Guinevere (1999) User Reviews

A disturbingly good movie

[Shiva-11 · 7/10 · 11 October 1999]

Guinevere: Harper Sloane (Sarah Pollack) is a painfully shy young woman trapped in a household of lawyers lorded over by an alpha-mother (Jean Smart) who treats her like a servant. Destined to attend Harvard law school and join the pack, Harper finds her salvation in Connor Fitzgerald (Steven Rea), part-time photographer/philosopher, full-time con-man Svengali. Connor actually listens to what she says and offers her escape into an exciting bohemian lifestyle. Will he be her salvation or downfall? There are shades of Leaving Las Vegas in this film - it is dark and at times unpleasant - one scene in particular made me so uncomfortable I turned away from the screen. To its credit, Guinevere, like Leaving Las Vegas, is also a very good film. Sarah Pollack is outstanding as the withdrawn Harper (in stark contrast to her brazen, street-wise savvy Ronna in Go!). Although she's actually twenty, she looks fifteen, which helps to convey a believable vulnerability and transformation.

Rea is truly manipulative as Connor, more pathetic than sinister, who preys on young women - you're never quite sure if you should loathe or pity him. Finally, Jean Smart does an excellent job as the hard-as-nails matriarch, miles away from her smarmy character on Designing Women.

Well worth the price of admission.

Well done, but misses the mark.

[n8 · 5/10 · 31 January 1999]

Technically, Ms. Wells has a superb film here. The cinematography is innovative and germane to the story. The actors all give enjoyable and appropriate performances. The storyline, however, leaves a bit to be desired. I imagine that feminist critics would have a hey-day with this one. I don't buy it. I don't believe the relationships in the film are genuine and honest - it just doesn't work. Ms. Wells explained after the show that she works from a theme and creates her movies that way, and from that perspective, the movie works. If one only looks at the movie for the theme and disregards most other concerns, s/he will love this film. I was disappointed.

A great performance

[taratula · 6/10 · 2 December 2000]

This is a murky, unfocused little film. It is clear that Audrey Wells is a talented writer-director, but I felt a lack of assurance in the execution of her story. However, Jean Smart delivers a brilliant performance that enriches the film, making it memorable. She nails every single SECOND of the film she's in; her monologue towards Rea is a devastating piece of acting that was shamefully overlooked by the Academy. This woman is one of the best actresses of her generation, and if you saw her hilarious, Emmy-winning spot on "Frasier" you know she's got strong comedic chops, too. Give Jean Smart better roles!

Fascinating story with a few flaws

[FlickJunkie-2 · 25 March 2000]

This was a slow moving but interesting story about a 50 something bohemian photographer named Connie Fitzpatrick (Stephen Rea) who is a serial seducer of impressionable young women. His seduction is not really about sex, although that is part of it. Instead, it is more of an emotional seduction that involves his creating a symbiotic mentor/protégé relationship that puts him in control while feeding his ego. His latest conquest is Harper Sloane (Sarah Polley), a recent college grad from a wealthy family who is all set to go to Harvard Law School. Clearly lonely and vulnerable and not used to the attention of men, she falls prey to the charms of this free spirited older man and eschews law school to run off with him and live the artsy life.

Director/writer Audrey Wells, whose best previous writing credits were for "The Truth About Cats and Dogs" does an excellent job bringing this story to the screen in her directing debut. Her shooting of the scenes was sensitively done and brought forth a lot of the emotional elements of the story and the characters. It is clear that this was a labor of love for Wells, but as is often the case, directing one's own work takes away the objectivity about the script leaving most of the plot problems intact.

It is believable that an insecure girl could be lured into a relationship by a charming older man who overtly appreciates her and believes in her abilities. May/September romances (or more aptly in this case April/August) are common and usually happen for all the reasons depicted here. The biggest problem with the story was the introduction of Billie (Gina Gershon), one of Connie's earlier alumni, so early in the story. Billie warns Harper of the specific manipulative lines that Connie uses repeatedly with each of his love interests, almost by rote. She gives great detail right down to the way he touched her and the fact that he calls them all Guinevere.

At that point, Harper does exactly what one might expect, she leaves him. Shortly thereafter, the story loses all credibility as she eagerly goes running back to him, knowing full well that she is being totally and impersonally manipulated. The entire relationship after that waits for an emotional explosion that never comes. The whole thing just sort of withers away with the eventual breakup being no more than a fait accompli. The breakup scene was weak and cowardly, which detracted greatly from the dramatic potential. If Wells had put Billie's scene closer to the end of the story to create the last straw it would have been more effective.

