The only reason to see UP AT THE VILLA is the performances by a wonderful cast. Kristen Scott Thomas does a good job as a poor widow who is being courted by many different men. The most interesting is the amazing Sean Penn- yet again taking on an interesting role. The story is bland and sometimes painfully boring, but Thomas and Penn make this worth seeing.
55 Reviews
Beautiful but.... empty
Panamint16 May 2005
Beautiful photography and atmospherics capture Florence and environs. Technically very well-made and expensive-looking production.
Kristin Scott Thomas is perfect for the role and gives a terrific performance. The other cast members just seem to be giving their "standard" performance (Bancroft's standard mature woman routine that no one does better but she has done it since "The Hindenburg"). Ditto James Fox and the others.
The late William Holden could not have accomplished what Sean Penn did in "Mystic River", for which Penn gained a well deserved Oscar award. Conversely, Penn cannot play the Holden-type role in "Up at the Villa". Bad case of miscasting with flat results by Penn. No chemistry with Kristin Scott Thomas at all.
How can you make a dull, uninspiring film in an exotic setting with great actors in a highly charged brink-of-war scenario? SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE BUT THE FILMMAKER HERE HAS DONE IT!
Kristin Scott Thomas is perfect for the role and gives a terrific performance. The other cast members just seem to be giving their "standard" performance (Bancroft's standard mature woman routine that no one does better but she has done it since "The Hindenburg"). Ditto James Fox and the others.
The late William Holden could not have accomplished what Sean Penn did in "Mystic River", for which Penn gained a well deserved Oscar award. Conversely, Penn cannot play the Holden-type role in "Up at the Villa". Bad case of miscasting with flat results by Penn. No chemistry with Kristin Scott Thomas at all.
How can you make a dull, uninspiring film in an exotic setting with great actors in a highly charged brink-of-war scenario? SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE BUT THE FILMMAKER HERE HAS DONE IT!
Dull, but Penn was not bad
sarastro719 June 2004
I was stunned by Kristin Scott Thomas when I first saw her in The Tenth Man (co-starring with Derek Jacobi in that movie too) many years ago. I've tried to catch as many movies with her as possible since then, but she's just never been as good, not even in The English Patient. Much of her material has been extremely dull, incl. Random Hearts and yes, this one, Up At the Villa. The premise of this movie isn't bad, but for some reason it fails to create that engrossing magic that makes all the difference. Kristin's character is too timid and irrational (except for in the end). Jeremy Davies as the poor refugee is not exactly bad, but there's still something totally wrong with his role.
Bancroft is flawless, but can't save the movie. Sean Penn is actually good. I don't like most of his roles in other movies - never have -, but he played a different, more complex and realistic yet rogue-ish character here than the hysterical ones he usually embraces (for God knows what reason), and I thought this actually worked. Still, his and Kristin's characters were just too different to make their romantic tension really believable.
I will give the movie credit for its entire political dimension, though, which wasn't in the original book that this movie is based on. It's rare to see this; in most cases it's the film that leaves out the book's political content.
I rate this movie a 5 out of 10.
Bancroft is flawless, but can't save the movie. Sean Penn is actually good. I don't like most of his roles in other movies - never have -, but he played a different, more complex and realistic yet rogue-ish character here than the hysterical ones he usually embraces (for God knows what reason), and I thought this actually worked. Still, his and Kristin's characters were just too different to make their romantic tension really believable.
I will give the movie credit for its entire political dimension, though, which wasn't in the original book that this movie is based on. It's rare to see this; in most cases it's the film that leaves out the book's political content.
I rate this movie a 5 out of 10.
More enjoyable than some reviewers would have you believe
Alenchik26 July 2003
I was intrigued when this film showed up on the day's TV roster and even more intrigued when I found out who the cast are and read a quick synopsis of the story. Most of the reviewers here, at IMDB, have made the movie sound dreadful. I found it hard to believe that anything with Sean Penn and Kristin Scott Thomas would be awful and had to check out the film for myself. My conclusion -- it is quite good, engaging, and definitely worth watching.
The lead actors as well as most of the supporting cast are rather wonderful. Though, I wish that someone slightly more dashing and not so limp played the role of the Austrian student, even if the stumbling manner and sudden onset of neurosis are required of the part. The scenery is inviting; the sets are great; the variety of accents is interesting; some of the extras are a bit shaky. The film is not so much about the setting, the era, or the social/political/economic spheres, though all of these have a firm bearing on the events and characters. It is chiefly about human actions under pressure of circumstances, about relationships, flights of fancy, slip-ups, weaknesses, trust and emotional maneuvering. "Up at the Villa" addresses these topics as good as any other period film.
