What makes it different from others?

Some things I liked some I did not.

One of the best films i have seen

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

Poor Madeleine Potter. She's a faith healer's daughter in 1875 Boston, a speaker for the woman's movement, and everybody wants a piece of her. Her father, Wesley Addy, puts her on display at meetings and rakes in the shekels. Vanessa Redgrave, ardent feminist avant la lettre, wants to use her as a poster girl and also, maybe, bestow on her in muted form some of the love that dare not speak its name. The manly, mustachioed Christopher Reeve wants her for his own and would like to run away with her and turn her into a much-loved icon of delicate femininity who has nothing to say.I had the advantage of never having read the novel so I can only comment on the raw film. It's a typical Merchant-Ivory movie -- tasteful, lavish, accurate to the period, and marvelously photographed. Some of the images at the Massachusetts beach are Winslow Homerish.The plot is really too complicated and too subtle to describe in detail. It boils down to whether Madeleine Potter wants to represent a social cause or become a Southerner's housewife. It sounds worse than it is. The viewer is tempted to jump in with both feet because sexism is currently a social issue. That would turn Reeve into the domineering villain and Redgrave into a paragon of virtue.I saw it less as a question of right and wrong than a clash of the two most prominent cultures on which the country was founded. The intolerant, profoundly religious, fiercely democratic New England Yankees and the aristocratic, gentile, highly stratified, caste-ridden, proud society of Southern planters. We've been fighting this same civil war since the Puritans landed in the Bay Colony and the cavaliers settled in Virginia.Of course it's not THAT simple. Nothing is really simple. Reeve evidently loves Potter to distraction. Yet he's pushy too. Pushy even by the standards of today. He's a Mississippian, a veteran, a lawyer, who has migrated to New York. But he's not successful. His essays are routinely rejected by publishers who tell him his views are three hundred years out of date. We can imagine what those views are. When some elderly lady remarks that her experiences in the South weren't very pleasant, Reeve replies that it may have had something to do with her attempt to improve the lot of the "Nigra". And when Potter takes him to visit a hall at Harvard lined with the names of the Union dead, watch Reeve's expression.Best performances aren't by the two lovers, but by Vanessa Redgrave, Jessica Tandy, Linda Hunt, and an ashen Wesley Addy with a crazy fright wig. Nancy Marchand is fine too. She was my co-star in the magnificent art house piece, "From the Hip." I helped the kid get over the rough spots in her performance.Anyway, the film didn't strike me as so bad as some reviewers have made it out to be. It flows smoothly along. It would have flowed more smoothly if Reeve had been booted out of the picture half-way through, but then there would have been no picture.

Women of Boston committed to the suffrage movement on shown in a picture which resembles the Seneca Falls Convention Meeting of Women in 1848 with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and others participating. The film belonged in 1848. It is thoroughly boring.The late Chris Reeves was horribly miscast as a Mississippi attorney up from the south who falls in love with one of the suffragettes. In the way, is the dedicated leader, played by Vanessa Redgrave, who wants the woman to remain in the movement. Anyone who marries from her thinking can't be totally committed. The fact that there is a lesbian situation going on between the two women supposedly doesn't enter into her thinking. Right.Co-star Jessica Tandy is made up to look like Cady Stanton.The ending where Redgrave makes her passioned speech for the movement after the other lady runs off with Reeve is too late. When the latter didn't speak, most of the people left the auditorium. This is what movie viewers should have done as well.

I have never thought much of James Ivory's direction and The Bostonians does little to change my mind. It was years ago I read the Henry James novel and I'm not one to criticise a film for not replicating the book,but I do recall the stupendous climax James achieved when Ransomemarched backstage at the Music Hall to literally carry Verena off. This has to be the climax of the film, but here it goes for nothing and makes less impact than the jeering audience. In too many other scenes points are similarly missed, the tone is misjudged and the pace is plodding. Nor is the acting distinguished except for Vanessa Redgrave who aims at an intensity that seems to belong to another (and better)film. One compensation is the camera work of Walter Lassally; but even here the carefully framed compositions don't flow.

I didn't know what to expect from this movie, but threw the DVD into the player for good luck. And I was pleasantly surprised.The very first thing I liked was the backdrop of the opening credits: hands and feet operating an organ, plus the resulting sound. (Two hours later I knew that anticipated a part of the final act).Then came more surprises - the setting in 1875 New England offered unusual sights, and mostly all in female-dominated surroundings. For a sensationalistic title, I thought of "Planet of the Women" - with a lone alien, Basil, playing his game in the middle.The basic story was of course not surprising: boy meets girl, they go through assorted troubles, finally girl escapes from captivity, they ride away together. I can't explain the chemistry between them, but that may be because "love" is no natural science. In any case, a strong mutual attraction was amply demonstrated.In contrast to most other movies, "eye-candy" women were rare, but then there were interesting types, like Dr. Prance and Miss Birdseye. Why Olive came to be how she was, remained a riddle to me.And then the dramatic final act in the music hall. Strong images that will stay in my memory - and I consider the main purpose of a movie to deliver strong images.Cost/benefit: most IMDb reviews are negative, and the movie was probably so unpopular that I could pick up a bargain DVD at the shop for 50 cents. Given that an empty DVD box costs 40 cents, the net price was 10 cents - and for me at least, it was worth it a hundred times :^)