Wells also misses a great opportunity to add fireworks by not emphasizing Harper's relationship with her mother (Jean Smart). There was a natural emotional tension between the two and she was the one character who had complete clarity about the relationship. Finally, without giving too much away, the gathering of the five Connie alumni at the end was a bit goofy and highly implausible given the gravity of the situation. However, Wells does eventually redeem herself with a good ending and some of the best imagery of the film.

Sarah Polley was well cast in this film and exuded the pure naivety of a young woman inexperienced in the ways of love. She was wonderfully awkward and vulnerable and it was very believable that she could fall prey to the ministrations of an older man. Polley has a Winona Ryder quality about her and has excellent potential as an actress. It remains to be seen if she can break out of the role of quirky teen.

Stephen Rea was hopelessly miscast in this role. He didn't have the emotional horsepower to play this character. His acting is somewhat stoic and wooden and this character needed to be charming, passionate and obsessive. The part required an actor more like Michael Caine.

The best performance of the film goes to Jean Smart as Harper's outspoken and gregarious mother. She completely steals the movie with her confrontational scene with Connie, explaining to him why he can't make it with women his own age. She is terrific in every scene she is in and the fortune cookie scene is fantastic.

Overall, I rated this film a 7/10. This film will probably be most appealing to men over 50 and women under 25. None of the flaws were fatal, but the pace was slow and the plot implausible in parts. That detracted from an otherwise engaging story and some very good technical filmmaking.

Jean Smart Steals the Show

[jhclues · 6/10 · 6 May 2001]

A young woman living in San Francisco, who has just been accepted to Harvard, decides upon another path after meeting and falling under the influence of an older man, an artist, in `Guinevere,' written and directed by Audrey Wells. Sarah Polley stars as Harper Sloane, who lives with her career oriented, rather self-absorbed family-- her parents, Alan (Francis Guinan) and Deborah (Jean Smart), and her older sister, Susan (Emily Procter). Rather self-conscious and unsure of herself, Harper has allowed her parents to plan her future-- a career in law, though it is decidedly against her own wishes. Then at Susan's wedding she meets the photographer, Connie Fitzpatrick (Stephen Rea), an artist, who quickly gains her confidence and lures her into his own bohemian lifestyle. She moves in with him (unbeknownst to her parents, who think she's staying with a friend for awhile), and he becomes her mentor; she is his `Guinevere,' and the only demands he makes of her is that she `create' something every day. The choice of her artistic endeavors is entirely up to her; photography, painting, writing, dancing. but she must create.

Inevitably, of course, their relationship develops beyond the mentor/protege stage, and she learns some things about him that ultimately lead to complications. And she discovers that her reign as Queen Guinevere may not be all that she had expected it to be.

Wells convincingly presents the allurement of a lifestyle free of constraints and overwhelming demands, which makes it quite understandable that the indecisive Harper would choose to go with Connie, rather than adhere to the wishes of her parents, who are rather cold and impersonal and altogether controlling (especially her mother). The fact that Alan dotes on Susan and could seemingly care less about Harper, as well as Deborah's apparent lack of actual concern for Harper, qualifies the facility with which Harper is able to effect her plans so readily. And even when Deborah finds out what Harper is up to (which, of course, was inevitable), she seems to take it as a personal affront more than anything, and is content with merely denigrating the relationship into which her daughter has entered, rather than even trying to change it, which ostensibly at least, would be the appropriate reaction of a concerned parent.

Polley is well cast as Harper, as physically and emotionally she is able to fit Harper's profile perfectly, and she gives a credible performance, though given her unassuming manner and fairly nondescript appearance, it says more about Connie than it does about her. And what you have already been able to deduce about Connie from his pursuit of Harper is further underscored during a scene in which Deborah confronts him with her views on the situation (which is arguably the most powerful scene in the film).

Rea is perfectly cast, as well, affecting a patient, reserved manner, touched with an almost forlorn weariness evocative of a certain wisdom-of-the-world attitude that makes Harper's attraction to him believable. And as the story unfolds, he very subtly allows you to see more of what lies beneath the surface until, in the end, you have a concise picture of who Connie really is. It's a fine, understated performance, and a good bit of work by Rea.

