It is a performances centric movie

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Very slow-moving Victorian/Edwardian style melodrama about a high-strung Jodie Foster type who, after her father dies, begins to pay visits to a women's prison with the intention of helping the inmates. Instead, she -- on the rebound from an affair with a girlfriend who has recently married her brother -- falls head over heels for a young woman who claims to be clairvoyant but clearly is a charlatan. The two make plans to run away to Italy together. The first half of this TV movie plays like a Henry James story, such as TURN OF THE SCREW. The second half has a much more modern sensibility to it. And like any modern thriller, it includes a twist ending. As you can see, this was not my cup of tea, but I gave it a reasonably high score for pristine production values and solid acting by all involved. I suspect the average American will not be able to sit through the whole thing. Impressionable types of the British persuasion are, I suspect, likely to be its best audience. By the way, a quick-cut scene at the very beginning betrays the ending, so beware.

I am very disappointed that there where a lot of very low ratings for this movie by a good number of people. Personally I found that the movie was very captivating, and it made me want to understand better what was exactly happening all along. The costumes where marvelous, and the twist at the end (although I expected something similar, because it almost always happens in these kind of movies) was very good. It is a very good drama, however only for people that know how to appreciate it. People who like a lot of action, and not understanding will not appreciate it as much.

Affinity was the television low point of Christmas 2008. It seemed to have been thrown together at the last minute, with jarring editing, terrible sound balances, and a script that seemed to have been put together by a cliché-filled computer. Everything seemed wrong - the men's facial hair, the extras' wooden street-walking, the dreadful music, the sheer repetitiveness (we turned it into a drinking game: one finger for 'walks nervously through prison gates', two fingers for 'walks nervously into cell'; we all got very drunk.) I loathe wobbly-cam shots, trying to watch characters as they bounce around the screen in a haphazard fashion, but occasionally, it can be bearable - Bourne, for instance. 'Affinity' was not the place for wobbly-cams, especially when they are mixed - seemingly at random - with steady shots. I hate to ask it, because he is supposed to have TV's Midas Touch, but is Andrew Davies entering 'Emperor's New Clothes' territory?

I checked the IMDb rating of this film before watching it. 5.7 - not too promising. But as I subsequently watched it, I found myself more and more surprised at this low rating, because this was well-produced and well-acted and would probably, I thought, get a 7 from me, at the very least. The plot was intriguing and exciting and understated in an appealing way. Which is why the nonsensical ending was so disappointing.I haven't read the book, but I understand I have the exact same problem with the film's ending (different from the book's) as do those who've read it. It's a common theme in stories of the supernatural that it is eventually revealed to be a hoax (Dean R. Koontz, anyone?), so while it was not surprising, it would have been a great deal more refreshing if it had turned out to be real. But, it was deception. It was all intended to deceive. The very core of the plot, the whole concept and the entire point was deception. Hence the story undermined its own plot by having Selina nurture regrets and have feelings for Margaret after all. Because Selina and Vigers could only have pulled something like that off if they were really, really committed to these fraudulent schemes, and worked together with complete trust between them. Therefore Selina's regrets just don't make sense.The story, at the end, in my opinion, should have focused on the relationship and genuine feelings between Selina and Ruth Vigers, which would *actually* have made this into a proper love story after all - except of course for the a bit more than slightly silly fact that they were lesbian rapists (uh - a bit of a stretch in any case) and thus the bad guys. But I could actually have looked beyond this because of the era in which it took place; an era where lesbians could not openly live out their heartfelt lifestyle, but had to find very alternative and creative ways of doing so.Anyway, the "spirit rapes" being their chief motivation made the whole plot rather dumb, and after that revelation how on earth are we supposed to care for these characters? So, the IMDb rating is pretty accurate after all. A shame.6 out of 10.