ignazia

I did not know that this was an adaptation from a book and therefore had no expectations. I picked up this movie hoping it would be a satisfying romance - sadly, the film did not live up to the DVD summary text. Maybe it was the adaptation as a screenplay that made this story seem shallow and fantastical. To echo a previous comment I felt no chemistry between the 2 main characters (Claire Bloom and Daniel Lavoie). I have admired Claire Bloom's work for many years but she was given nothing to work with in this screenplay - just an air of resignation and acceptance.

***Here Be Spoilers*** Eve's first appearance is as the abused and worn-out spouse of a boorish semi-invalid. She is nothing more to him than an unpaid caregiver. Her pension cheque arrives which prompts her to quit her affluent yet tedious life where she is taken for granted, pack 2 bags and her Bose(TM) radio, and catch a cab into the city. Despite giving all her youth and energy to her spouse, children and home (per a traditional 50s-style marriage) her husband immediately closes their joint bank account so she is left without financial support other than her pension.

Then follows a sequence of events that just seem too good to be true. With no destination in mind she happens to exit her taxi right outside a boarding house where there happens to be a vacancy. The landlady happens to have a heart of gold and Eve is able to move into a fully furnished, upholstered and kitted-out bed-sit. Despite it being on the ground floor with an external door there are no bugs, pests, damp or rodents inside the suite. In any other house (minus living room furniture) this space would be classified as the "mud room".

She soon crosses paths with other occupants of the apartment building but they are just background movement without history or interaction except for the gay couple who have a public break-up on the staircase. Then one of the other residents gets so drunk he passes out outside her room. Hey presto - potential love-interest. He turns out to be an Eastern European intellectual who has run away from the regime of his country of origin leaving behind family and friends. His close relations are renowned artists, he can play piano, is a fantastic cook and can turn his hand well to anything. (In reality his country's government would likely be applying punitive measures to his relatives for his defection and his children would be held back from any career they may wish to follow.)

Eve is able to subsist on funds from pawning her jewellery, and is disappointed to discover that a name-brand wristwatch - a gift from her husband - is a knock-off and practically worthless. A rather telling indication of their relationship. Then, hey presto, while scavenging household items put out on the street by other home-owners something catches her eye. She cleans it up and it turns out to be a sculpture by a well-known artist. Her pawn-shop owner friend is persuaded to display it prominently in his shop window, gets it assessed and, hey presto, it's worth something. (The monetary value is never disclosed in the dialogue but it seems to be rather a lot because they celebrate with champagne.) ***End of Spoilers***

By this time I had become bored with the story. There are no highlights, no periods of desperation, no joy, no misery - just banality. Character backstories are minimal or non-existent and Eve's physical appearance never suffers from her lack of funds for maintenance. She never goes hungry, when she catches a cold she soon recovers, she seems to find exactly what she needs when she needs it, etc. etc. When she meets her grand-daughter or son there is no real warmth in their interactions. Her son tries to guilt her into feeling sorry for the selfish husband - who has already imported a younger fresh model as his new caregiver and appears to be much more agile than he ever was when Eve was living with him. Her best friend (played by Susannah York) is the only bright spark in this dismal film and when it ended my immediate thought was "Is that all?".

The latter part of season 1 of this TV series was shown as a mini-marathon over the New Year holiday. After seeing the trailers and missing the original showing I was all geared up for several hours of wonderful fantasy.

What a let-down. The premise is good but it lacks something - like a cake that looks mouth-watering but was made without an essential ingredient. The only character that fully embraces his fairy-tale self and 'real-life' alter ego is Rumplestiltskin/Gold. All the other characters just float through their dialogue with no real sense that they are committing to either of their characters. Jennifer Morrison and Jared Gilmore try hard but don't get much help from the rest of the cast which makes everything they do fall flat.

Not a show I will be watching again hence the 1/10.

Throughout these series of programs I had the strangest feeling that I was watching episodes of Blue Peter (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051257/). I kept expecting Auntie Val Singleton to spring out from behind a tree advising you "not to try this at home".

Having never been a David Jason fan I had a few qualms about the voice-over but agree with a previous contributor that the timbre of Jason's voice does not work very well for narration. (Sorry Del-boy.) Most of the budget of this production was obviously allocated to the CGI. The only "actor" who feigned any real interest was Marven with his matter-of-fact and, at times very relaxed, attitude about potentially risking his life among prehistoric carnivorous beasts - most of which would have seen him as a tasty morsel of protein to supplement their meagre diets.

