Torrents of Spring (1989) User Reviews

a very uneven wiggy melodrama

[fookoo · 7/10 · 5 September 2003]

Warning: spoilers follow

"Torrents of Spring" is an HBO European, horse and carriage, costume drama from the late 1980's. Bought off of e-Bay for less than $7, it is an ex-rental VHS tape that immediately says something about the movie: the initial scenes show tape wear, indicating that the movie was watched for a few minutes and then quickly taken out of the VHS recorder/player and dumped back into its box. The entire movie is told in flashback in which the heart of the movie depicts a young nobleman, Timothy Hutton, in conflict over two women: Valeria Golino, in the role of a bakery shop owner's pretty daughter, and Nastassja Kinski, as a rich married woman who can buy anything.

"Torrents of Spring" has a running time of 102 minutes and neatly breaks into two parts. It would be charitable to characterize the first part of the movie as awful because descriptive phrases come to mind: stiff as a board, stuffed shirt, trite dialogue, awful framing, amateur hour, cardboard characters. Hutton has the look of Pierce Brosnan, trying to do the right thing. Very early on, he falls in love with Valeria Golino's character and after a series of events proposes marriage that he will finance by selling his estate and giving his serfs their freedom - thus drastically cutting the proceeds of the sale. Somewhere around the twenty minute mark, Nastassja Kinski appears in a dreadful looking wig. She takes a fancy to Hutton and through a telescope watches his courting of the pretty shop owner's daughter in a tethered balloon. It is difficult to suppress the thought that Nastassja has just escaped from a villainous role from "The Three Musketeers." Empty chatter and strained moments fill the first sixty minutes of the film, leading one to wonder how much worse "Torrents of Spring" can get. Some way or other, Nastassja finds out about Hutton's marriage and the necessity to sell his estate. But she is after him and sets a trap for him by offering to buy it. At this point, "Torrents of Spring" has risen to the top of the heap as potentially Nastassja's worst movie, ever.

There is a very clear break in continuity in which "Torrents of Spring" shifts from its lackluster veneer into a completely different phase that holds out the potential of vitality. Without her wig, Nastassja loses her hat while chasing Hutton on horseback through a forest. This is a transforming moment that leads into Nastassja's seduction of Hutton. From that moment in the forest, one sees and experiences what Nastassja can do on screen. She takes control of it and never lets it go. It would be very unfair to reveal how the movie ends. It is too bad that the same vision and energy was not invested in the first sixty minutes of the movie. "Torrents of Spring" has its problems or perhaps Nastassja can't act while wearing a wig?

This film looks a lot better on the DVD transfer because it is in widescreen format and gives a much needed added dimension compared to the restrictive full screen version on VHS tape.

TORRENTS OF SPRING (Jerzy Skolimowski, 1989) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 7 June 2006]

Stately period piece in the meticulous style of BARRY LYNDON (1975) - down to frequent shooting by candlelight - if done on a more intimate scale; actually the plot, adapted from a novel by Ivan Turgenev, is quite reminiscent of THE AGE OF INNOCENCE (1993). Still, it's not all solemnity and Skolimowski (who even appears, uncredited, in a brief but plum role) manages to insert his trademark irony and the odd visual touch on occasion!

Timothy Hutton and Nastassja Kinski may not look Russian, but they aren't too bad under the circumstances - she being especially radiant as the cold-hearted but irresistible temptress; ingénue Valeria Golino, then, is the final component of the romantic triangle. Despite the obvious Russian setting, the film was mainly shot in Italy (being an Italian/French co-production) - to where it actually relocates for the melancholy finale, which takes place against the colorful backdrop of the Venice Carnival.

The color utilized is generally muted and bathed in warm hues, with great care given to the lighting (most effective during a love scene inside a barn, set at dusk) - making the film's look and its overall period sense feel completely authentic. Though not usually linked with this type of film, Stanley Myers contributes a lovely score.

