Read the novel instead - the merchant-ivory team manage convert almost every literary work into a flat stupid movie at best. (only 'in custody'/muhafiz was an exception on sorts). The reviewer who posted that the film [not the novel of course] actually manages to glorify snobbery and worse, had it right [see reviews above - go to 'all reviews' and filter for 'hated it'.]
I've read the novel and am fine with the film. I prefer the novel, which is a fuller, richer experience, and do think that the film missed a bit of the transitions of the characters (particularly Margaret), but not enough to really justify it being called snobbery or such other lazy descriptions (how trite a critique for Merchant Ivory films...).
I do think that Merchant Ivory managed to convey A Room with a View quite well, though, even if the book is also better than the film (not many films are better than the books they're adapted from). I prefer its adaptation to its book better than I like this one's adaptation, but I still think the film Howards End is a fine film and adpatation, nonetheless.
I agree completely - this is one huge disappointment for me. I can appreciate very subtle period movies, alright, but I when I see people praise this, I have the feeling that they're only pretending to like it because it's snobbish and boring.
I wouldn't say it was a stupid movie, but flat, it certainly was. And I didn't see anything particularly thrilling in it, intellectually speaking, either.
I am absolutely puzzled when I see that it got three Oscars, including best adapted screenplay (!)
I'd say this, I'd thought it was impossible to capture Ruth Wilcox on film satisfactorily. But somehow M/I and Vanessa Redgrave managed to do it. What a feat!
share