I admit that it must be difficult acting for Green-Screen but everyone else appeared to be either confused or displaying tongue-in-cheek humour about what was happening which didn't help with the credibility.

Final analysis - fun for the kids to watch.

Dr. Jonathan Miller has been a long-time favourite of mine since his "Fringe" days and his breadth of academic knowledge and plain life experience continues to astound me. He has qualifications not only in medicine but also in the arts - for a full bio I suggest a visit to his entry in Wikipedia. Quite an exceptional person.

In this 3-part program Dr. Miller presents a logical and eminently interesting train of thought about basic beliefs and how people in positions of power have used the general populace's need for mental direction as a method of control. This is most obvious with regard to most religious practices. To those of us who have long questioned the established modes of religion this comes as a breath of fresh air. To be sure Dr. Miller's relaxed manner and soporific vocal tones can cause one to drift into a dream-like state but the facts are presented calmly and without confrontation for us to ponder.

I can't help but notice that this show has been twice broadcast during the tiny hours of the morning - hidden away unless you look for it. I am currently watching a repeat showing on PBS/KCTS (Wednesday 1.30 PST). Catch it if you wish to peek out of your paradigm..

Not to be confused with the movie "Castaway" 1986 - from the autobiographical book by Lucy Irvine about her 12 month contract with Gerald Kingsland to live with him on a deserted Pacific island.

** Spoilers herein **

Tom Hanks gives a laudable performance - especially as he made the effort to gain and lose a vast amount of weight to give a more accurate representation of his physical condition. However, the tooth extraction scene left me chuckling. The way he did it would have broken his jaw and he would probably have died from starvation as a consequence.

My main issue is with the character of Kelly - the fiancée. The time-line is that he disappeared for four years and upon his return finds her married to a smooth-talking, good-looking dentist with an infant of at least 6 months old to boot (you don't use a car seat for babies younger than that). Let's do some math. Fedex is a huge corporation - let's assume they would have continued search protocols for their Corporate Executive for at least 3 months after the crash (check out the extensive search patterns on Kelly's map). No one can be officially declared dead until 12 months after the date of their disappearance - and sometimes later. This would be when Kelly's family might start pressuring her to accept the fact that Chuck is never coming back and they would have held the memorial service. How soon would any woman who declares that "You're the love of my life" and "I always knew you were alive" submit to the advances of another man? Adding it all up, I calculate that the maximum time span Kelly waited before getting married was a mere 18 months (or thereabouts). Just how fickle is this woman? How soon would you get over the loss of the Love of Your Life - let alone marry on the rebound and have a kid? Check out the maps she has kept *on hand* in her kitchen. She kept the vehicle. She obviously still loved him. This is a jarring credibility error in the script and unfortunately ruined the whole movie for me. Now, if she had been recently married and several months pregnant - that would have been slightly more believable.

Up to that point I quite enjoyed the story - especially the food humour at his company's Welcome Home party. How thoughtless of the organizers to provide mounds of seafood (and so much of it is casually left behind) after he had almost starved on a tiny, deserted Pacific island.

Firstly you must remember that this was originally a play for voices. To fully appreciate this surreal movie you need to listen to a recording of Dylan Thomas' play beforehand.

The imagery in the movie totally worked for me. I was familiar with all the characters and was delighted how they were delineated on screen. The only performer I had "issues" with was Peter O'Toole as Captain Cat. He was obviously too young for the part - or his make-up was just not good enough. I enjoyed the way that the 2 Narrators were able to move around the town like ghostly interlopers, observing and describing the behaviour of the denizens. Using voice-over instead of direct speech added to the "other worldliness" feel of the whole. Such a shame that Richard Burton was allowed to monopolize the dialogue - Ryan Davies should have read more lines. Interesting to see Elizabeth Taylor (quite obviously in this due only to Welsh hubby Burton's involvement) playing the part of the popular local village prostitute no less. (For a sample of the same affection shown to Rosie Probert see "Never On Sunday" (1960) with Melina Mercouri.) Regarding the gratuitous menage-a-trois in the barn - if you view this as a surreal adaptation then the scene fits even though this was never written in the play.