I recommend this movie to those who, like I, enjoyed more than one of the following:
The Talented Mr. Ripley
Gosford Park
Howards End
Country Life
The Wings of the Dove
A Room with a View
The Remains of the Day
The lead actors as well as most of the supporting cast are rather wonderful. Though, I wish that someone slightly more dashing and not so limp played the role of the Austrian student, even if the stumbling manner and sudden onset of neurosis are required of the part. The scenery is inviting; the sets are great; the variety of accents is interesting; some of the extras are a bit shaky. The film is not so much about the setting, the era, or the social/political/economic spheres, though all of these have a firm bearing on the events and characters. It is chiefly about human actions under pressure of circumstances, about relationships, flights of fancy, slip-ups, weaknesses, trust and emotional maneuvering. "Up at the Villa" addresses these topics as good as any other period film.
I recommend this movie to those who, like I, enjoyed more than one of the following:
The Talented Mr. Ripley
Gosford Park
Howards End
Country Life
The Wings of the Dove
A Room with a View
The Remains of the Day
Beautiful sets & music, weak script, so-so acting
jaybob13 May 2001
My summary above, just about sums my opinion up. This is based on a W.Somerset Maugham novella, If so the writers sure did not make it seem like any Maugham story I ever read. The first 3/4 hours are Ok & seem like a Maugham story then it goes downhill fast into melodrama, with all the required overacting dramatics that this well known cast can muster. Kristin Scott Thomas is the lead,(cross between Bette Davis & Gene Tierney) Sean Penn is a charming gigolo type & very subdued & with a very strange accent,(at least it is understandable. Jeremy Davies is a young refugee who sets off all the ensuing drama, with a bad accent. Anne Bancroft overacts as usual as the countess who knows all the secrets. James Fox is a usual a pompous --- cant he play anything else.
If you like beautiful scenery & sets, see this otherwise, give it a pass, My rating is **1/2
as always
jay harris
If you like beautiful scenery & sets, see this otherwise, give it a pass, My rating is **1/2
as always
jay harris
elegant, sentimental, great clothes
N G A24 November 2000
I was surprised by the low vote average for this movie. I
found the plot absorbing and not without charm. Anne Bancroft, Sean Penn, Derek Jakobi...these are actors that I
live to see perform together.
Usually Kristin Scott Thomas is not my cuppa tea. She's
certainly cast according to type and turns out an immaculate performance. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed watching her fine, slim,erect, long-necked, doe-eyed, ultimately British performance. She possesses
an irrefutably neat intelligence which one regards with only
a very a slight feeling of protest.
::::::-::::::::-:::::::::-::::::::-:::::::::
found the plot absorbing and not without charm. Anne Bancroft, Sean Penn, Derek Jakobi...these are actors that I
live to see perform together.
Usually Kristin Scott Thomas is not my cuppa tea. She's
certainly cast according to type and turns out an immaculate performance. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed watching her fine, slim,erect, long-necked, doe-eyed, ultimately British performance. She possesses
an irrefutably neat intelligence which one regards with only
a very a slight feeling of protest.
::::::-::::::::-:::::::::-::::::::-:::::::::
Nicely done effort
rps-24 May 2001
If you like stories about the British upper class and their foibles abroad, you'll enjoy"Up At the Villa." (What a rotten title!) Edward Fox is the perfect gentleman (isn't he always?) Sean Penn is the perfect cad. (Isn't he always?) And Anne Bancroft notches up yet another role as the faded bitch. (Doesn't she do anything else these days?) It's a pretty straight and predictable love story/murder who done it, except we know all along that the victim "done it" to himself. It's in something the same genre as "Tea With Mussolini" with lovely shots of Florence and a faithful recreation of fascist Italy.
An Amoral Story, Having Ingredients of Romance and Suspense
claudio_carvalho10 November 2003
In 1938, Mary Panton is a broken young British widow living in Florence. Sir Edgar Swift (James Fox), a prominent Englishman indicated to be governor in India, proposes her to get married with him. The proximity with World War II makes persons living in this city tense, and Sir Edgar lends a gun to Mary, for her safety, while is traveling on business. Mary's best friend in Florence is the Italian Princess San Ferdinando (Anne Bancroft), a woman who loves gossips. One day, Mary goes with their friends to a restaurant, where she meets Rowley Flint (Sean Penn), a man with bad reputation, and she gets upset with him. On her way back home, she almost kills Karl Richter (Jeremy Davies), the violinist of restaurant where she was. The she realizes that he is indeed an Austrian refugee leaving Florence on the next day and a very sensible man. She has an affair him. But Karl falls in love with her and decides not to leave Florence anymore. Mary explains him that she just wanted one night stand with him and Karl, feeling rejected, commits suicide with Sir Edgar's gun. From now on, Mary Panton has to lie, betray and blackmail, trying to survive to the situation raised by this murder. This romance is a good movie. Anne Bancroft has an outstanding performance, and Sean Penn, Kristin Scott Thomas, James Fox and Jeremy Davies has a great acting, as usual. The story is amoral, having ingredients of romance and suspense. The greatest problem, in my point of view, is the lack of chemistry between the characters of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sean Penn. Somehow they do not fit each other, but maybe this is the intention of the novel. I have not read the book. However, it is a good entertainment. My vote is seven.