Entertaining romantic melodrama

[Lunar_Eclipse_Scoping · 7/10 · 2 April 2004]

*May Contain Spoilers*

Timothy Hutton as Dimitri has great chemistry with both innocent Gemma (Valeria Golino) and bad girl Maria (Nastassja Kinski) in this lusciously filmed period drama. Even if I wasn't a Tim Hutton fan, the worst I could say about his performance is that he does have a bit of trouble with the Russian accent. The emotion is still there, though, especially whenever he seems to look at either one of his leading ladies. He also gets to don, in addition to the period costumes, clown apparel (!) in one scene and old-age makeup at the beginning and end!

The sex scenes are fantastic due to great accompanying music that is in rhythm with the movements and passion of the actors; then of course there's the impressive camera work involved.

I loved the soliloquy at the very end as we see Hutton staring at the water from his boat, as well as the scene where Golino catches Hutton and Kinski together. This scene in particular was handled very well by everyone.

I really enjoyed seeing the highly photogenic Kinski display her devilishly beautiful grin while speaking the film's most memorable lines, such as:

Maria: Do you mind if I give you orders?

Dimitri: No.

Maria: Good. We will get along well.

The "rose" sequence which leads up to a confrontation between Hutton and Urbano Barberini is an enjoyable enough plot diversion. The plot actually is pretty irrelevant to the qualities of this film; I didn't care at all about it, the spark between the actors was what I enjoyed.

I wouldn't say it's one of Skolimowski's best films, like "The Shout", but of course they're two totally different types of films.

My rating: 7/10

Acque di primavera (English - Torrents of Spring) Loved this!

[cwazybill · 3 November 2001]

This is a gorgeous movie. The photography is stunning. It develops stealthily into an unwilling and conflicted dual romance filled with good intentions, courage and traps. The participants confront their angels, then their equivalent personal demons. Later on, Sanin's (central male character) conflicts are portrayed as a subconscious journey in an eerie dreamland in which he tries to cope with inner conflicts and mysteries, and which, in the end, he is helpless to resolve, finally becoming totally dependent on time to do this for him. He is, despite all his worldly courage and altruism, weak in those things he loves most, paradoxically so, because they mean so much to him.

The romantic scenes are intensely erotic, expanded more so, because of the beautiful photography.... even the sounds amplify the mood. This romantic and heroic Russian classic is a timeless story. Put it on film together with beautiful women, gorgeous photography, a far away place and time, and you have a film I think you will enjoy watching, and which may also have you asking a lot of questions about later.

Good Period Piece

[ThomasColquith · 6/10 · 29 March 2023]

I just watched "Torrents of Spring" from 1989 for the first time ever and I liked it well enough so I rated it a 6/10. I don't think that it will appeal to everyone but if you like costume dramas or period pieces then you should like this film. The cinematography is wonderful as are the settings, and the costumes and women are beautiful; these factors alone make this a film worth watching. However this is a rather stiff film whose script and action feels lacking at times and whose characters are thinly drawn. It feels as though we the audience are viewing shapes and forms on the wall of Plato's Cave more than anything else, and perhaps that's the intention given the opening and closing scenes which frame this tale as being largely inside the main character's head, whose memories and id haunt him. As he ferries across the water, so must he skate over and brave the monsters, passions, desires, and shortcomings of his own mind and soul, even now as an old man and perhaps even more so after death ferrying across the river Styx. This esoteric opening and closing where the leading man is portrayed quite literally and figuratively as the Fool, reminiscent of the Tarot mystery, is not really necessary in my opinion and it is almost too on the nose. In summary, this tale of love, passion, and temptation of one man for two different beautiful women is oddly dispassionate at times though lovely to look at, but at least it doesn't fall into the trap of solely being cheap and wantonly sensual.

eye candy for cultivated tastes

[mjneu59 · 4/10 · 9 January 2011]

It may be nothing more than highbrow cotton candy, but watching Timothy Hutton fall in and out of love with two beautiful women (while at the same time falling in and out of his vague Middle European accent) is an experience not without some incidental pleasure, silly as it is. Jerzy Skolimowski directed the multi-national (i.e. badly dubbed) cast, led by Hutton as a 19th century Russian aristocrat who (talk about bad luck) loves and loses both Valeria Golino and Nastassia Kinski. One is passionate and beautiful, the other is beautiful and passionate, and it's difficult to feel sorry for Hutton's mortal anguish in choosing between them The film abruptly ends just when the plot is beginning to thicken, but who needs narrative integrity with such romantic coffee table scenery, of ruined abbeys at dusk or horse drawn carriages gliding through misty tree-lined boulevards? The purple title and lush period setting make the film (based on an Ivan Turgenev story) a near perfect guilty pleasure, and it should be approached as such.