A long time ago I read that it was common in these small isolated Welsh villages for the water supply to became contaminated with heavy metals - probably due to all the dams that were built in the valleys that prevented the natural flow of water into the local wells. The result was that the local population suffered from a kind of pollution-induced madness. As the UK government provided no funding to find a cure these communities were fenced-in and the inhabitants allowed to live out their natural lives within the confines of their village. It is said that Dylan Thomas' play was describing this type of life. If you decide to watch this movie bear this in mind when considering the eccentricities displayed by the characters.

I grew up in an English market town on the border of Wales so our (black & white, manually tuned) TV was able to receive some of the Welsh channels. I remember watching this program in the Welsh language and, while not understanding the actual words, enjoyed the obvious physical humour. The soap parody "Our House" was hilarious and at some point I must have seen it in English because I remember some of the catch phrases. Mother (played by Ryan) would cut doorsteps of bread while holding the loaf clutched perpendicular to her ample "bosom" and the Daughter would complain when the Son pinched her bra to use as a Viking helmet.

The humour would feel very dated now but I have fond memories of a very funny family-oriented show.

I always looked forward to an episode of "Acorn Antiques" in Victoria Wood's TV show. As a parody of the locally produced soap operas of the day it worked really well. Set in an antique store in the West Midlands, with "episodes" that were only a couple of minutes long, anything that could happen did happen: car crashes, sudden appearance of long-lost relatives, exposure of long-held secrets; and each episode ended with a cliff-hanger.

The plot lines were unique and not copycats of other established soap opera scripts of that era and the humour very wry. It's worth noting that Duncan Preston (Mr. Clifford) was a cast member of the original 'Crossroads' soap in the 60s. My favourite character was Mrs. Overall who made a pot of tea every 2 minutes and seemed to have a motto for every occasion - "That's God's way of telling you.....".

Apart from the wobbly sets the funniest parts were the "out-takes" when the characters thought the film was no longer rolling and reverted to normal speech ["Was that alright, darling?"]. The only minor flaw was that some of the characters spoke so fast or with such a thick accent that it took a few seconds to work out what they just said. I'm hoping this will be released on DVD (R1) with sub-titles and biographies of the main stars.

Victoria Wood seems to have remained a local UK celebrity but both Julie Walters and Celia Imrie have gone on to international fame thanks to productions that have been popular in North America - i.e. Julie in the Harry Potter movies (as Ron's mum) and Celia in "Nanny McPhee" and the 2nd Bridget Jones movie.

The only two characters who came out of this movie with any dignity were Jeff (Mark Ruffalo), who did NOT get enough screen time, & Beau (Kevin Kostner). Regardless of the fact that I have a soft spot for both these actors - no one else really engaged the viewer with their characterizations.

Jennifer Aniston twirled in a fog of confusion and teenage angst - very disappointing when she can do SO much better.

The usually wonderful Ms. MacLaine tried but came across as distant and bored. By the way, she also does not look old enough to be Beau's mother's age (kudos to her personally but does not help the story). A better cast selection for "Mrs. Robinson" would have been Elaine Stritch - see her marvelous performance in "Monster-in-Law" (2005).

Poor Beau (Kevin). After hearing why he might well be expected to hold a lasting grudge against this family the topic is (conveniently) swept aside and made the subject of a crude joke. For shame.

Twee ending with Sarah making up with the fiancé - who really should have dumped her, Big Time. I was hoping she would take off with the internet guru - would have made a much better ending.

Poor chick flick. Does not rate on my scale. 2 stars out of 10.

Curious how a Documentary Drama has been compared to a Movie with the latter pronounced the "better". Just to remind the forgetful - movies are MADE UP and facts are twisted to enhance the drama of the piece. Is all history to be learned from movies? Why not appreciate both and recognize the difference?

This epic period in English history started the religious split of England from Rome - just so a monarch could get a divorce - and thereby changing the balance of control in the whole of Europe. Henry VIII changed the world by creating a separate religion of which he became the titular head. The current Royal Family has inherited this responsibility and even though the Church of England is sometimes confused with Protestantism it is very different from that German religion.

Recognize these facts and you can begin to appreciate the subtleties of the politicking and scheming of the Tudor period that everyday people as well as royalty had to employ just to stay off the rack. Catholics and non-Catholics had to play a delicate and dangerous game of allegiances.