Florence Is Beautiful But Everything In It Is Flat!
httpmom25 February 2004
Well, great costumes and a wonderful `feel' for Pre WWII Italy. But what happened here?
Great actors...Kristin Scott Thomas, Sean Penn, Anne Bancroft, James Fox, Derek Jacobi ...if you can't get memorable performances out of this `A List' then the problem with this movie must be blamed on pitiful direction and an inadequate script. I rented this on DVD after having liked "Angels & Insects" (1995) also directed by Philip Haas.
Yipes! I can hardly believe how dull this thing was. It just dragged on and on and no one was able to save the poor thing. This is not even a good intriguing-foreign-dudes-and-young-things-in- pretty-clothes chick flick!
"Tea With Mussolini" Gone Amuck!
Great actors...Kristin Scott Thomas, Sean Penn, Anne Bancroft, James Fox, Derek Jacobi ...if you can't get memorable performances out of this `A List' then the problem with this movie must be blamed on pitiful direction and an inadequate script. I rented this on DVD after having liked "Angels & Insects" (1995) also directed by Philip Haas.
Yipes! I can hardly believe how dull this thing was. It just dragged on and on and no one was able to save the poor thing. This is not even a good intriguing-foreign-dudes-and-young-things-in- pretty-clothes chick flick!
"Tea With Mussolini" Gone Amuck!
Thriller?
sgreenwa5 November 2000
If this is a thriller, then I forgot what the genre is all about. This is a period piece, plain and simple...there is no sense of climax or anticipation or "thrill".....It's not a bad movie.....It's just a movie, somewhat on the bland side....To me, it's not much of a romance, for you really never feel that Kristen Scott Thomas and Sean Penn have much chemistry between them, like Thomas and Fiennes did in the English Patient. This is an average movie. If you like Italy, you like the WW2 time period, and you like Thomas & Penn, then you may enjoy this.
pretentious, but classy..... Penn very miscast
zeula29 July 2003
This was a little surprise recent movie for me..... Considering, I've been watching so many newly released junk, cranking from Hollywood these days....... I mean, to the point, where I was just simply hopeless, wondering, if Hollywood was ever gonna make anymore decent, quality films, ''which made sense''...... I found ''Up At The Villa'' a consistent film, which held on to my attention..... Kristin Scott Thomas plays her role very well.... Her character was believable thru out, and her acting, natural...... Although, I kinda found this film, pretentious at times, involving upper class europeans etc...... Very typical, or maybe just the way, the movie is presented..... Sometimes, the film is too talky, especially, w/ scenes between Kristin & Sean Penn...... Sean Penn, is probably the entire film's, most miscast actor...... He seems so detached from the movie, like he dropped in from somewhere else...... He doesn't have much chemistry w/ Kristin, and their relationship, isn't believable..... It's not even about Sean's physical appearance, but the way her carries himself, and his gestures, when he talks, sounding like he's some rebellious hitman, or druglord, or ganster...... whatever..... As much as he tried to belong, I think, this is not the type of film suitable for him..... I don't even know, why he accepted it, to begin w/....... As such a reputable decent actor, playing an unconvincing role like this, just downgrade's his status......
Every Reviewer has totally missed it....
stephanieremer8 June 2005
"You're never a great man, when you have more mind than heart." E.P. Beauchene
In a nutshell, Mary, (Kristin Scott Thomas), a distractingly beautiful English widow has more heart than mind in this period piece. A noble thing to have, unless your naivety of heart gets you into places you never dreamed your heart would lead you.
This excellent period piece takes place in fascist Italy. A group of English aristocrats worlds intertwine, with a twist. Kristin Scott Thomas' charmingly elegant character sparks life so intriguing, you'll find yourself leaning toward the tube.
Many reviewers peg this as a tale of "lust". I disagree. I find no lust at all in this movie. What I do find, is a woman torn by her emotions and doing the right thing or the "kind" thing. Even Sean Penn is laid-back with his enduring advances.
I found it to be a monument to human emotions, both caring and caustic.
In a nutshell, Mary, (Kristin Scott Thomas), a distractingly beautiful English widow has more heart than mind in this period piece. A noble thing to have, unless your naivety of heart gets you into places you never dreamed your heart would lead you.
This excellent period piece takes place in fascist Italy. A group of English aristocrats worlds intertwine, with a twist. Kristin Scott Thomas' charmingly elegant character sparks life so intriguing, you'll find yourself leaning toward the tube.
Many reviewers peg this as a tale of "lust". I disagree. I find no lust at all in this movie. What I do find, is a woman torn by her emotions and doing the right thing or the "kind" thing. Even Sean Penn is laid-back with his enduring advances.
I found it to be a monument to human emotions, both caring and caustic.