In a supporting role that demands mention, Jean Smart gives a smoldering performance as Deborah, a woman of seemingly insatiable needs and an overwhelming desire to dominate. And Smart plays it perfectly, from the look in her eye to the telling way she carries herself, making the most of her limited screen time and making Deborah the most memorable character of the film.

The supporting cast includes Gina Gershon (Billie), Paul Dooley (Walter), Carrie Preston (Patty), Tracy Letts (Zack), Sharon McNight (Leslie), Sandra Oh (Cindy), Grace Una (April) and Jasmine Guy (Linda). Though not a film with which you can get too emotionally involved, `Guinevere' has it's moments and does manage to maintain interest. The characters are real enough, but they evoke a sense of ambivalence; these are not people you are necessarily going to like or dislike. In the final analysis, it's a good film, and worth seeing-- but with the possible exception of Smart's character, there is nothing especially memorable or compelling about it. I rate this one 6/10.

Whose story was this, anyway?

[bron-tay · 1/10 · 3 May 2005]

I'm putting this in here not so much for the purposes of explaining or reviewing, but for 1) giving other haters of Guinevere a place to check in, and 2) entertaining those who love to read negative reviews of movies they know they're going to see anyway.

Poor, pathetic Harper, literally hiding in the closet at her sister's wedding, her hair mussed and her bride's-maid dress sagging off her shoulders. "You've obviously mistaken me for someone with potential," she barely manages to squeak to the wedding photographer, in one of the multitudinous lines of on-the-nose dialogue in this self-conscious, overwrought clunker.

Somehow this bright, beautiful 20-year-old has managed to get through her entire life, including four years of college, without once meeting a person who has affirmed her intelligence and her creativity, even though she's smart enough to have been accepted into Harvard Law. Similar ironies occur in real life--the beauty who thinks she's ugly, the overachiever who thinks she's not doing enough--but at some point you lose interest in a character who's either got some serious personality disorder or whose creator (the writer) imagines that weird gestures and speeches can take the place of psychology.

The beautiful, bright girl proves utterly vulnerable to the seducements of the wedding photographer: an older, less-promising, often insolent, and lecherous man who says things to her like "You can do it" and "You must learn to detest the bourgeoisie." Oh, I don't remember if he actually said *those* things, but his utterances are so much hogwash that only an impression of nonsense remains. Harper is introduced to . . . coffee houses! She listens to . . . jazz! Someone actually asks her about her ideas for the first ever time in her whole entire life! To go back to the biographical thing, how did this girl ever get the liberal arts education required to enter Harvard Law without someone at least once eliciting her opinion on something? And probably admiring it? Without ever having a lively conversation with intellectual and creative types? Without ever laughing? Without going through that whole fascinating-older-man thing about ten times? Without getting a glimpse outside the world she came from?

Unlikely, weird scenes get slapped on, one after the other, without any progress in character or conflict. She throws herself on him hungrily. She moves in. He insults her, she runs away, she insults him and then comes back, they insult each other and reunite. When he's at his lowest, she goes into a frenzy of taking his picture, presumably off a roll of film with about 200 exposures on it. Then she gets him into focus and relents with a whimper.

Ultimately, the photog turns out to be every bit as bad as he promises, and perhaps a little better since he's principled enough to send her away when it's at the point where the relationship can do nothing but drag her down. Fast-forward to so many years later and she's giving him the last and only thing she can: her best wishes for a good death. The scene drags on and on, and ends with his dissolution into heavenly white light. Why? Whose story was this? "He was the worst man I ever met. Or the best man I ever met." This ham-fisted summary, I suppose, is supposed to be a specimen of brilliant, tortured, complex ambiguity. To me, it's a failure to make a stand, an excuse for the writer to dump a truckload of contradictions into a character then sneak away without explaining any of it. And why end with him? Again I ask, whose story was this?

Audrey Wells, you're a fraud.

Polley lovely and Rea solid

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 4 July 2015]

Harper Sloane (Sarah Polley) is a naive unhappy 20 year old going to Harvard. She meets wedding photographer Connie Fitzpatrick (Stephen Rea) at her sister's wedding. He seduces her calling her Guinevere. She lies to her family that she didn't get into Harvard. She pretends to stay with her friend Patty (Carrie Preston) but instead she's living with Connie. Billie (Gina Gershon) warns her that she's only the latest Guinevere in Connie's life. She leaves him temporarily but she feels stifled by her mother (Jean Smart) and she returns to him.

