates the screen by acting as a repressed English wife living in the Fifties and throwing her life out for a crazy love affair. Her personality is depicted by many mood changes and of course by a dose of madness and fits the provocative and intentionally shocking atmosphere. Sex scenes are deliberately strong, somewhat primitive, and saying th finale is disturbing is an understatement.
A good film but......
posted on 11 Apr 2008This is undoubtedly a good film, well acted, good period feel / details etc.. and I certainly enjoyed it, however, by the time I had finished watching it I couldn't help feeling that the it was somewhat out of balance. The last part of the film is all about Cleave getting his revenge on the errant couple because of his jealousy over the fact that Edgar had been stolen away from him. Unfortunately, the dramatic effect is lessened because not enough is made of his relationship with the pair early on in the film. Hints are given that he has a homosexual fixation on Edgar and that he is jealous when Stella starts to get too close to Edgar. Much more should have been made of this aspect to explain his vindictive behaviour towards the pair when he has them in his control at the climax, especially as the scenes where he deals directly with Edgar are very brief. Whether what we see is as a result of severe editing or whether the whole thing could have been written better I don't know. I plan to read the novel to find out whether more is made of this. Worth seeing, but certainly flawed.
ASYLUM is a Masterpiece Worth Visiting
posted on 21 Feb 2008Natasha Richardson gives one of the most brilliant and compelling performances of 2005 in ASYLUM and captivates the audience with the strength of her performance. From the first frame of the film as the car arrives at the Asylum, to her final scene, this film is an Oscar worthy role for Ms. Richardson and the splendid cast which supports her.Ian McKellen is absolutely and totally mesmerizing in the role of the antagonist who attempts to draw Natasha into his web and drive her further away from her husband and lover, played by Marton Csokas, in a role which is both dangerous and powerful at the same time.Patrick Marber's writing with Chrysanthy Balis is so brilliant and clever and moves the film along as you watch the story of Natasha and Marton's attraction for one another become stronger and more desperate for each other.The Asylum set is dark, depressing and the ironic backdrop for this very hot and sexual escapade which devours the lovers and in the end is the perfect location to represent what may happen when a love affair becomes an obsession that endangers one and all.ASYLUM made me think about UNFAITHFUL, and Diane Lane's performance, and for Natasha Richardson, ASYLUM is a masterpiece of acting, writing, and film making, which represents the excellence of the British craft of film production.ASYLUM is a must see for an audience that hungers for excellence in film. Bravo, Natasha!
Children don't forget to collect items of interest in your jum jars
posted on 26 Jan 2008(There are Spoilers) Beautifully photographed in and around the English and Wales countryside "Asylum" starts off innocently enough with psychiatrist Max Rapheal, Hugh Bonneville, getting the job as deputy administrator of this Victorian era mental institution outside of London. Having his ravishingly beautiful wife Stella and 12 year-old son Charile, Natasha Richardson & Gus Lewis, come along with him Dr. Rapheal quickly rises to the top taking over the day to day operations of the institution with the chief administrator old man Jack Straffen, Joss Ackland, announcing his sudden retirement.Everything at first goes smoothly with Max in charge even though his top medical man at the asylum Dr. Peter Cleave, Ian Mckellen, is a bit resentful of him by feeling that he's the man to run the place not Max being that he's been there your years and Max just for a few days. the bitter Dr Cleave may very well have unconsciously let things get out of hand later in the movie with Max's wife Stella and this dangerous inmate convicted wife murderer and artist Edgar Stark, Marton Csokas.Stella feeling that her stuffed shirted and very proper, when it comes to having wild and crazy sex with her, husband Max isn't up to the job of satisfying her most deepest and sinful desires slowly gravities to the very hot for her and earthy, in the sex department, Edger. Stella's uncontrollable desires for the sexy convicted murderer leads to a number of almost unbearable, for the audience to watch without without feeling that they tuned into an X-rated skin-flick, and wild sexual encounters. This leads Stella to leave her husband and young child and shack up with the later fugitive ,from justice and the mental institution, Edger Stark in this deserted downtown London loft.Edger now free and feeling that Stella is addicted to his both talents as an artist and animal-like magnetism begins to treats her with both contempt and insensitivity in being foolish enough to put up with him. Stella for her part takes all the punches and blows that Edger has to offer, or throw at, her but later falls for Edgers, as well as her, roommate at the loft the caring and sensitive Nick, Sean Harris, who want's to be part of a sexual acrobatic manaja