Out Of Human Bondage
urnotdb12 May 2005
Pre-WWII European governments were staffed by bureaucrats or aristocrats who advanced by maintaining the status quo; by avoiding attention or destroying rivals. In this environment, the main character, a widowed British expatriate, has no options beyond a marriage of convenience. In the confusion surrounding preparations for WWII, she encounters the elements of risk and life or death decisions, changing her options. Very interesting story, typically good Scott-Thomas, appropriately low-key Penn. Maugham liked to put his characters in traps and then see if he could get them out. Shades of "Casablanca."
lacks tension
SnoopyStyle11 April 2015
It's the late 1930s around Florence. Sir Edgar Swift (James Fox) is the distinguished governor of Bengal who has come to court the widow Mary Panton (Kristin Scott Thomas). She loved her husband as he turned into a drunken gambler who squandered all of their money. Sir Swift proposes to her and she promises an answer upon his return. He leaves her with a gun as he fears a deteriorating security situation. She is hounded by Lucky Leadbetter (Derek Jacobi) who is after fresh-faced English young men. Princess San Ferdinando (Anne Bancroft) is a woman who had many flings and lots of connections. She introduces Mary to playboy Rowley Flint (Sean Penn) at a dinner party. Italian fascist Beppino Leopardi doesn't like Rowley. She rejects Rowley's advances and kicks him out of her car. She almost runs over Karl Richter (Jeremy Davies) who was a bad musician at the party. He's a refugee escaping the Nazis after organizing resistance as a student in Austria. She invites him back to her villa and they spend the night together. Leopardi imposes new restrictions on the foreign presence. Karl becomes unruly and Mary pulls out the gun. Karl takes it away and shoots himself with it. Rowley helps her dispose of the body.
Sean Penn somehow doesn't fit this time and this story. He never disappears into this role. He sticks out in this period piece like a sore thumb. Also the story lacks tension. There is some limited tension with Leopardi but that's resolved well before the end. The romance doesn't have any intensity. This should be a lot better. I do like Jeremy Davies' performance in a minor role.
Sean Penn somehow doesn't fit this time and this story. He never disappears into this role. He sticks out in this period piece like a sore thumb. Also the story lacks tension. There is some limited tension with Leopardi but that's resolved well before the end. The romance doesn't have any intensity. This should be a lot better. I do like Jeremy Davies' performance in a minor role.
Beautifully filmed, frustrating story of head vs. lust
trpdean2 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I'm intrigued by the comment below about how rich Maugham's story is - because I quite like Maugham. I also like Anne Bancroft, Kristen Scott-Thomas and James Fox, so selecting this movie from my video rental store was easy.
Unfortunately, something must have happened in writing the screenplay.
*** SPOILERS ***
One of the more selfless and realistically portrayed acts of love I've ever seen takes place toward the end of this movie. James Fox's character reveals how very difficult and long a climb it has been to now be about to be appointed Governor of Bengal, one of the largest of India's states. With his sigh, his body movement, we sense the dedication, the diligence, the very effort it has taken to climb the "greasy pole". Fox is not a peer - we sense no great hereditary estate. He has been knighted for his painstaking work and is apparently wealthy through his very industry.
Fox is promptly informed by a poor widow to whom he has proposed, that during the very weekend she was to consider his proposal: a) her view of charity was to sleep with a refugee ("I thought I'd do him good -he was just so miserable" is the amazing explanation), b) the refugee proceeded to kill himself with the gun Fox had lent her for protection, c) the widow arranged to hide the body in the woods with the assistance of a cad who despises Fox, d) Fox's gun and the cad were held by the police, but e) the widow managed to retrieve his gun and the cad by rifling through her friend's desk for material to blackmail the authorities.
She tells Fox that she can understand if he would like to withdraw his proposal.
Fox's reaction? Not only does he remain keen on marriage with her, but he would freely give up his career in doing so because he loves more than life, and the scandal (if revealed while he were Governor) of his wife's witless fornication causing a stranger's suicide would make the British government's task in India more difficult.
To Fox's astonishing act of love, forgiveness and self-abnegation, the widow says she has never loved Fox, that his attitude is "weak" because they "need him in India" (one suspects she simply wishes to be the Governor's wife at that moment), that he misunderstands the cad who would never breathe a word of the scandal, and that she turns down his marriage proposal because the scandal has caused her somehow to become a woman of the world, rather than the child ("you're used to giving me sweets") who wanted to marry him.
However, as the widow, Scott-Thomas had seemed anything but a child. She had spoken before about the horror of marriage to one without virtue - about the twelve year long marriage she had endured in which her husband had gambled and drunk away their money, whored his way through countless women, and finally been killed while speeding. She had spoken of her dread of continuing to live on the generosity of strangers. These aren't a child's sentiments but an adult's sagacity.
To whom then does Scott-Thomas turn after the selflessness of Fox's love? To whom does she turn to avoid the insecurity of which she spoke as the bane of her previous marriage?
To a married man who says he can offer "no guarantees" of his love or faithfulness except that he will not return to his wife, who asks her to simply take the train to "anywhere", and about whom we know only that he takes waitresses and servants frequently to bed, is disliked by the authorities, and assisted her to deceive the authorities to help her.
At the end, she says to the cad, "I was yours when you first sat down". Well, welcome to misery.
