IMDb > The Golden Bowl (2000) > IMDb user comments
The Golden Bowl
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditstv schedule
Awards & Reviews
user commentsexternal reviewsnewsgroup reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guiderecommendationsmessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsAmazon.com summarymemorable quotes
Fun Stuff
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
merchandising linksbox office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specslaserdisc detailsDVD detailsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

IMDb user comments for
The Golden Bowl (2000) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
Index 59 comments in total 

15 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Not everybody's cup of tea. But the cup is lovely., 7 November 2002
Author: rps-2 from Bracebridge Ont

I'm a sucker for anything set in Edwardian England, good or bad. This is neither. The plot is clever but a little wooly. It takes a while to figure out just who is doing what to whom and why. A father and his daughter each married to the partners in a torrid affair. Rather gives a new meaning to "menage a trois." (Or is it "menage a quatre"?)I don't think even Y&R has tackled this one yet! However the performances are flawless, the settings lush and the cinematography superb. The use in a couple of places of old newsreel footage is especially innovative and interesting but doesn't seem to serve much dramatic purpose. And the symbolism of the golden bowl is a little too obvious and overworked. Nevertheless I liked this movie a lot!

Was the above comment useful to you?

17 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
Subtle, complex and wonderfully portrayed, 5 February 2003
8/10
Author: (cm-9) from United Kingdom

The best Merchant Ivory so far, and ideal film material.

The story is engrossing and perceptive, dealing with human relationships in all their forms. It takes a hard and frank look at the motivation behind several different relationships, which varies from selfishness, loneliness and boredom to love of the deepest kind. The film makes you wonder how and why we choose our friends.

Personally, I found the acting and direction superb, apart from a couple of flat speeches by Kate Beckinsale (whose accent also varied quite a bit). Unfortunately one of these comes in the scene where her character is introduced, which may have put some people off this film at an early stage (there are a lot of negative comments on here!). The rest of the cast are superb, especially Uma Thurman who is mastering the art of conveying a lot of meaning with just a single look. Tension builds up throughout and is skillfully maintained right until the end.

It is, of course, a film that you need to see on a big screen as part of the point of a Merchant Ivory production is the exquisite detail that goes into getting the costumes and locations just right. Even more so than in their past productions, a huge amount of effort has been spent here.

One thing I found is that the characters felt fairly isolated: most of the time, you just saw the leading characters in a scene on their own and, apart from a couple of party scenes, there was not much attempt to show the society in which they lived; also there were few exterior shots in the cities. It may be that that was quite deliberate, to show that these incredibly wealthy people lived very insular lives.

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Gloriously unsatisfying, 9 November 2001
7/10
Author: George Parker from Orange County, CA USA

"The Golden Bowl", a period piece circa 1900's, turns a microscope on the innerworkings of the relationships of four people, two men and two women, bound by blood, marriage, love, duty, etc. and scrutinizes them to the exclusion of all else. Sadly, the people aren't sufficiently interesting or charismatic to support such scrutiny for 2.2 hours. Amidst the sumptuous splendor of grand costuming, locations, props, makeup, etc. with some heavyweights behind the film, "TGB" is an earnest effort which comes off as much ado about nothing with the one steamy and passionate relationship underdone while the emphasis lingers on the minutia. Somewhat awkward and staged at times, the film doesn't rise to the level of it better period predecessors but will still be a worthwhile watch for those into films about wealth and aristocracy.

Was the above comment useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Better than the book, unless you enjoy convoluted phrases that would be incomprehendable were it not for semicolons!!!, 25 May 2001
Author: Alice Copeland Brown (alicecbrown@yahoo.com) from Boston

OK, so we need Henry James for character exposition. That complements beautifully the wonderful cinematography of all these great castles in England and Italy. Of course, the source of all these riches is alluded to with the real grainy film of the coal miners in AmericanCity. I haven't found yet the line in the novel by Thurman: "But the miners would prefer the train to a museum" when Nolte describes to her how he will buy both sides of the street and the train tracks between in order to build his museum. The reason the language sounds stilted is that much of the dialogue was lifted verbatim from the novel.....what little dialogue there is. And of course, the fascinating 'beasts unleashed' flavor of the sexual intercourse scene is NEVER to be found even alluded to in the novel.