twa, with him as the anchorman, with both Stella and Edger. This betrayal on Nick part leads Edgers to savagely beat him up, and then throwing Nick out of the loft altogether, together with Stella for daring to play around behind him back when he isn't looking.It's later when Stella is rescued from Edger by the London Police that an enraged Edger becomes more and more aggressive and tracks her down all the way to this little town in Wales, where Stella was living with both Max & Charlie, only to be captured again by the Wales Police and put back in the mental institution, from where Edger escaped from, now run by Dr. Cleave. Stella meanwhile is slowly suffering from a mental breakdown that will in he end lead her to let her son Charlie drown in a nearby lake, during a school field trip, with her who's supposed to look after him just sitting there on the rocks and ignoring his cries for help, until it was to late, as he went under for the third time.With her now being a totally destroyed woman Stella herself is institutionalized in the asylum and Stella's only hope now is to continue living is to rekindle her relationship with not her kind and caring husband Max, who had since divorced her. Meanwhile that vicious and manipulating psycho Edger Stark, who himself has been committed to the same place as Stella, has gone completely insane, or mute, in his refusing to talk or communicate with anyone there.With Dr. Cleave pulling the stings he not only tells Stella that her lover Edger is also a patient at his institution, which was totally unprofessional for him to do, he also tells, the now very eager to meet Edger, Stella that he'll be at the annual dance sponsored by the asylum and she can be his dance partner. This was a sick and cruel lie or joke on Dr. Cleaves part that, if that's what his reason was in the first place, instead of helping Stella get over her depression it drove her over the top and lead to the tragedy that happened to her at the end of the movie.
A Brilliant Film!
posted on 27 Dec 2007Asylum is a brilliant film about a woman who is obsessed with a crazy man. Natasha Richardson is perfectly casted as Stella. We see her, bored out her mind at the Asylum. Trying to pass time. Then, one day her son introduces her to his new friend, Edgar the gardner. An attraction is ignited. Soon, boredom takes over and is just to much and lust begins taking its place. Stella visits Edgar in the greenhouse he is repairing and they have a brief, but physical, affair. This soon leads to Stella returning for more. The passion is intense, her obsession is intense. This all seems fine to and a life together has become her dream. But after Edgar sneaks out of the Asylum things begin to unwind and the truth uncovered.This is a wonderful movie. Stella has passion and obsession, while Edgar has passion and possession. This interesting combination provides enough material to leave you on the edge of your seat as the movie comes to its end. Perfect acting, especially from Natasha who very well deserved an Oscar for this.
Desperate Housewives with a morbid twist
posted on 11 Dec 2007Romantic thriller Asylum is a fairly intriguing adaptation of a same-titled McGrath novel, rewritten into a script by the man who wrote Closer -- Patrick Marber. Keeping this in mind whilst watching, it is impossible not to notice similarities in writing between the two films. Like Closer, Asylum is very much a study of human relationships and sexuality and both heavily explore the theme of infidelity. Also, Marber seems to have a thing for having his male character pushing up women against a wall and confronting them with their cheating -- often using violence and crude language. Just an observation.Moving away from Closer, in Asylum desperate housewife Stella (Natasha Richardson) is bored with her passionless life and dreads every day of being a good little 1950s wife to her stiff husband, who holds an important position as a doctor at a mental asylum nearby. Strolling her garden with her son one day, Stella meets mental patient Edgar who is working for them as their gardener. There is instant forbidden chemistry and the two engage in an illicit affair that soon blossoms into a passionate romance that is shadowed by more than just lust -- it is the fear of getting caught, there is sexual obsession, morbid jealousy on Edgar's part and a great deal of violence ensuing. It all sounds pretty juicy and it is at times so this isn't the kind of movie you want to watch with your parents.Marton Csokas (whom I haven't seen in much) is perfect for the role of sexy madman Edgar who is so smokin' hot with desire and jealousy that his presence is felt in scenes he isn't even in. Mackenzie shows us the allure of Edgar and make us see why Stella is so attracted to him (in spite of his violent nature) and at the same time makes us see that WE could never be attracted to him. Why not? Because it all comes down to the mental state of Stella and what she needs in her life. I thought the mental state part was handled somewhat sloppily even though we see foreshadowing events. In the end, Asylum is a well-crafted and intense thriller as it succeeds in creating a dark atmosphere throughout and it is, for the most part, well-acted by a respected cast. 7/10
Why could you not control yourself?