Dr. David Starkey does a wonderful job making this series come to life. I found some of the dramatizations a little histrionic but Dr. Starkey keeps bringing us back to a plane of reality that allows us to understand the harshness, complexities and uncertainties of Tudor life. Henry VIII was not the last absolute monarch but he was the one we remember.

Imagine your own life condensed into edited highlights - how many seconds of film time did it take? Try it.

This was obviously intended to be the pilot for a series geared towards under-16s. While watching it I couldn't help noticing homages to a whole slew of family-friendly action flicks. I felt as if I was on a roller-coaster watching "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider", Indiana Jones' "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Kill Bill, part 1" and the reality TV show "Beauty & the Geek" all at the same time. This is not to say that the story was not enjoyable - as a previous commenter mentions it was nice to see Bob Newhart as a Marine karate-chopping the bad guys and Jane Curtin is always worth watching.

Here's hoping they come up with a sequel.

Noel Coward wrote and acted in this stage play in 1930 and this movie preserves the behaviour and colloquialisms of the original play in a contemporary manner - a fact we may overlook with our 20-21st century liberal mind-set. I believe there is film somewhere in the UK TV archives of Coward in the part but it is either just clips or not available on general release.

I really liked this well-paced production - even with the alterations for the North American audience (typical of studios in those days) - both Shearer and Montgomery take their parts well. I am familiar with the play but have never seen it on the stage. I thought the physical humour by Shearer very funny and could not imagine Noel Coward and Gertrude Lawrence as the protagonists (while wonderful with their period lethargic mannerisms) doing anything similar.

This film brings the characters brightly to life in a very warm way and it's a shame not to be able to get it on DVD.

This was a pretty good midday current-events show recorded in the West Midlands studio of the BBC. "Pebble Mill" was the name of the studio and "at One" referred to its time-slot of 1pm.

The program combined news items about current events (with a more local than national focus), interviews with popular TV actors, and cooking tips in an easy-to-watch mix. It differed from other BBC program protocols in that the people who appeared on screen were in -gasp- Casual Attire (i.e. regimental suit & tie not required).

Shame that it went off the air really - they always seemed to be having a good time.

I wholeheartedly concur with the previous comments about this movie. It's an excellent dramatization of human emotions told in a compelling way. I especially liked the non-interference of the mother-in-law.

However, towards the end there was a scene that made me laugh out loud and prompted me to write that the moral of this movie should be "Never leave an angry woman alone in your apartment"! Apart from that I felt a curious emptiness as the credits rolled. The story is left in mid-flow. We never get to know what happens to each person - do they work it out? I haven't seen anything else by this director so it might be his fingerprint but I was left wanting to know more.

I have to agree with the posting from cyberdoc-6 - this warped version of the well-loved Dicken's tale is just a waste of valuable time. It seems to be a amalgamation of scenes or ideas from different movies patch-worked together to make something akin to Bill Murray's "Scrooged" (1988). The jokes are feeble or just plain crude and the characters have no depth (except for the portrayal by Wallace Shawn).

There are better reasons for disliking Christmas than your girlfriend saying "No Thanks" to an engagement ring. Why set yourself up for failure by proposing in a hugely public place (scene pinched from 1988s "Working Girl") where either she feels pressured for a positive response or you feel humiliated if you don't get the answer you want?

Give this one a miss. One star out of five.

Despite the number of positive comments previously made this movie HARDLY qualifies as "good". I suppose you would give it that description if you were of the female persuasion AND less than 10 years old AND could identify with the child character. Otherwise this is a waste of time for all the reasons so eloquently mentioned by <rps-2> on 15 May 2004.... and more. A suspension of disbelief is strongly required.

<possible spoilers herein> I have never previously been disappointed by James Earl Jones but this movie must have been a contractual obligation for him - his part is ludicrously written. The mother has no redeeming qualities - she comes across as hard-nosed, career-centric and selfish. The dead-beat father is redeemed only by his girlfriend - portrayed by Yasmine Bleeth who actually copes quite well in this brain-fluff of an excuse for a story.

Altogether a pointless effort. One star out of 10 and that's for Emily Mae Young who does commendably well in this cutesy story.

Being keen on ancient civilizations I was intrigued by the story outline: an elite gymnastics camp in Crete is run by an American couple who also teach their students about the culture of the Minoan civilization that once inhabited the area. The Minoans worshipped the bull so the legend of the Minotaur is included along with a reference to the "Bull Dance" during which ancient-Cretian athletes were said to somersault a charging bull.