Sarah Polley is lovely and Stephen Rea is believable. Jean Smart overplays the mother figure a little but she gets one memorable scene. I like this movie up to that scene where the mother talks about Harper being inexperienced enough to be in awe of Connie. I guess writer/director Audrey Wells is trying to be poetic by forcing Harper to stay with Connie after that. The self denial of Harper when she's talking to Patty is off-putting. She needs to make a more calibrated turn earlier but instead it's all saved up for the climax.

I really wanted this to be a good film. It just wasn't.

[bgilch · 3/10 · 4 September 1999]

I just saw of this film at the Montreal World Film Festival. Stephen Rea and Sarah Polley were in attendance. You could not ask for two better actors. Rea plays a 45-50ish photographer who seduces 20 yr. old Sarah Polley to give up her law school career and become an artist and his live-in- lover.

The director and writer, Audrey Wells, also directed and wrote The Truth About Cats and Dogs. I intensely disliked that film because it was implausible, not grounded in any reality, and because even the luminous Jeneane Garafalo couldn't save it. Audrey Wells also wrote Inspector Gadget; clearly, her writing leaves something to be desired. In this film she manages to put interesting situations (May-September romance / high vs. low class) forth but whenever they approach any hard edges here comes the soft humour or easy way outs or just plain ambiguously unrealized character motives. Polley's character would get to say one disturbing or strong thing, then have go on acting so obviously well below her & her character's intelligence.

I consistently thought scenes were misdirected and that the writing gave up on itself and fell into cliche, sapping it of any force it had. And with the potential force between these two great actors never realized it was a sad loss. This is no Lolita or Educating Rita. Consider even the ballyhooed scene were Jean Smart, in a good job, takes down Rea's character in front of her daughter (the 'awe' scene.) The camera focusses intently on Smart's malice. Think how much better that little diatribe would be if we were watching *Polley's* reaction while hearing the *mother's* words. That would be a real dislocation. Then we could see the full range of which Polley is absolutely capable.

Also, the soundtrack music was very synthetic and touchy-feely and it worked completely against the (potentially) creepy aspect of the film, until the white-light hogwash of the end. But if you liked all that white-light business in "Kissed" & if you could tolerate the preposterous situation of Cats & Dogs, then maybe you will like this film. As it was, I found it singularly unconvincing, the moreso as it went along.

ps. Sandra Oh is very funny with the two minutes of screen time she gets. Sandra Oh is always excellent. If you want to see a good Sarah Polley & Sandra Oh film, rent "Last Night". It's brilliant. For Stephen Rea, look forward to his next Neil Jordan film.

Moving, witty and well acted.

[g2sound · 8/10 · 17 April 1999]

All of the characters were honestly portrayed and I think that Ms. Wells has put together a very moving and appropriate piece. The dialog is witty and very natural. Plot and dialog aside, this film is worth watching for the performances alone! Stephen Rea and Jean Smart are both amazing and anyone who had doubts that Polley is bound for greatness should see this film!

"this isn't going to be one of those feel good situations"...

[ouindi · 7/10 · 30 March 2009]

After going thru a similar relationship that Harper and Connie shared I've got to say that in that respect this movie sent many chills up my spine. The positive aspects of the film are: 1. It's shot in my hometown of San Francisco and done quite beautifully. 2. Great scene between Connie, Harper and her mom. 3. Pretty clear plot. Good representation of the nature / dynamics of their relationship. 4. Harper's character is contradictory in a way. On one hand she's smart enough to get into Harvard yet not experienced in the matters of the heart. 5. Character motivations were all pretty obvious.

However here is what I didn't like about the film: 1. Too many things did not make sense about Connie. He's supposed to be a successful somewhat famous local artist. Where were his shows? He's Irish right? A little about how he came to this country and his relationship to San Francisco's vibrant art scene would have been nice. If he is indeed bohemian, where is his "salon"? What artistic movement is he a part of? He also deteriorates towards the end. Is his alcoholism just a typical facet of being a tortured artist? Why does he stop shooting weddings?

2. I didn't like the "Titanic" choral music.

Anyways I did enjoy it for its nostalgic quality.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

[jakob-20 · 1/10 · 13 April 2000]

I couldn't believe how awful this movie was. It was virtually free of redeeming features. Poor Sarah Polley desperately tries to save the thing singlehandedly but with lines like that nobody can.