posted on 01 Nov 2007It would be unfair to say that this movie is merely mediocre, but there is nothing engrossing in "Asylum" whatsoever. The movie is about the wife of a psychologist who has a sexual relationship with a lunatic inmate in a psychiatric hospital.Stella, the wife of the psychologist, for some strange reason, began having a passionate affair with Edgar, the insane inmate who decapitated his own wife. Both of them kept having a so-called lascivious affair during his working outside her house. As well as telling the story about Stella's unfaithfulness, the movie portrays the same, old cliché of an unhappy married couple, which I found a tad arid and unimaginative. Despite attempting a bit of a twist near the end, the movie gives the impression that the story only was included so as to extend the duration of the film.This movie should have ended after an hour. The director or screenwriter, however, seemed to want to make sure that the viewers grasp the actual main point of the two lovers' situation: why were they easily allowed to engage in mischievous frolics and who was the person who pulled the strings behind the whole story?The protagonists and supporting roles give a real good performance. Ian McKellen, who played Dr. Peter Cleave, performed to his usual standard. The lead characters, played by Natasha Richardson and Marton Csokas were well suited in their roles and Hugh Bonneville, unsurprisingly, depicted a stuffy, loveless psychologist husband in a good way. The cast of this movie, as a whole, is a good cast.As mentioned, the movie, itself, had a sterile plot. There was nothing new in this liaison; this unfaithful tale has been told before, and several times. The movie, ipso facto, failed to impress me. Thanks to all the stars who excellently managed to keep this movie a bit interesting. Without them, I could easily have nodded off. Altogether, they ought to do it again in another movie, with a more riveting story to tell.
A gripping, faultless film.
posted on 20 Oct 2007One of the most relentlessly tense, and intense, films I have ever seen. This film was one of a rare power. The atmosphere, a mix of loneliness, malice, fear, passion, is sustained throughout and it is an incredible achievement, one which I don't have the abilities to properly describe. The emotions generated by the characters feelings, desires and fears and the unique circumstance of an asylum are brought home to the viewer using every facet of the film. I honestly cannot recall the last time I was held in such a vice-like grip by a film, unable to look away, but also scarcely able to bear the tension.This is an amazing achievement by director David MacKenzie. He has allowed and extracted an incredible collection of performances and the film looks beautiful. It is perfectly paced and is never predictable. It is always absorbing.Natasha Richardson's performance is quite simply breathtaking. She genuinely deserves every award going. Although Stella is not an obviously sympathetic character, I just so strongly wanted her to be safe, I was so deeply concerned by her fate. This is what makes the film so engrossing. Richardson ensures that Stella rises above the bored housewife looking for a bit of passion in her life and conveys her conflicting and ever-changing emotions brilliantly. She is ably backed up by a brilliant cast. Martin Czokas is utterly convincing and intriguing as Edgar. He ensures we understand why Stella falls for a man who killed his wife out of jealousy, but retains the characters danger at the same time. Ian McKellen is wonderfully ambiguous and I could probably spend hours just what his character's role in the whole story or what his motive was. Hugh Bonneville brings a perfect mix of reserve and confused anger to his character; Judy Parfitt is near-regal and even the young lad playing Charlie is excellent.I honestly cannot find a bad word to say about this incredible film and only wish I was better able to communicate its achievements.
Emotionally intense
posted on 27 Aug 2007This film is about the wife of a psychiatrist who falls in love with one of the patients in the psychiatric institution.At the start, I thought that the scenes seem disjointed. The scenes were so short that it seems truncated and underdeveloped. However, as the film develops, the film no longer feels this way. Instead, this turns into an advantage because the scenes are only as long as they need to be, and hence the film is tight and intense, and things happen all the time. There is hardly room for the viewers to breathe!This is an intense film with a lot of emotions. We get to see love, hate, jealousy and regret. Both the director and the actors capture the emotions in the most vivid manner that makes me feel for the characters.The ending is rather unexpected, and the reaction of all the parties concerned in the film are also portrayed.