Sorry, I know it's the movies, but when a movie ends this badly, with the heroine choosing the charmless married void in lieu of the paragon of sacrificial love, security and virtue, I have a difficult time liking the movie.
I found Sean Penn's character anything but likeable - he had a sort of neutered quality - making puerile fraternity boy jokes about sleeping with the 60+ old princess, asking "why" of a government official's decision in a crowded antechamber and shrugging weakly before sitting down (when asked if satisfied with the official's bogus explanation).
I suspect the movie has taken the story's tragic ending and tried to torture it into a happy one. The same woman who presumably acted on impulse by marrying a weak man and suffered a disastrous marriage for it,
the same woman who acted on impulse to seduce a poor refugee and thereby set in train the events that killed him,
is indeed the woman who turns away from a man willing to throw away everything for which he worked out of love for her, for a man who says "hey, no guarantees, babe".
Tragedy will undoubtedly again ensue - the little painted grin painted on the protagonist as she heads toward the bar car, can't mask it.
*** SPOILERS END ***
I disliked the movie.
Unfortunately, something must have happened in writing the screenplay.
*** SPOILERS ***
One of the more selfless and realistically portrayed acts of love I've ever seen takes place toward the end of this movie. James Fox's character reveals how very difficult and long a climb it has been to now be about to be appointed Governor of Bengal, one of the largest of India's states. With his sigh, his body movement, we sense the dedication, the diligence, the very effort it has taken to climb the "greasy pole". Fox is not a peer - we sense no great hereditary estate. He has been knighted for his painstaking work and is apparently wealthy through his very industry.
Fox is promptly informed by a poor widow to whom he has proposed, that during the very weekend she was to consider his proposal: a) her view of charity was to sleep with a refugee ("I thought I'd do him good -he was just so miserable" is the amazing explanation), b) the refugee proceeded to kill himself with the gun Fox had lent her for protection, c) the widow arranged to hide the body in the woods with the assistance of a cad who despises Fox, d) Fox's gun and the cad were held by the police, but e) the widow managed to retrieve his gun and the cad by rifling through her friend's desk for material to blackmail the authorities.
She tells Fox that she can understand if he would like to withdraw his proposal.
Fox's reaction? Not only does he remain keen on marriage with her, but he would freely give up his career in doing so because he loves more than life, and the scandal (if revealed while he were Governor) of his wife's witless fornication causing a stranger's suicide would make the British government's task in India more difficult.
To Fox's astonishing act of love, forgiveness and self-abnegation, the widow says she has never loved Fox, that his attitude is "weak" because they "need him in India" (one suspects she simply wishes to be the Governor's wife at that moment), that he misunderstands the cad who would never breathe a word of the scandal, and that she turns down his marriage proposal because the scandal has caused her somehow to become a woman of the world, rather than the child ("you're used to giving me sweets") who wanted to marry him.
However, as the widow, Scott-Thomas had seemed anything but a child. She had spoken before about the horror of marriage to one without virtue - about the twelve year long marriage she had endured in which her husband had gambled and drunk away their money, whored his way through countless women, and finally been killed while speeding. She had spoken of her dread of continuing to live on the generosity of strangers. These aren't a child's sentiments but an adult's sagacity.
To whom then does Scott-Thomas turn after the selflessness of Fox's love? To whom does she turn to avoid the insecurity of which she spoke as the bane of her previous marriage?
To a married man who says he can offer "no guarantees" of his love or faithfulness except that he will not return to his wife, who asks her to simply take the train to "anywhere", and about whom we know only that he takes waitresses and servants frequently to bed, is disliked by the authorities, and assisted her to deceive the authorities to help her.
At the end, she says to the cad, "I was yours when you first sat down". Well, welcome to misery.
Sorry, I know it's the movies, but when a movie ends this badly, with the heroine choosing the charmless married void in lieu of the paragon of sacrificial love, security and virtue, I have a difficult time liking the movie.
I found Sean Penn's character anything but likeable - he had a sort of neutered quality - making puerile fraternity boy jokes about sleeping with the 60+ old princess, asking "why" of a government official's decision in a crowded antechamber and shrugging weakly before sitting down (when asked if satisfied with the official's bogus explanation).
I suspect the movie has taken the story's tragic ending and tried to torture it into a happy one. The same woman who presumably acted on impulse by marrying a weak man and suffered a disastrous marriage for it,
the same woman who acted on impulse to seduce a poor refugee and thereby set in train the events that killed him,
is indeed the woman who turns away from a man willing to throw away everything for which he worked out of love for her, for a man who says "hey, no guarantees, babe".
Tragedy will undoubtedly again ensue - the little painted grin painted on the protagonist as she heads toward the bar car, can't mask it.
*** SPOILERS END ***
I disliked the movie.