** Warning: spoilers follow **

What the film really becomes is a voyeuristic saga of young women in flimsy clothes. There are no male students but a convenient all-male rock band using a villa on a neighbouring island as a studio provide opportunities for inter-personal bonding.

The coach (Beltran) is a single young man whose voice is about one-half octave too high (Hutton's voice has more timbre) and the only other member of staff who ever materializes is another non-local woman who teaches local history. The gymnasium routines happen early in the movie, are very standard yet lovingly filmed in slow-mo. Enjoy, because you ain't gonna see any more.

There's a sub-plot about a sexual attack on the newest student - we find out later the perpetrator is the batty professor/husband whose physical frustration has been brought on by his wife's lack of interest in bed. The curious finale shows the classic Rebellious Student Who Has Been Emotionally Traumatized making a stumbling vaulting somersault over a very stationary real-life bull as some sort of cathartic measure. The special effect is not very realistic even for the era this film was made.

I watched it to the end in the vain hope of some improvement but this was not to be. A waste of viewing time and unworthy of either Lauren Hutton's or Robert Beltran's efforts.

Get a grip you guys - this is not supposed to be great theatre. It's a fun, tongue-in-cheek adaptation of your typical bodice-ripper tale only rather better done than most (I'm thinking of the American equivalent offerings such as "Black Swan" (1942) or any of Errol Flynn's efforts). True - the transcription to DVD is about the worst I've ever seen outside of old kung-fu movies but just enjoy it for what it is - an early airing of Hugh Grant's talents with some great supporting actors. Everyone takes their part extremely well - especially Christopher Cazenove as the slimy Rudolph Vyne.

Watched "Kate & Leopold" recently and was so dismayed by the script-writing that I felt compelled to write. The previous update by tedg in Viginia (sic.) Beach is far more eloquent (and kinder) than I can manage and I tried very hard to like this movie because I'm a sucker for romance, fantasy and sci-fi.

Plot: 19C Duke accidentally gets dragged into 21C New York, while there meets and woos modern woman over a weekend.

Best portrayed character is the ex-boyfriend played by Liev Schreiber. Hugh Jackman *extremely* presentable and does his anachronistic best with poor dialogue and abysmal storyline. Meg Ryan let down by a badly thought-out script.

* * * SPOILER(s) WARNING * * *

Being a huge fan of costume dramas, and bearing in mind the popularity of recent adaptations of Empire novels (viz Pride & Prejudice, et al), I would expect the general public to be somewhat aware of the behaviour and attitudes of 19C women. We are supposed to believe that a late-19C Duke falls in love with a feisty, scarecrow-coiffured, in-your-face, ambitious, 21C career woman who seems to have sacrificed quite a lot already to get to where she is today.

Just for a moment imagine the confusion and misunderstandings that may arise from a meeting between 19C and 21C people -- 1. Language is only the first hurdle - although the Duke seemed to pick up idiomatic modern-day English extremely quickly. 2. Modes of dress that would have been considered appropriate and modest in 19C are another - although kudos to the wardrobe dept which effectively bypassed the issue for most characters by using fairly generic, toned-down outfits. That "Sgt. Pepper" dig (included in the movie-trailer so no spoiler here) - well EXCUSE ME - had she LOOKED in the mirror? Apart from the heavy embroidery on his coat her attire was almost a duplicate of what he was wearing. The little black strappy number she wears for their romantic dinner would have been considered lingerie in his day - and being a Gentleman he would surely have offered her his overcoat.

Eventually this open-minded, adventurous 19C aristocrat chooses NOT to remain in this future even though the invention for which he is credited had a working model already and could have been picked up by anyone. We already know he considers his 19C life to be empty and without purpose so why return?

The 21C career woman, who has just been made a VP in her company, leaves all behind (except the designer dress she wears) to follow him into the past. Temporal Directive where are you now? Consider the personality of the character and imagine how much mayhem she would cause in the late 19C. Women's suffrage still had another 50 years to surface. Being fairly career-minded myself I find her abandonment of a lucrative company position in favour of relative obscurity so unlikely that my disbelief cannot be suspended and this ruined the movie for me. I found it to be an insult to independent women everywhere. And DON'T tell me she does it for 'l-o-v-e' which we all know is transitory.

