Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

If you remember the acclaimed mini-series of Brideshead Revisited than you're already well acquainted with the Flyte family, it's head Michael Gambon, it's most Catholic mother Emma Thompson and their children. Unlike the mini-series the emphasis here is on outsider Charles Ryder and his connection to Julia as opposed to her brother Sebastian.Charles Ryder here is played by Michael Goode and during World War II of all the country estates in Great Britain he's sent to the estate of the Flyte family where during the 20s he spent considerable time. He was taken there by Ben Whishaw playing Sebastian who is at Oxford with him. Whishaw is the unofficial leader of a group of upper crust gay students and he'd love to bring Goode into the fold. Goode however keeps Whishaw at hand's length while he courts sister Hayley Atwell playing Julia.In the mini-series Ryder and Sebastian get involved, here they do not. But in any event Goode's non-Catholicism and his unwillingness to convert vetoes him in the eyes of Emma Thompson for entrance into the family. How it all works out for Charles Ryder is for you to see.Jeremy Irons and Anthony Andrews created the roles of Charles and Sebastian for the mini-series and next to them Goode and Whishaw are all right, but just don't measure up. Still those enjoyed the doings of the Flyte family back in the early 80s should like this. And fans of this generation ought to check out the mini-series.

Julian Jarrold's interpretation of Brideshead Revisited is not exactly bad, but it's not very good either and, for me, is a great disappointment. Evelyn Waugh is my favourite author, but even I admit that Brideshead is something of the cuckoo in the nest in his work (and he also admits in a preface to later editions that he did tone down the sumptuousness of the novel's first incarnation). It is not typical of his work. Having said that, it is still a damn sight more subtle than Jarrold's film.Matthew Goode as Charles Ryder does rather well as the middle-class lad who is bowled over by every aspect of the Catholic aristocratic family which takes him under its wing. But Ben Whishaw's Sebastian Flyte is a parody. It doesn't help that I can't stand Wishaw and have loathed his every performance, but I'll try not to let that influence this appraisal.In a sense Wishaw's two-dimensional portrayal of Sebastian as a young, weak, very gay, spoilt and rich man adrift in the world and life typifies what, in my view, is wrong with Jarrold's film. Where Waugh has a light touch and is subtle and ambiguous, Jarrold uses far too broad a brush to paint his picture and thereby kills the piece stone dead. It might survive for later generations as an entertaining enough period piece, but it can and should expect no higher praise than that.Certainly, there are a great many aspects of the film which score well: the production is good, the casting - except for bloody Wishaw - is decent, but without hitting the bullseye in translating the novel's essence to the silver screen, all those successes are rather pointless.

I was extremely disappointed with this film. It does not deserve to carry the same name as the novel by Evelyn Waugh!As an avid reader of the book – and as someone who has seen the 1981 television series countless times – I was very much looking forward to a cinematic take on the story. I thought the opportunity would allow the director to make the most of costumes, sets, and characters. And this is true in the film. I do not blame actors, set designers, or indeed the production team in general, for any of the catastrophic mistakes in this production – I think they have all done a laudable job within their domains. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the casting team in this film remedied one of the very few misgivings about the television production, with a more suitable choice for the character of Antony Blanche. But despite such good choices, it is sad that the production team and the actors were given a script that inexcusably butchered Waugh's storyline to begin with.The beautifully nuanced relationship between Charles and Sebastian (from the book and television series) is here transformed into a bizarre, utilitarian and senseless association. The original story captured my imagination (years before the movie) due to parallels between the storyline and a relationship of my own at a very similar age to that of Charles and Sebastian at the beginning of the novel. I have never come across any other book that captures so compellingly the multi-layered feelings, bonds, attractions, and nature of this kind of relationship. The book contains multiple insinuations that refer to a deeply romantic attachment between these two characters. The attraction is mutual, emotional and physical. The book's use of language allows for an interpretation of their love as a platonic bond or as an increasingly sexual relationship, depending on the willingness of the reader to dwell on the analogical passages within the story. Waugh's delivery of a love story between two men is in tune with the historical time of the events – a time in which homosexuality was illegal in the United Kingdom. It is the story of a "love that dare not speak its name" (to quote Alfred Douglas). In the film, the nuances are completely thrown out of the window. Sebastian is now a needy, weak character. Charles is a gold digger, mesmerised by Sebastian's wealth and family, but never really attracted or attached to him as a person. The captivating love story that Waugh develops in multiple stages and locations (Brideshead, Oxford, Venice, etc) is all reduced in the movie to a pathetic and uninspired kiss that Sebastian steals from Charles after a drunken evening. The inclusion of Julia in the trip to Venice is absurd! In the novel this is where the relationship between Charles and Sebastian reaches maturity (with "Byronian" echoes). All in all, the film never gets close to telling the story of Charles and Sebastian. It destroys the characters, twists the narrative, and unforgivably uses the name "Brideshead Revisited" to tell a different story. The scriptwriters should be ashamed of themselves!

Okay I admit that it took me awhile to see the film after it was released - three years that is. And I loved the very very beginning of the film, and thought this would be really good, that British touch of taking a sensuous, romantic period piece and making it work on film. But this doesn't cut it. Unfortunate - because M. Goode is really great in the lead role. He steals it for me, as does the young man who plays Sebastian. Emma T is wasted in the film - not her fault. The script isn't' as good as it could be, and there are moments where one could perhaps fault the editing, direction, adaptation? not sure. But it doesn't flow as well as it could flow.With all that said, may I suggest everyone enjoy the wonderful British TV series of the story. It really is great - not just great film, but great TV and great story telling.This doesn't work. Too bad - I'm sorry for all involved, it had potential.