It's OK
Quinoa198429 July 2000
This film is OK because of It's performances and drama. But the plot is a tad confusing. I get the romance and even some of the suspense that comes in the romance and drama. It's just something in this film that struck me odd. Oh well, I still think adults will like this film for it's actors- Kristen Scott Thomas, Sean Penn, Anne Bancroft and Jeremy Davies, who made a breakthrough in Saving Private Ryan, and almost saves the movie here. B
A pretty pleasant surprise
mmunies28 May 2000
I had wanted to see this film for at least two reasons. I liked the actors Sean Penn and Derek Jacobi and I love Somerset Maugham's books. I was disappointed when I read the mixed/unfavorable reviews this film got but I decided to go see it anyway since I don't always listen to the critics!
Anyway, when I walked in the theatre my first response was - uh oh. I don't mean to be ageist but most of the people in the audience were over 50. I forged ahead though.
The film starts out real slow and I was really concerned for the first 20 minutes that I made a mistake and that this was going to be another stuffy period piece. I found out quickly that the characters were not at all likable but that ended up enhancing the story.
The movie started getting interested when the main character, Mary, ends up having an affair with a poor young refugee because she feels "sorry for him" and is emulating the behavior of her rich, awful, self centered friend the queen (played brilliantly by Anne Bancroft). Well, this affair ends with tragic results and then the movie becomes quite engrossing and the characters really become interesting.
I really enjoyed Kristen Scott Thomas' performance and felt that she portrayed her complex character well. Anne Bancroft and Derek Jacobi were top notch as usual and really added to the film. Derek Jacobi actually ended up being the only likable character in the film even if he was over the top at times.
I was less than thrilled with Sean Penn's performance and am surprised at the positive reviews of him. I've liked this actor since he appeared in Bad Boys and Fast Times at Ridgemont High but felt he was miscast. He really seemed to stick out like a sore thumb and I didn't like his portrayal of his character - he made this guy seem like a charicature of a macho American during the 30's.
Overall, I was glad I saw the film and enjoyed it. I definitely enjoyed it a lot more than "The End of An Affair" which for some weird reason did get lots of positive reviews even though it wasn't nearly as interesting or engaging.
My advise is ignore the reviews and stick this one out after the first 20 minutes - it's worth it.
Anyway, when I walked in the theatre my first response was - uh oh. I don't mean to be ageist but most of the people in the audience were over 50. I forged ahead though.
The film starts out real slow and I was really concerned for the first 20 minutes that I made a mistake and that this was going to be another stuffy period piece. I found out quickly that the characters were not at all likable but that ended up enhancing the story.
The movie started getting interested when the main character, Mary, ends up having an affair with a poor young refugee because she feels "sorry for him" and is emulating the behavior of her rich, awful, self centered friend the queen (played brilliantly by Anne Bancroft). Well, this affair ends with tragic results and then the movie becomes quite engrossing and the characters really become interesting.
I really enjoyed Kristen Scott Thomas' performance and felt that she portrayed her complex character well. Anne Bancroft and Derek Jacobi were top notch as usual and really added to the film. Derek Jacobi actually ended up being the only likable character in the film even if he was over the top at times.
I was less than thrilled with Sean Penn's performance and am surprised at the positive reviews of him. I've liked this actor since he appeared in Bad Boys and Fast Times at Ridgemont High but felt he was miscast. He really seemed to stick out like a sore thumb and I didn't like his portrayal of his character - he made this guy seem like a charicature of a macho American during the 30's.
Overall, I was glad I saw the film and enjoyed it. I definitely enjoyed it a lot more than "The End of An Affair" which for some weird reason did get lots of positive reviews even though it wasn't nearly as interesting or engaging.
My advise is ignore the reviews and stick this one out after the first 20 minutes - it's worth it.
A Tale of Civilized Repression In Splendid Surroundings
museumofdave24 March 2013
Few critics or fellow film fans have given this period romance much slack, perhaps expecting more passion or more overt drama. As it's a Somerset Maugham adaptation, the simple tale deals with folks whose manner does not allow for much passion, who live in a period where reasonable marriages are prized--and that is the problem our repressed heroine, Kristen Scott Thomas faces as she grapples with oncoming age and a lack of financial resources; she meets American rascal Sean Penn, who is not Cary Grant nor was meant to be, but a playful lover who lives for the moment; it's refreshing to see Penn stretch different acting muscles without the usual angst and anger; There are numerous side benefits for those who enjoy an immersion in period--Tuscany during the rise of repressive Fascism, the Villa on well-manicured grounds, and Anne Bancroft deliciously dishy as a self-indulgent American princess. It's not a great film by any means, but I recommend it as a leisurely cinematic amble for a Sunday afternoon matinée. Afterwoods you can go out on the lawn for a game of croquet.
Beautiful photography, dull story.
FlickJunkie-214 November 2000
A rich period piece centered on the lives of wealthy residents of pre WWII Florence, `Up At The Villa' is lovely to look at, but dull to watch. The story focuses on about four days in the life of Mary Panton (Kristin Scott Thomas), an English socialite living in Florence. Mary's serene and boring life is turned upside down by a proposal from Sir Edgar (James Fox), a very wealthy man she doesn't love; her fascination with Rowley Flint (Sean Penn), a roguish playboy who irritates and attracts her; and a peccadillo with an indigent Austrian refugee. As if that is not enough excitement for the bland widow, the refugee commits suicide when she tries to explain to him that their night of passion wasn't true love, but an act of kindness and pity on her part.