By the way, Edward II is buried in Gloucester Cathedral. That question comes up, but is NEVER answered in the movie, and you THINK it is going to be the little point that breaks up their alibi: "We went to Gloucester Abbey, where there is some king buried, Edward II or Richard II." The acting is superb, the scenery gorgeous and the psychological incest between Nolte and his daughter is discreetly and appropriately exemplified. As HJ says, talking together in the castle gardens, they did indeed resemble husband and wife. The adultery of the other two was almost foreordained.

The social habits of this age when women had no independent means of making a living is underlined. See this in conjunction with "House of Mirth" and you'll thank your lucky stars you live in 2001. As much sexism as still exists in the workplace, we have indeed come a LONG way, Baby!!!! Thurman's sense of imprisonment is palpable, and I wonder how many women went stark raving mad over their dependency, a form of slavery all the more odious for it not being recognized.

I wonder if ALice James had any part in the writing of this novel. After reading this, she must have felt much better about her 'plight'. Although I wish for the maiden ladies of that day, that they might have been able to adopt or have babies without the social stigmas of the time......a great joy in life that shouldn't be linked with the social tyranny of 'catching a man'.

Return to a time when people used their minds for things other than writing better software, as their country and Constitution are taken over by greedy ignorant barbarians intent on destroying the planet. It's a great movie.!!!

Was the above comment useful to you?

16 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
Best Merchant-Ivory of the last decade, 4 June 2001
Author: matthew wilder (cosmovitelli@mediaone.net) from los angeles

One wonders at the poor critical showing and commercial failure

of this absorbing, fantastically precise adaptation of the late Henry

James novel. Except for the sublime MR. AND MRS. BRIDGE--a

strange movie that feels nothing like the rest of James Ivory's

canon--THE GOLDEN BOWL is the best Merchant-Ivory-Jhabvala

movie. As the American heroine caught between love and money,

Uma Thurman gives a slightly hysterical movie-starrish

performance that evokes Joan Crawford in her prime--which is

perfect; as her best friend and the wilting Jamesian fount of

innocence, Kate Beckinsale gives a comparatively straightforward

and candid performance that is blunt and thrilling. (What must she

have been thinking as those bombs fell on Pearl Harbor?) Nick

Nolte, Anjelica Huston and James Fox are also right in every detail

--as is the music and production design, which finally seem to

serve the story, rather than Ivory's nostalgia for one bygone era or

other. Everything about the movie (except for Jeremy Northam's

wan performance as the "impecunious Italian") is right on the

button. It's sad that it has now become knee-jerk to bash the

Merchant-Ivory crew; that reflex blinded most people from seeing

what's on the screen.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Merchant and Ivory do it once again!, 5 June 2001
Author: StellaAlice from new england

For those people who loved "A Room With a View" and "Howards End" but hated "Surviving Picasso" and "A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries," all is well in the universe. "The Golden Bowl" is excellent in every way. The film is exquisitely balanced. Nick Nolte, Kate Beckinsale, Angelica Houston and Uma Thurman are all amazing. Jeremy Northam is even better. The cinematography, the writing, the costumes; everything fits together. This is not a sleepy and slow costume drama, it is an exhilarating masterpiece. I do not know how loyal the screenplay is to James' novel, but the story is very moving and even though it is a "period piece," the issues that the characters face somehow seem contemporary. Uma Thurman's character Charlotte is one of the most heart-wrenching on-screen women I've seen recently. I hope the film can keep up a presence until the next Oscar race begins. This is one of the best films I have seen so far this year.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Human nature changes so little, through the centuries, as this very good film shows!, 10 July 2006
8/10
Author: Amy Adler from Toledo, Ohio

Prince Amerigo (Jeremy Northam) has a castle on the verge of ruin and empty pockets. Although he lusts after a poor but beautiful lady named Charlotte, he decides to marry her very rich friend instead. His new wife, Maggie, is a lovely, innocent human being, totally unspoiled by wealth. Maggie hopes to see her widowed father happily remarried and encourages his interest in Charlotte. It happens. Charlotte agrees to marry America's first billionaire, what a tough gig. But, why? Does she have any affection for Maggie's father? Or does she want to stay in close contact with Amerigo? It seems the latter, for Charlotte and the Prince go everywhere together, now that it is acceptable for two "relatives" to gad about. What is happening here? The book was written over 100 years ago but this story of human nature shows that very little changes under the sun. Northam and Thurman excel as the egocentric and evil humans who are so very lovely to look upon, it hurts. Beckinsale and Nolte likewise give nice turns as the folks who still have hearts beating in their breasts, despite their riches. As period pieces go, the costuming, the scenery, the staging, and the cinematography here are sumptuous. True, the pace is somewhat slow and the tale is intricate and subtle, requiring a repeat viewing, perhaps. However, Merchant and Ivory fans and non-fans will be rewarded by sitting through this timeless and tantalizing tale. If anyone wants to arrange for friends to share a movie evening together, the Bowl will have everyone talking.

