Waste of time

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

After watching "Maid of Manhattan" recently with Natasha Richardson(RIP) and Ralph Fiennes, I decided to give this film a go. I thought the film was so so good. However I don't understand why Fiennes had to put an American accent onto this because he can't do a Amercian accent!! I always thought as the blind English Diplomat not American at all! They either should've got someone better or written the character off if they weren't going to get the character development right among the actors! Anyways moving in, I loved how himself and Richardson's relationship developed throughout the whole film. The story- line was sad because it was set in near World War 2 and the fact people running for their lives to Japan (I think)in order to be safe from the soldiers. Omg one scene that even more frightened me as well was, when Fiennes character met with the soldiers face to face. I really thought they were gonna shot him right on the spot but thank god, he made it out alive and let him go without hesitant!I really liked this film, it really shows the history of China and it had a good cast to entertain us with their fine acting. I give this movie 8/10!

It's 1930s Shanghai. The Russian aristocrats have escaped from the revolution as penniless refugees into this open city. Countess Sofia Belinskaya (Natasha Richardson) works as a taxi dancer. Her family sees her as dirty but needs her for survival. Todd Jackson (Ralph Fiennes) is a blind American former diplomat. He lost his sight and family in a series of Chinese strife. He bets all of his money and wins big at the racetracks. He opens a welcoming bar named "The White Countess" and hires Sofia as the hostess. The varied clientele provides intrigue as the wars close in.Everything in this movie seems a little fake. It was probably a mistake to film this in Shanghai. The modern city is too different from its gritty past. It's not the best to recreate the exteriors although they do try. I'm not always a proponent of CGI but they're better off doing a little bit for the last act. The lack of it makes the final escape looks inferior. It's not well done. The interiors also feel flat. Other than an abundance of Chinese extras, there is a falseness to the feel. As for the actors, Ralph Fiennes is unconvincing as a blind man. I didn't even notice his blindness for the first couple of scenes. A pair of sunglasses would go a long way. This is a waste of good Redgrave women. Natasha Richardson is poignant and radiant. Her scenes with her family are heart-breaking. The pacing is slow as many Merchant-Ivory films but this one has no heat. The resistance to a full-blown romance and his blindness keep the pair at an emotional distance. It feels tired and worn. It wants to be romantic but the beating heart isn't there until the very end. It's a long two hour journey to get there.

For someone whose family went through this, it was a very emotional film to watch. My great-grandparents and grandparents lived in Shanghai from the about the twenties to the early fifties. Watching this, and imagining my family having to go through similar issues made it hard to watch for me.It meant a lot to get a glimpse of what Shanghai might've been like in those years, what living there as a refuge was like, being driven out by the communists, having to flee to yet another country. This was something they did not like to speak of, so I did not have much knowledge of it. On the other side of my family, my great-grandmother could not get a visa along with my grandparents and their kids so she stayed behind and died in France, so I also understand the heartbreak of leaving one behind.Which brings me to my one problem with the film -is the way the family treated Sofia. Yes, they were probably too proud (willing to live off her but not work themselves), very judgemental of her, ashamed of her - but I can not imagine them purposefully leaving someone behind! It would have made more sense if the French consulate who was pursuing Sofia would refuse to give her a visa in retaliation for his snub.There will be many thing probably lost on most people. For example, the movie title plays on her name means WHITE and from czarist Russians being referred to as "white" Russians. Those who understand Russian will get more from the background dialogue and the caberet acts. Those descended from "white" Russians may recognize that certain nostalgia and a certain deluded belief that they could recreate their lost world (or the belief that when the communists were defeated, everything would go back to life pre-1917). A struggle to hold onto as much of the culture, way of life and religion seemed to be very prevalent. Unfortunately, the anti-semitism may also ring true (having already been prevalent in Russian and exacerbated by the revolution). I think others will also enjoy it. The sets, costumes, general mis-en-scene seems very realistic. It has exceptionally fine actors, Ralph Fiennes, Natasha Richardson and Hiroyuki Sanada and others. I would say it's worth a watch for most people - though they may not get as much out of the film as a Russian descendant, it's still quite good.

This, the last of the Merchant/Ivory collaborations, is a long, rich and well-crafted film, a fitting finale to the collaboration of these two. It is perhaps a little too long and doesn't quite fit together, but the rich visuals, the intriguing characters, the evocation of time and place, the richly effective musical score and the fine, nuanced acting pull you right in and keep you watching, just as all of their films have done.As I say, one of the strengths of the film is the acting, by the Redgraves, mother, daughter and aunt; by the supporting cast, and by the lead actor. The Redgrave sisters, Vanessa and Lynn, give a splendid evocation of exiled Russians, perhaps from the experience of playing Chekov. Venessa's daughter Richardson is less successful: though she is beautiful and intriguing in the part, her attempt at a Russian accent is really awful.Fiennes gives an insightful performance as a recently blinded man who has lost his family under tragic circumstances. I had blind parents, grew up around blind people and am legally blind myself (partially sighted) so I must say that though his interior life is spot on, his playing "blind" is really inaccurate and unbelievable, both as the character in unfamiliar and in familiar surroundings. This may be partially the fault of the screenplay. First, a small detail: no blind person can eat with chopsticks. It's impossible! Secondly, his inconsistent use of a walking stick as a cane. A short stick like that would give him next to no information concerning what is in front of him and would be essentially useless, except as a prop; as an actor, Fiennes' use of it is inconsistent and not accurate. Third, when the character expresses a desire to "see" the Countess's face by feeling it...well, I'm sorry, but NO blind person does that! In fact the idea is quite abhorrent, even offensive to us. This only happens in the movies and it provides one of the few false moments in the picture.The other false moment is his mad dash through the crowded Shanghai streets to find the Countess. It is wildly melodramatic, way over the top and unbelievable. Again, this is the screenplay's fault. Fiennes tries to downplay the melodrama by underplaying, but it still comes across as false.My other problem with Fiennes' performance is that he plays the character as a modern American man, not as an upper class American of that time, much too, well, "Kevin Kostner". This character is upper class with money, an American diplomat. If this were a 1930s picture I CAN imagine an Englishman playing him, but he would be more like Ronald Colman or Robert Donat. If an American of that time were to play this character, he would be Tyrone Power, not Humphrey Bogart. Though Bogart did in fact come from an upper class New York family, he almost never played that in the movies.Among modern American actors, I think only Kevin Kline could play this character accurately, with the right speech and manner, as a well educated, upper class American of the early 20th century. Most other American actors of his generation just lack the technique to pull it off.Within the choices he made, Fiennes does very well. His American accent is quite consistent and very good, though occasionally he speaks his lines using English "speech melody" rather than authentic American intonations.Overall, I found this to be a satisfying picture, telling a good story on a large, rich canvas, in the Merchant/Ivory tradition, a fitting ending to their collaboration.