Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Livestonth 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

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Hecate-3 I have now seen Colin Farrell in a lead role in two very different films. In both, he gave a ludicrously histrionic performance. In both, the director either made changes to the source material or arranged the accents of the entire cast to accommodate Farrell's thick brogue. In both, a director with considerable talent produced a muddled film with poor characterization and what should be a riveting plot that drags interminably towards a foregone conclusion. Fans of both films try to turn the criticism of detractors back onto them with blanket statements about what kinds of movies they must not like and what sorts of shallow entertainment they must prefer.Taking the last point first, I have seen movies before that were nothing more than filmed plays with a cast of only two people in a single location, so even more limited than Miss Julie in those respects. Those movies had even more dialogue and less action than Miss Julie. Those movies were also every bit as grim and depressing as Miss Julie. But those films had quality dialogue, consistent characterizations, and a story worth investment.I am flabbergasted by the unyielding support of Colin Farrell's fans, but then I'm flabbergasted that he has any fans at all. In addition to having no perceivable acting talent and an accent that he can't seem to shake, despite his character John's comments to Miss Julie about understanding her attraction to him, Farrell isn't even particularly good-looking and has no charisma on screen. On looking up his listings on IMDb, I discovered that he had the lead role in another film I have seen; I do not recall that he ruined that particular film, but then I don't recall much about him from that film even though he was the lead. I have certainly seen no reason to believe he deserves even his limited fame.Many people have criticized the direction in Miss Julie for poor pacing, but a good deal of the problem is in the writing before it ever got to the set. Although I am unfamiliar with the source material, I gather from comments and reviews I have read that certain key pieces of dialogue were left out of the screenplay, namely the servants' discussion of Julie's broken engagement and the menstrual period which are brought up as explanations for her erratic behavior. I don't know what other dialogue changes might have been made, but both Julie's and John's mood and behavior swing so wildly between various extremes, much of the time with no discernible explanation, that it's almost as though with each exchange, the writers rolled some dice to select the characters' moods that time. Even erratic characters need to be comprehensible. It doesn't help matters much that the characterization that does come through the constantly shifting, random moods are two people capable of appallingly cold selfishness while the remaining character turns out to be someone inflexibly judgmental and narrow-minded.Despite a costar who tries to destroy most of his scenes, Jessica Chastain and Samantha Morton deliver strong performances. Morton is understated but powerful while Chastain portrays desperation that grows so deep it becomes painful to watch, most notably in the scene where she proposes that all three of them leave together.** SPOILERS **I know that the story was written in Victorian times when convenient character death was seen as valid plotting, but I wonder how many modern viewers understand that Miss Julie's situation need not have been as hopeless as a melodramatic maiden raised on romances seemed to think. Even after the loss of her virginity in those restrictive times, a beautiful young woman who is the daughter of a wealthy baron could probably still make some sort of match with an impoverished but ambitious gentleman or with an older gentleman. Even if she turned out to be pregnant, she could have been sent to a convent far from the public eye to have her child. She might have to take orders to hide her disgrace, but she did not need to commit suicide. It's also worth remembering that this story was written and set in a time when the church was inflexibly condemning of suicide, no matter what the reason. Suicides weren't even buried in hallowed ground. It's hard to see John's willingness to prod Julie in that direction as anything other than a man willing to manipulate a young woman into needlessly taking her own life in order to spare himself inconvenience. As bad as Julie showed herself to be from her first scenes, John turned out to be far worse.In the end, the film turned into a horror movie, and although it's undeniably a cut above standard slasher flicks, it does not reach the level of meaningful classic to which it aspires. Worth watching for the two female leads but otherwise not recommended.

SloaneWasHere Not having seen the play or being familiar with the story, I was expecting a romantic and sexually charged period piece as that's what the trailer implied. What I saw was a mentally ill woman being 'taken advantage of' (to put it mildly) by a man out to avenge his brother's death by playing mind games with her and ultimately absolving himself of any responsibility by encouraging her to take her own life. I was not prepared for a tragedy, and it left a sour feeling. The acting was intense and well done, the dialogue was poetic at times, and Colin's 'John' was a spot-on manipulating character. Jessica was outstanding in portraying existential pain and desperation to be free of it. It was painful to watch - which I'm sure is the point - but I would have appreciated knowing before watching that this is ultimately a tragedy and not -as labeled- a romance.

Gordon-11 This film tells the story of the daughter of a baron, and her valet in the mansion, who tempts and manipulates each other on the night that the baron is away.The film only has three actors, set in a single location. The story concentrates on the dynamics of the three individuals in the mansion, and the balance of power constantly changes. It reminds me of other similar films such as "Carnage" starring Kate Winslet. I am not a fan of this kind of film, because the fundamental flaw of such a plot is that characters can withdraw themselves from the situation, but they just stay on a forebears spiral until everyone is hurt. If not for the big names in "Miss Julie", I would not have even watched it It's a boring film.

Red_Identity I had never seen her be this loud, this unabashedly theatrical. But, the character calls for it, and it all somehow works. Farrell doesn't have to go as big, and yet he's the one that comes across as unconvincing. The film only really comes alive when it gives Chastain the space to be as loud as humanly possible. It's not a terrible film, but it just seems like an excuse for such powerhouse acting showcasing, and in that respect it's tremendously glorious to witness Chastain's work. It could've easily gone off the rails with many actresses, but she still manages to surprise me in what she can achieve. Again, it worked for me, but it won't for everyone. Several people will absolutely loathe her (really, any performance of this nature is bound to) but I can honestly say she is probably better here than in Rigby, if only because the material allows it. In that way it's a hard performance to analyze, it's basically "here, watch Chastain ACT!" without really caring if we get the character. But it worked for the 2 hours, mostly.