The principal problem here is that the main characters are so flawed that the viewer is unable to care about anything that happens to them. The only charismatic character is Princess Ferdinando (Anne Bancroft), a delightfully irreverent busybody. Mary makes so many bad decisions in such a short period that it is difficult to have any respect for her. Rowley is simultaneously repugnant and pathetic and Sir Edgar is about as interesting as a decapitated mushroom.
The best thing about the film is the cinematography and the period renderings. Director Philip Haas and cinematographer Maurizio Calvesi combine to bring us breathtaking scenes of Florentine splendor. The Villa that was selected was majestic and the period costumes, cars, furniture and props were wonderfully accurate. This natural beauty in conjunction with some excellent lighting effects made this film a feast for the eyes.
Kristin Scott Thomas' performance was marvelous despite the haplessness of her character. She was emotional and confused, and she looked lovely doing it. Sean Penn was utterly miscast as Rowley. Penn is best playing offbeat and outrageous characters. In his attempt to contain his natural outlandishness, he came across as far too restrained and lacked the dashing and cavalier attitude that one expects from such a playboy. Together they had as much chemistry as used dishwater.
The best performance was unquestionably that of Anne Bancroft. She gave an unrestrained and effluent performance as the Grande Dame that glistened with dynamic energy. It is too bad she didn't get more screen time.
I rated this film a 7/10 on the strength of the photography and a great performance by Anne Bancroft. The story isn't bad, but it is far from inspiring. It will probably play better to female audiences than male due to the highly emotional nature of the heroine.
The principal problem here is that the main characters are so flawed that the viewer is unable to care about anything that happens to them. The only charismatic character is Princess Ferdinando (Anne Bancroft), a delightfully irreverent busybody. Mary makes so many bad decisions in such a short period that it is difficult to have any respect for her. Rowley is simultaneously repugnant and pathetic and Sir Edgar is about as interesting as a decapitated mushroom.
The best thing about the film is the cinematography and the period renderings. Director Philip Haas and cinematographer Maurizio Calvesi combine to bring us breathtaking scenes of Florentine splendor. The Villa that was selected was majestic and the period costumes, cars, furniture and props were wonderfully accurate. This natural beauty in conjunction with some excellent lighting effects made this film a feast for the eyes.
Kristin Scott Thomas' performance was marvelous despite the haplessness of her character. She was emotional and confused, and she looked lovely doing it. Sean Penn was utterly miscast as Rowley. Penn is best playing offbeat and outrageous characters. In his attempt to contain his natural outlandishness, he came across as far too restrained and lacked the dashing and cavalier attitude that one expects from such a playboy. Together they had as much chemistry as used dishwater.
The best performance was unquestionably that of Anne Bancroft. She gave an unrestrained and effluent performance as the Grande Dame that glistened with dynamic energy. It is too bad she didn't get more screen time.
I rated this film a 7/10 on the strength of the photography and a great performance by Anne Bancroft. The story isn't bad, but it is far from inspiring. It will probably play better to female audiences than male due to the highly emotional nature of the heroine.
How to wreck a pretty little fluff by Maugham
filmalamosa6 April 2012
The Maugham novel would have been a treat this movie is not.
The evil fascists are interrupting the beautiful life of ex-pats living in 1937 Florence. These beautiful rich people include Kirstin Thomas (the scenery and costumes are beautiful---but that is all that is good about this movie.) It is basically a chick flick with Thomas swirling around everywhere things appearing magically at the right time to this wide eyed heroine. Kirsten has it all: looks experience 1 night stands with hitchhikers fleeing the Nazi's a powerful suitor and hot lover and so forth as she outsmarts the cartoon like Italian officials. No this is more than a brain dead caricature of pre WWII politics--it is brain dead period.
I grew to hate Kirstin's character that wide eyed not a mean bone in my body look the only look she has frozen in place during the whole movie as she picks up and screws a hitchhiker in the most beautiful as is possible Florentine villa.
Belinda and Philip Hass (writer and director) also made Angels and Insects a movie that troubles my subconscious even today. That is a whole different matter though or is it??.... in it there was too bright of lighting dresses made to look like insects---weird and troubling. It is however the perfect female heroes that are the problem in both films= they are sickeningly PC perfect.
This is Maugham stripped of all of his sophisticated observations and insights and filled with chick flick PC action.
Thumbs down down down....
The evil fascists are interrupting the beautiful life of ex-pats living in 1937 Florence. These beautiful rich people include Kirstin Thomas (the scenery and costumes are beautiful---but that is all that is good about this movie.) It is basically a chick flick with Thomas swirling around everywhere things appearing magically at the right time to this wide eyed heroine. Kirsten has it all: looks experience 1 night stands with hitchhikers fleeing the Nazi's a powerful suitor and hot lover and so forth as she outsmarts the cartoon like Italian officials. No this is more than a brain dead caricature of pre WWII politics--it is brain dead period.
