The Magnificent Ambersons (2002)

hyped garbage

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

This version appeared on television three years ago, and was supposedly based on Welles' completed script. It got roasted by the television critics (probably unfairly) because it wasn't directed by Welles - lacking his great narration and touches. But it is not a bad film, and it does have a coherence that the other film lacks because of the truncated cutting.The only thing I disagree with is the emphasis on Welles' script. Welles planned to close the film on a down note with Lucy rejecting a crippled George, and Fanny living in a boarding house as the cook. This is not like the television version where an unrepentant, still arrogant George has to be accepted by Eugene as his son-in-law.But it was well acted and directed, and if not as great as Welles' work, it was entertaining and thoughtful. It also explained some of the problems linked to the plot that the truncated version did not go into. For one, why the collapse of the Major's fortune? The Major (John Cromwell) has to sell off his property to support Isabel and George (Madeleine Stowe and Jonathan Rhys - Meyers) on their prolonged trip to Europe. Don't forget, Georgie never had plans for a career, and he is depended on money from grandpa. As Cromwell says, "Does he think I'm made of money?" It also has the real moment of comeuppance that is not found in the Welles' version (in so outwardly a manifestation). George can accept the loss of outward possession, because he knows who he is and what his family was like. But he sees a book on sale in a local bookshop about the first families of Indianapolis. He sees it's expensive, but he buys a copy. He is shocked to find no mention of the Ambersons in the entire book. He is a little less arrogant after that.No, it is not the controversial classic of 1942, but it is - on it's own terms - a worthy film version too.

I haven't read Orson Welles' book or have seen the 1942 movie, but have seen this A&E adaptation of The Magnificent Ambersons. This movie was almost painful to watch. Even though this was an all-star cast, I only felt that Madeleine Stowe (Isabel Amberson Minafer), Bruce Greenwood (Eugene Morgan) and James Cromwell (Major Amberson) were a credit to this movie. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (George Amberson Minafer) and Gretchen Mol (Lucy Morgan) may have looked their respective parts, but little else. Both Rhys-Meyers and Mol tend to overact their parts to a fault and Jennifer Tilly (Fanny Minafer) is outright hilarious, and not in a good way.This movie adaptation has been butchered in the worst way in that I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone. It's one of those movies that you see and tell yourself, "Well, that's 2 hours of my life I'll never get back.."

That this basically tragic story should have a relatively happy ending for the monstrous kid-from-hell who was the root cause of the tragedy is the major defect of the film. Was that the way Tarkington and Welles wrote it? Not having read either Tarkington's novel or Welles' original script, I can't say, but considering that opinion is fairly unanimous that the 1942 version was a butchering of Welles' script, I have my doubts. On a positive note, this film at least emphasizes the almost incestuous relationship of Isabel to her son. That important detail is touched on only very distantly in the older film. Director Arau is quite a different proposition from Orson Welles. While Orson introduced much in the way of new camera angles, Arau is very much into the "modern" approach favouring many extreme close-ups. It adds spice, but can easily be overdone. In spite of all these cavils, I did actually enjoy the film on its own terms.

Poor OW, spinning like crazy in his grave. This "remake" is quite terrible, misguided, inept, badly acted, directed and shot, and is NOT the original Welles/Mercury script. Where, for instance, are Welles' elegaic prologue and voice-overs? And Stanley Cortez impreccable visualization? Presumptuous, insulting rubbish. Away with it!