These were some of the things that really grated: Complete absence of likeable characters (he a sad lech, she a dimwitted girlie, her family standard-issue clichZd stiffs, and a pathetic rent-a-bohemian crowd whose role in the movie was decorative (as in house plants) rather than integral).

A plot anyone could have filled in after the first five minutes Dialogue that would have been embarrassing in a 70s movie (the old art vs commerce debate - please!; quaint words like 'capitalism' and 'bourgeoisie'; "I am studying your form" - aaaaargh) Generic feel-good scenes straight out of Newton cigarette ads Cheesy, unironic music Complete ignorance of the principles of photography (photographers do not work like that). Perhaps excusable if it had been made by an older guy - but a woman? Girls, we can do better

true story

[landau_yael · 8/10 · 6 April 2006]

who ever is interested. i stumbled on this movie completely by accident, and once i began i couldn't stop.you know why? it was true. i just got it. i got it because i was just leaving a relationship like that, that i think- marked me for life. this movie shows something so true, true in a sense that their is no right or wrong, and in some way it really makes me think. it makes me see things in perspective, relationships, and how we fail to observe them while engaged in them. once i saw this movie- i felt i was looking at myself, and also not hating my ex-partner (a very much disturbed older paragrapher. off course- it made me view it in a very romantic way, that i enjoyed. it was painterly to see in harper how innocent i am.or was. for sure- i am no longer at that stage in life. thanks to him.he wasn't a bad guy- and i was too blinded to see how mixed up he was.

Guinevere Without a Good Lancelot

[bkrauser-81-311064 · 6/10 · 23 January 2014]

What would make a smart, young, beautiful woman fall in love with a photographer three times her age? What would possess her to give up a spot in Harvard for the opportunity to live with a tortured artist? Could it be a human desire to create and having the room to do so? Could it be he offers sage-like wisdom that outweighs the adjunct creepiness of the situation; Perhaps. It also helps to have low self-esteem and little direction in life. In the non-committal words of Harper Sloane (Sarah Polley), "He was the worst man I ever met, or maybe the best, I'm still not sure. If you're supposed to learn by your mistakes, then he was the best mistake I ever made…I was his Guinevere whatever that means." As you can imagine the basic outline of Guinevere (1999) is one of a relationship between an aging photographer (Stephen Rea) and a colleen with a self-image problem. As their relationship progresses, Harper uncovers Connie's bohemian lifestyle extends to his love life as well has his approach to art. Can she properly balance their love, her family's expectations of her, his expectations of her and a menagerie of rival "Guineveres"? Stephen Rea's Connie asks for five years of his muse's life. Five years rent free for Harper to coax and develop the artist inside herself. Can she truly accomplish this task? Okay enough with the rhetorical questions. The fact is those who will like this movie will like it because it is a mediocre film made relevant by its subject matter. Self-proclaimed artists and photography buffs will likely see Guinevere as a diamond in the rough; a romantic take on their struggles living with their gift. Luckily I have no artistic talent so I can speak for the majority when I say Guinevere is diminutive and not worth sitting through. There are moments that bring to mind other, better films about similar subject matters like Blow-Up (1966) and La Dolce Vita (1960). Those moments however are interspersed with conversations about which picture is better, whether Uncle Tom's Cabin was art or a product and these are not my boobs.

As one gets older, the libido takes a back seat to the heart so I can sympathize with Stephen Rea's character a little. He craves seeing a young artist blossom and loves seeing Harper slowly come out of her shell and eventually become a photographer. That being said he is also craven for a woman's touch and gets it with a clockwork obsession. He doesn't necessarily cheat on Harper, though it is implied. Instead he reinforces his own ideals of love while never really loving Harper to begin with. He loves her potential not who she is.

Jean Smart, who plays Harper's bourgeois mother, does a spot-on analysis of Connie and his warped relationship with Harper. Upon discovery she comes to their apartment and points out that only a young naïve girl would look at a bohemian photographer like him with a modicum of admiration. "No woman of experience would ever stand in front of you with awe in her eyes." She being a woman with experience may have a seemingly unpleasant marriage but at least her children are talented and they live in a home filled with expensive stuff so of course she knows what she's talking about.