Takes a lot of liberties with the original, but enjoyable eye candy

[carolinemacafee · 6/10 · 8 January 2024]

Turgenev's novella is hardly more than a short story, a character piece about a well-meaning but immature and rudderless young man far from home, who falls in love too easily, and is too easily manipulated. The film pulls the action in more tightly, introducing all the main characters earlier, but this puts the seductress in the frame right away, depriving us of the intoxication of first love with the pure young girl - that's hurried over, and we don't see the stages by which the hero loses his head, and hears himself making declarations and promises that he hasn't thought through. The role of the family, including the little brother, in taking this stranger immediately to their hearts, is also lost. The complicity of the husband in the seduction game is also missing, making the seductress a more enigmatic and possibly pitiable character.

The ending is changed, again in a way that brings the story closer to the dramatic unities, but we're left with the impression that he regrets the loss of both women. Spoiler - in the novel he does follow the seductress and her voyeuristic husband, until he is discarded.

I think I might have been puzzled what to make of the film if I hadn't read the novella first.

I would watch it again for the glorious 1840s costumes and for the dancing and the Venice carnival dream sequence.

See For Yourself

[jamesericmcgee · 10/10 · 29 January 2010]

I'd like to read what women think of this feature. Every review I've seen so far completely misses the point including Roger Ebert's dead-wrong pan. Courage of conviction and lack of it bridge to each other here, though at different levels for different characters for very different reasons. The hues are gorgeous, and the music marries nicely. Experience this one your self. I've known very few people who have made similar choices in there lives and lived with those choices, so I'm not surprised that so many reviewers can't understand these characters. I would have stopped at "...music marries nicely..." but there is a ten line minimum.

what a waste!

[dmangibson-1 · 5 August 2004]

Turgenev's novel is ripe for cinematic treatment but Jerzy makes one wrong decision after another and sucks the life and drama out of the novel. Though Timothy Hutton is a serviceable lead -- his Russian dance though completely out of character and not in the book is a standout -- Valeria Golino is horribly miscast as is Kinski. The script also takes such liberties with the structure and characterizations that the movie ends up collapsing under its own weight. As the filmmaker never truly establishes Hutton's commitment and love for Gemma we don't care what happens between he and Kinski. Throughout the movie the director takes what were written as character scenes and opens them up into elaborate set pieces -- the fair, the opera, the masked ball -- underscoring his insecurity about our attachment to his characters and their wants and desires. He also has the most annoying directorial tic of starting almost every scene by dollying the camera behind some foreground element; flowers, tree branches, curtains and then finding our characters making their entrance. Miramax should have repo-ed the dolly and track and given him a tripod to stick the camera on.

Turgenev deserves better. Read the book; it's much more cinematic on the page then in this film.

One last question: what is William Forsythe doing in this movie?

Terrible, except for one notable scene

[Lanwench · 13 February 2000]

This is an extremely amateurish, ham-handed film, with lousy accents, stilted dialogue, and a waste of the unconvincing Timothy Hutton as a disillusioned Russian nobleman (!!!)

Valeria Golino is beautiful, but her character awfully two dimensional - and nobody could possibly believe Nastassja Kinski's hardboiled seductress. The entire film has that cheesy pan-European soft-focus quality found usually on late-night premium cable channels, but with a little less gratuitous nudity.

However, there is a lovely scene wherein Nastassja and Timothy go to visit a Gypsy camp and dance around with ever-increasing attraction to one another. The music is fabulous, and there isn't much of the aforementioned crappy dialogue. If I could find just that scene on DVD, I'd buy it. Otherwise, give this one a pass.