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Just right, 27 May 2001
8/10
Author: ruthgee from Darien, Ct.

Ruth Prawer Jhabvala has made "The Golden Bowl" come to life. Henry James's last novel, a rather difficult read, has been told very simply without missing the point of the novel. I have read a lot of criticisms of this movie and cannot understand why a lot of the critics say that it was a difficult movie to understand. The constumes, sets etc. recreated the time most wonderfully. The splendor of the great homes, the decay of the Italian Castle, the history of Amerigo's family, the under currents of feelings between the characters all seemed so right. For some, the movie might feel a little long, but Henry James is a most difficult author to translate into film. I liked the use of old black and white movies for the scenes in New York, it added to the stmosphere.

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Good adaptation with some editing and acting flaws, 22 January 2008
7/10
Author: Loreto Caro from Santiago, Chile

The film is very effective in conveying the spirit of the novel. By the end you will have that bittersweet taste in your mind, as it usually happens with Henry James stories... Not a single character can say that their heart is completely content.

Once again, as in other Merchant Ivory productions, the cinematography and art direction is impeccable. Also, the costume design is both classic and risky (Uma Thurman at the ball is exotic and sensual).

Now, the main flaw in terms of editing is pacing. While this type of narrative calls out for a slower pace, at times it just didn't feel right. It is like different hands took over parts of the movie.

As for acting, it is quite good in general. Kate Beckinsale starts out very stiff, but warms up throughout the story. As for handsome Jeremy Northam, his Italian accent seemed contrived and was a bit distracting.

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
I don't think it will appeal to the average fan of period movies, 17 August 2005
7/10
Author: Philip Van der Veken from Tessenderlo, Belgium

Despite the fact that I'm normally not a fan of period movies, I've seen two in a row now. The first one was "The Remains of the Day", the second one this "The Golden Bowl. Much to my surprise I must say that I liked both, although there was a big difference in the two. While the first one was very compelling and sometimes close to perfection, I didn't always have that feeling with this movie.

In the early 1900's Adam Verver, an American billionaire, lives with his daughter in London. When she is introduced to the Italian Prince Amerigo, it doesn't take long before they get married. But the prince has a secret. He has a relationship with Charlotte Stant, Maggie Verver's best friend. Because Maggie doesn't know that Amerigo and Charlotte know each other, she sees no harm in introducing her to her widowed father and therefor allowing her to become a member of the family once she marries him. Charlotte is very happy with this match of course, because all she wants is to be close to Prince Amerigo. All this leads to one big masquerade full of deception, lies and unhappiness which can't be revealed...

Despite the fact that I'm normally not a fan of this kind of movies, I must say that this one was OK. Especially the acting made it all worth watching. Thanks to the famous, but also well-acting cast which includes people like Kate Beckinsale, Anjelica Huston, Nick Nolte and Uma Thurman, I was able to enjoy this movie. Does that mean that it is a perfect movie? No, not exactly. The story for instances sometimes lacks a bit in power, making it not always very interesting to keep watching this movie for more than two hours. But on the other hand I must also say that it all could have been a lot worse. The story was perhaps not exceptional, but it sure was decent enough.

In the end I don't think this is a movie that will appeal to the average fan of period movies. First of all is the time period not exactly correct. I believe that those movies situated in the early 19th century are a lot more popular than one which is situated in the early 1900's. But since I'm not such an average fan and because I've always been interested in the time period 1900 - 1950, this was quite interesting for me. It's only too bad that the story wasn't a bit more exceptional. Now I give this movie a rating in between 7/10 and 7.5/10, mostly because of the fine performances.

Was the above comment useful to you?


Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]

Add another comment


Related Links

Plot summary Amazon.com summary Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user comments Your vote history