A Room with a View (2007)

Sorry, this movie sucks

How sad is this?

Good concept, poorly executed.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

I should start perhaps by mentioning that I'm quite fond of the James Ivory movies, including the one by the same title. And still, I find this much more faithful to the original book. It better reflects the spirit of the writer and the age. It has an aura of authenticity, a natural flow and a je ne sais quoi that have made it quite endearing to me from the very beginning. The names in the cast are perhaps lesser known than those in the other version, and it is precisely the reason why I find them better suited to this television / cinematographic adaptation. They seem to be natural human beings, and not the caricatures thereof, as some of their counterparts in the more famous version. Other reviewers have been rather critical of the final few minutes in the film. I would be inclined to be much more tolerant, as the new ending, although perhaps questionable in itself, is yet so respectful of the spirit of the author in his novel that I tend to welcome it.

I remember fondly the 85' version and thought worthwhile to see what could be done again with it. Alas I'm not much of a reader and so never read the book. As usual when I come here I enjoy and learn much out of other's comments. Doing so I found interesting to see a variety of comments about it sometimes contradictory but here quite united in the displeasure of the ending! I watched it on our Sydney now only commercial free channel and must admit I was generally pleased with the performance of the leading characters. Yes Maggie Smith was very much missing. Otherwise I was not too disturbed by few changes. Lucy worked well for me. As for the ending I thought it was a little bizarre and unexpected but I like to give credit for the producer for making their own choices even if sometimes I disagree with them. I understand though that there should be some kind of respect for the original work. Well I had a good time with it and don't regret the time it took to watch it as some suggested we should. Perhaps it's not always a good idea to impose on others one's feelings. But at the end of it there are just written words, not orders!

After having loved the Merchant Ivory film I was looking forward to this adaptation but something was OFF from the moment it began when Lucy goes to Florence alone, with a bob, in 1922, and says her husband is not with her. Then we go back in time and back again as she remembers her first time in Florence with a Room With A View when she meets George who is her soul mate. Why he is her soul mate or why anyone would want to be her soul mate is not fully developed at all. Neither of these romantic characters were well developed or appealing. Of course, they do fall in love, although Lucy proceeds to run away and get engaged to someone else. Eventually they find each other and marry/elope. About the only good scene is when she rushes to him when he is in the pond... but do we really believe this either? What I hated is we discover George dies and then Lucy appears to be holding hands with the Italian cabbie at the end of the film. Horrible. Why not leave this as a romantic story with the two of them together? Must see the other film version again now... to get this rubbish out of my head!

I'm not sure why they made this version. The 1985 film had covered the ground well and been a big success.This version has its good points, however:* It gives a much more powerful feeling of the class divide and the tyranny of delicacy and propriety in the Edwardian period. This is mainly due to Sophie Thompson, who fearlessly makes Charlotte unlikeable in her embarrassed fussiness - even going a little too far in this. In the previous film, Maggie Smith possibly showed too much strength of character in the role - too much Maggie Smith, perhaps.* Rafe Spall is the best feature of this version. He shows much more lust for life - and for Lucy - than Julian Sands did. Sands was a cold fish in comparison. Also, Sands spoke with a fairly upper-class accent (quite unlike his father's) that negated the idea of his coming from a lower class. Admittedly there is a problem with Spall-George's talkativeness. He has a lot more to say for himself than he really should have, especially in the early parts of the story. That is the end of the good points. Now for the bad:* Elaine Cassidy makes Lucy live more than Helena B-C did, but at the cost of being much too knowing, pushy and generally modern than the character is in the book. This is a big flaw that strikes at the heart of the story. It is also much clearer that Lucy is, in fact, fascinated by George - for example she accepts both his stolen kisses fairly readily. Helena B-C truly seemed to dislike him, thus necessitating all the captions (taken from the book) spelling out that she was "lying". * Lawrence Fox is also bad in this. Where Daniel Day Lewis went over the top in prissiness, Fox just seems too sleepy. He specialises in this (see his role in 'Lewis'). How does he get the parts?* The bad, bad, bad point, as many have already noted, is the ending. I can only think that Andrew Davies was desperate to make his version stand out as really different. Having George die is as stupid as if Mr Darcy were to die at the end of Pride and Prejudice. (Have others noticed the parallels between the two books?) As for having Lucy take up with the coachman, words fail me. I suppose Davies wanted to show she had really thrown aside convention. Nevertheless, it stinks.