I grew to hate Kirstin's character that wide eyed not a mean bone in my body look the only look she has frozen in place during the whole movie as she picks up and screws a hitchhiker in the most beautiful as is possible Florentine villa.
Belinda and Philip Hass (writer and director) also made Angels and Insects a movie that troubles my subconscious even today. That is a whole different matter though or is it??.... in it there was too bright of lighting dresses made to look like insects---weird and troubling. It is however the perfect female heroes that are the problem in both films= they are sickeningly PC perfect.
This is Maugham stripped of all of his sophisticated observations and insights and filled with chick flick PC action.
Thumbs down down down....
Intelligent, sophisticated, and elegant drama-lite.
=G=25 October 2000
"Up At the Villa" is a plodding, understated, dialogue-intensive "little" drama about love, sex, misdeeds, and other intrigues of decadent British aristocrats occupying Florence, Italy in days prior to WWII. Built around the Thomas character, what the film lacks in depth it makes up for with a well crafted script, excellent performances, and grand scenery.
Disappointing
taita28 July 2002
I expected more of this film than it could deliver. I havent read the novella but other comments lead me to believe that the ending was different from the one filmed. Perhaps they should have stuck to it.
If I love a movie I rave about it If I hate a movie I am equally fervent in my comments but with this one I dont even care enough about the movie or the characters in it to comment more. Disappointing.
If I love a movie I rave about it If I hate a movie I am equally fervent in my comments but with this one I dont even care enough about the movie or the characters in it to comment more. Disappointing.
Elegant, Well-Acted, Understated, and Interesting!
pied4 December 2000
This movie should have been promoted more aggressively. It's low rating on IMDB is unwarranted because it is one of the year's best.
Kristin Scott Thomas puts in an absolutely marvelous performance as Mary, a young British widow, penniless but beautiful. She is part of a group of British and American expatriates living in 1938 Italy. Her best friend, Ann Bancroft as the Princessa, advises her to marry the much older, but very rich British diplomat (James Fox) and take younger lovers. Two such lovers in the persons of Sean Penn (a married American of devastating charm but uncertain background) and Jeremy Davies ( a poor, young Austrian refugee) appear.
The plot never slackens or loses interest as we follow Mary through a labyrinthe of unexpected twists and turns.
I found this film charming and more than acceptable. It is one of the few in my lexicon which I will watch again.
Kristin Scott Thomas puts in an absolutely marvelous performance as Mary, a young British widow, penniless but beautiful. She is part of a group of British and American expatriates living in 1938 Italy. Her best friend, Ann Bancroft as the Princessa, advises her to marry the much older, but very rich British diplomat (James Fox) and take younger lovers. Two such lovers in the persons of Sean Penn (a married American of devastating charm but uncertain background) and Jeremy Davies ( a poor, young Austrian refugee) appear.
The plot never slackens or loses interest as we follow Mary through a labyrinthe of unexpected twists and turns.
I found this film charming and more than acceptable. It is one of the few in my lexicon which I will watch again.
Very Boring
Theo Robertson13 May 2003
UP AT THE VILLA fooled me into thinking I`d be watching something similar to GOSFORD PARK . The film opens at a ballroom in 1930s Italy which is populated by vulgar Americans and uptight upper class Brits , but in truth UP AT THE VILLA plays out far more like a Merchant -Ivory production which is very bad news because it`s a very slow , and I do mean very slow romantic drama with some of the romance being very unlikely . If you like slow romantic dramas you might like this movie . I didn`t
Say it ain't so Sean
the_dennis_king6 July 2001
I thought I was going to really enjoy this movie. Sean Penn is one of the finest actors in Hollywood today. He was absolutely brilliant in Dead Man Walking and Carlito's Way, to name just two. Kristen Scott Thomas is always very good. This movie also has an excellent supporting cast (Jacobi's 'I Claudius' still rates as the best performance I've ever seen on PBS). And I have enjoyed almost every movie I've seen dealing with pre-WWII fascist Italy.
But not this one.
To my surprise, this movie seemed to meander from scene to scene. The acting was uninspired and and the emotions did not seem genuine. I was never absorbed into the film and was constantly aware that Penn and Thomas were acting. And Penn seemed completely flat. At times, his low and garbled voice was a bit hard to understand, but I didn't rewind the video to hear what I missed as I just wanted to get on to a more interesting part... which never came. Perhaps this role was beyond Penn. Perhaps he just mailed it in. In any case, I was quite disappointed with this movie.
But not this one.
To my surprise, this movie seemed to meander from scene to scene. The acting was uninspired and and the emotions did not seem genuine. I was never absorbed into the film and was constantly aware that Penn and Thomas were acting. And Penn seemed completely flat. At times, his low and garbled voice was a bit hard to understand, but I didn't rewind the video to hear what I missed as I just wanted to get on to a more interesting part... which never came. Perhaps this role was beyond Penn. Perhaps he just mailed it in. In any case, I was quite disappointed with this movie.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