Now one can get a sense of legacy from a movie of this kind. Jean Smart's character might see her legacy through her accomplishments in her career and economic success, while Connie might see his accomplishments highlighted in the pursuance of beauty. It's a fair question, whether you yourself would prefer to be remembered for being monetarily successful or being artistically talented. If only such heavy themes were put into a better movie where the whole story wasn't treated so glibly; then we'd have something to talk about.

http://www.theyservepopcorninhell.blogspot.com/

I love to hate this movie. Utter cheese.

[Timbo-25 · 1/10 · 8 October 2000]

Astonishingly horrid, hackneyed drivel. I couldn't believe that the actors and filmmakers--who are ostensibly a part of an artistic community of sorts--would portray "bohemians" in such a cheesy way.

And what the hell was with the cutesy dance scenes with car-commercial music in the background? Did someone tell the director this would look cool? I puked. Every "romantic" scene was equally unbearable (except for the sex scenes which were tasteless and disturbing).

We all know people who think they are sophisticated, intelligent, and avant garde, but are actually vomitous, narcissistic poseurs. They will love this "art film." You should avoid it like the plague.

The truth about scaredy-cats and horndogs

[nunculus · 26 September 1999]

The young Canadian actress Sarah Polley can sizzle in character parts--she burns a hole in the screen in her tiny bit in Cronenberg's EXISTENZ, and she was luminous as the princess in the wheelchair in THE SWEET HEREAFTER. But in leading roles, she seems both brittle and amoeboid. As Harper, the insecure and overlooked daughter of a family of cutthroat lawyers, she has one amazing scene--being seduced, her reactions fry out her speakers, sending from giggly hysteria to overdrive lust. Harper is seduced by an aging bohemian wedding photographer (Stephen Rea)--a lush who talks a big game, pontificates in bars with his low-rent cronies, and makes a sport and a pastime of mentoring (and groping) avid young women. But we don't see any hunger, any passion or obsession in Harper. When the photographer, Connie, tells her she has talent it's an obvious pick-up line--not because she hasn't done any work, but because she shows no interest in anything but being noticed.

The writer-director, Audrey Wells, doesn't show much interest in anything else, either. The author of the scripts for GEORGE OF THE JUNGLE and INSPECTOR GADGET, her first indie feature has more than a whiff of the dilettante. Like AMERICAN BEAUTY, GUINEVERE likes to flirt with the idea of having an "edge," then shies away from it. Both of these movies are just too damned clear. The pleasure of that seduction scene is that Harper responds in ways that are messy, funny, unprogrammed; every other scene in the picture makes its point in letters so bold the thickest member of the audience couldn't miss it.

You can take the girl out of the studio, but ain't no way you're taking the studio out of the girl. The lechy photographer's big sin--the thing that makes him evanesce in Harper's eyes--is that, at fifty, he's still stumping and hustling for cash. Can Audrey Wells really intend that it's okay for Connie to be a serial phony, an ego-inflating come-on artist, but his real Achilles' heel is that he never made real money? (Wells' point seems to be: Connie gets Harper's tender young flesh--he could at least pay the bills.) Every scene is so blandly overdetermined it reeks of falsity--especially the much-applauded one where Harper's bitchy mom (Jean Smart) comes into Connie's loft and undoes their relationship with a single cutting observation. (Would these lovers react with such shock to such an obvious accusation?)

For someone making a movie about the romance of the artist's life, Wells seems to have no clue how artists talk to each other, or even behave--she seems to think that's egghead stuff the audience won't care about. But it's that, not sex, that's supposed to be the fundament of Connie and Harper's relationship. Despite Rea's and Polley's efforts, the movie drowns in big-movie timidity. And the ending--a Felliniesque princess fantasy where all of Connie's sweet young things gather for an All That Jazz adieu--maybe intended to be tender. It comes across as a final, passive-aggressive flipping of the bird to a half-forgotten, dirty-minded teacher.

A plaintive love it or hate it relationship flick.

[=G= · 6/10 · 26 November 2001]

"Guinevere" tells of a young woman (Polley) who leaves her stuffy family to move in with a middle aged photo-artist (Rea) living a bohemian lifestyle and ends up sadder but wiser. A technically and artistically good film, "Guinevere" is a coming-of-age flick tinged with more pathos that giddiness which plumbs the depths of a relationship in which the woman becomes self actualized while the male is exposed as an unsuccessful, eccentric, and neurotic womanizer. Recommended for anyone, especially females, into films about unorthodox relationships.