Wanted to enter asylum after this
posted on 13 Aug 2007When a woman in a passionless marriage to a psychiatrist/psychologist, who gets on the path to his dream job in a mental institution/prison, falls for one of the inmates/patients, one can be sure that there'll be trouble afoot. Things of course start off innocently enough but before long this becomes a tale of desire. Imagery abounds in the movie where lightened corridors lead to dark ones further inside the institution and where half dilapidated, half-built buildings signify the fragmented minds contained therein. It's all really for nought though as finely measured performances (particularly from a sexy Richardson and cold McKellan) and fine attention to detail in recreating the 1950's setting of this film belie it's flimsiness. One truly feels the fact that this has been adapted from a book, which I admittedly haven't read, but where vast tracts of text have been laid aside and motivations and emotions which should be evident to the viewer come across as merely random actions and lusts. Plenty is left unexplained and lacking in obviousness as to why it happened, particularly Richardson's character's past. By the end, which itself holds no binding impact due to all the character's estranged positions from the viewer, I was really wondering why it had been made and who had paid money for it. If you do like the book, I would recommend that you stick to it as there is no way that this adaption could be doing justice to anything.
are you kidding ?
posted on 14 Jul 2007i have seen this movie and its OK but far away from a good one.its little bit about love ,insanity and this is all have seen this movie and its OK but far away from a good one.its little bit about love ,insanity and this is all.i have seen this movie and its OK but far away from a good one.its little bit about love ,insanity and this is all.i have seen this movie and its OK but far away from a good one.its little bit about love ,insanity and this is all.i have seen this movie and its OK but far away from a good one.its little bit about love ,insanity and this is all.PS if you don't have anything to do...watch it !
A thunderbolt
posted on 12 Jul 2007Anyone calling Natasha Richardson's Stella Rafael a "sexually bored housewife" is Not Paying Attention. What happens to her and to Marton Csokas' Edgar is a thunderbolt--a life changing charge that flashes through them both and changes them forever. They have much more in common with Heathcliff and Cathy (of "Wuthering Heights") than any other lovers I've seen on screen in the 21st century: consumed, obsessed to the point of (and beyond) madness in one another, not out of selfishness but out of a cosmic passion that takes them both utterly by surprise. Certainly, Edgar is a pathologically jealous man: mad, bad and dangerous to know. But madmen can fall in love, too, and he is taken entirely unawares by his passion for the icy, closed-off Stella. What seems on the surface to be a re-enactment of "Lady Chatterly's Lover" turns into the darkest of passion plays. Neither the writer nor the director succumbed to the temptation to make this a sentimental romance or a soap opera; these are dangerous people making dangerous choices, and sometimes dangerous, even tragic mistakes. Like Heathcliff and Cathy, there is no way this story is going to have a happy ending, or these people anything but a tortured denouement. But they are fascinating to watch while they do it.Marton Csokas absolutely burns through the screen, all fire and smoky, mad eyes to counter Richardson's ice cool yet profoundly moved Stella. Together they heat up to the boiling point and spill over into an explosive combination of lust, love, and tragedy. Ian McKellan's smirking Peter the Freudian is wonderful as the manipulative puppet-master who is not really as clever as he thinks he is. Alas, Hugh Bonneville plays Stella's husband as a one-dimensional cartoon. It's only partly his fault, the character is written that way, but he brings neither subtlety nor nuance to the role. The movie might have been better if McKellan had been cast as the husband, and Bonneville as the shrink. Neither of these characters, however, can hold the screen against the incandescent Edgar and Stella, right up to a surprising and inevitable ending. Even if you condemn them for the disaster they create, you know why they create it. Excellent and disturbing. Highly recommended.
Love-->obsession-->insanity
posted on 15 Jun 2009Two people are caught in a British insane asylum, a woman who's married to one of its doctors, and a patient who brutally murdered his wife. The two, once finding each other, are instantly attracted to each other and begin to obsess over each other, before it culminates in his escape and her following. But their attempted escape from the asylum is largely insuccessful as the strict order of the loveless world around them always tries to tie them down and their degressive control over their own emotions severs the bonds between them.So basically we have a story about love that turns into obsession that turns, literally, into insanity, a theme I am quite intrigued with and that was explored certainly to surprising degrees here. The movie wastes no time in foreshadowing all the events that will happen, along with making quite clear in the first few moments of screen time that yes, in fact, Stella is a de facto inmate of the asylum. So while it wouldn't necessarily be subtle--in fact seeming to race ahead at moments when one expects the exposition to be more gradual--it still contains a vested interest in showing just how hard it can be sometimes to separate desire from insanity.And maybe, to a degree, it's so blatantly three-act, and follows a sense of rigid literature that it is somewhat clichéd in its structure, but for that it can still be enjoyed as a theatre, to sit back and focus more on the acting and just how the story progresses, not where it's going to progress which should be quite obvious to any viewer from the beginning.--PolarisDiB