Previous updates mention that their union is supposed to ultimately result in ex-boyfriend Stuart's existence in the family tree - must have missed the reference in the movie.

I would offer this rewrite of the ending - the Duke remains in the future with his soul-mate who continues in her extremely lucrative and successful career. He manages to overcome his distaste for being dishonest about the margarine (which he said tasted like SUET not SEWAGE - Closed Captioning editors please note) and becomes a successful TV model. Back in 19C the elevator idea is picked up by manservant/friend Otis - why else would it have his name on it? - a minor glitch in the scheme of the history books. Any votes?

Sorry folks - unless you can tolerate the obvious mistakes, misogynistic writing and impossible-to-believe outcome this is a movie to miss. 2 out of 10 - only because Hugh Jackman is very pretty in it.

Quite contrived premise based on a misunderstanding that could have been cleared up in two minutes if only the characters would COMMUNICATE.

Best actor in this sad film is Oliver Platt in a supporting role, but they are all let down by poor direction and a drab script. Only watch this if it's raining out and you have *nothing* better to do.

Watch for a glaring continuity error about half way through concerning a very flamboyant wine glass.

Dramatization of the later life of Hildegard of Bingen - intellectual, visionary, a poet, composer, naturalist, healer and theologian - she has never been officially canonized but many regard her as having achieved sainthood and refer to her as St. Hildegard.

In 1141 Hildegard was part of the community of St. Disibod in Germany's Rhineland. By 1150 she was on her way to Rupertsberg near Bingen to found her own convent.

This film covers the period of her life during those years, in which she endured the greatest conflict. It also clearly portrays her great compassion towards her fellow human beings, her modesty and her ardent faith.

As punishment for her compassionate treatment of an excommunicated Crusader she is deprived of her music and takes to her bed for 6 months. Subsequently she is interrogated by senior church officials who question the veracity of her visions (at the Synod of Trier in 1148).

Hildegard is famous not only for her knowledge of herbs but also for her choral works exhalting Christ which are beautifully sung in this film.

Patricia Routledge does her excellent best with a rather disjointed script and the result is a fair rendition of a remarkable woman who did so much more than is portrayed. The film is much too short (50 minutes), is obviously based completely on fact and shot entirely on location in a cold monastery/castle (you can see their breath when they talk! - I rather liked that).

With a little re-editing to make it flow more evenly I would have graded this an 8 but as it stands I'm only awarding a 6. Watch it only if you are extremely keen on the Medieval era and already know some of the background - otherwise you'll be totally lost.

Computer animation gives us a fascinating look at the lives of several extinct creatures - woolly mammoth, sabre tooth cat, dodo, great auk, Irish elk and Tasmanian tiger - and explores the causes that contributed to their extinction. Not quite as in-depth as "Walking with Dinosaurs" but very nicely done - one of the better uses for computers (IMHO)

The story should have been compelling and vibrant - instead it falls flat with tepid direction and poor use of some cool location shots and quality actors. The script is bad too, the language doesn't fit - some of the characters would have been lanced by the nearest Roman for some of the comments made.

I saw this on TV back in 1990 so my memory of details is hazy.

I remember it as a hard-hitting drama on the "underground" metropolitan police force (in London, UK) - much in the tone of the 1997 US movie "Conspiracy Theory". The title word refers to authoritarian automobiles that are painted canary yellow due to a clerical mistake of a bulk order of paint that needed to be used up.

Sorry, can't remember much more except the wonderful scene where the character played by Janet McTeer is forced to quaff vast quantities of alcohol (in order that her subsequent behaviour might discredit her disclosure of discoveries) by the character played by Imelda Staunton and Janet's acting as she gets "drunker" is just great. Highly recommended.

Recommend you watch with a Mexican friend (as I was fortunate enough to do) who can explain all the subtleties, of which a lot will be lost if you don't know anything of the culture of that time. Originally I thought that the mother was an absolute mad-woman until it was explained that that is the way mothers used to treat their youngest daughters who were little better than slaves to them.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Tita is ethereally beautiful, Pedro tries his best to get what he wants but remains within the conventions of the era, Gertrudis follows her heart (I admired her the most) and Roseaura is just unfortunate to be the pawn in Pedro's plan.

Altogether beautifully filmed and my Mexican friend was impressed that the actors got the accents spot-on for the period and the location.