Pardon me while I spew

[nedelka · 1/10 · 4 June 2008]

I got roped into watching this drivel by my girlfriend. It was On Demand and I had had a couple of beers so I said 'why not'. Well, if you're interested, here's why not: This galling display of perversion is so caustic to the sensibilities of any thinking person that I cannot believe anyone was truly happy with the film when it was completed. The characters are beyond unsympathetic and venture into the realm of embarrassing. Harper is a pathetic and hopeless individual if she made it as far in life as her storyline says she did without the skills she seems to lack. Worse, the life lessons she is supposedly learning clearly aren't sinking in if,after realizing her love interest is nothing but a lecherous, perverted, no talent, broke, lying loser who preys on naive, helpless girls when he exposes his intentions in LA at his former 'collector' friends' house, she happily goes along for the ride with only a little tantrum. Absurd. The collection of similarly abused women at the finale is just gross ("Class of '85!" Good gawwwwwwwd). This film is such a poorly executed self indulgence that it doesn't even live up to irony. Just plain awful. I can't even say that its worth watching for a laugh, because there's nothing funny about. Characters don't develop in any substantiated way. One second people are one thing, the next moment another, for no reason. We are led to believe that harper becomes successful. How? We never see one piece of work. She never gets any connections to dealers or marketers. Suddenly she just appears, wearing a mournful-yet-put-together looking black dress instead of her usual MC hammer style washed out jeans (in the late 90's? San Fran? really?) and tee shirt. Jesus. Where'd that come from? A hopeless attempt at a heartfelt art movie that subverts its own intentions with its meaningless artifice and sloppy, contrived, indulgent imagery. I never post anything on the internet, but this was so bad I couldn't help it. STAY AWAY!!!!

Bittersweet coming of age story, well told and observed

[timhebb-1 · 7/10 · 5 March 2007]

This comment was motivated largely by the desire to offset those here which casually dismissed or trashed "Guinevere" and, inexplicably, writer/director Audrey Wells personally with unnecessary and unprovoked venom.

"Guinevere" is a fine and engaging tale that plausibly sketches the arc of the relationship and romance between the daughter of a pair of society attorneys of Pacific Heights pedigree and a bohemian photographer who lives life on the edge financially and on the fringe socially. Sarah Polley as the confused but very-well brought-up, faintly rebellious 21-year-old Harper, and Stephen Rea as the 40-ish sometime wedding photographer, Connie, whose charm eventually wears thin, are both well cast and provide exemplary realizations of well-drawn characters.

The entire cast, in fact, is strong and deep, with fine turns from such actors as Sandra Oh, Jean Smart, Paul Dooley, Jasmine Guy and Gina Gershon. The production and cinematography are first-rate as well.

As the relationship deepens and its contours become clearer to both the audience and to Harper, the script deftly plumbs its pleasures and its perils. By subtly adopting Harper's point of view, the film takes us on the same emotional journey that she does, from the initial drunken delight of first love, to the later disappointments and, eventually, the despair.

In the end one feels that Harper, like the sensitive viewer, decides that it was all worth it.

If this engaging, well-crafted, unpretentious film has a weakness, I would point to the denouement, which is reminiscent of Fellini's "8 1/2" by reassembling all of Connie's former loves to bid him an upbeat farewell when he is diagnosed with a fatal illness. Though it presses to induce good will, it doesn't really earn it. This is a writer's escape, a fantasy that retreats from an inevitable reality a bit too bitter to swallow without added sugar.

Despite this lapse, "Guinevere" rewards an attentive viewer richly with this otherwise honest, unblinkered story of first love undone in part by the unbridgeable, ancient chasms of age and social strata.

horrible, disgusting, detestable

[jonmills-3 · 1/10 · 15 November 2006]

I've just watched a film so bad, I am visibly shaken, nearly to the point of vomiting. I love Sarah Polley. I find her mesmerizingly beautiful, and I thought she did the best that could be done in this film, under the circumstances.

That said, the 'Connie' character is just gross. And not even gross in a passive sort of way. Gross in a way that leaves you hoping and praying you can forget these memories, scratching to get the images out of your head.

Can anyone tell me what Connie died of? I mean, it doesn't even say, right? Is it cancer, perhaps related to his constant smoking? Or is it something still more disturbing? I'll tell you, what did it for me was the scene where he bites down on some piece of food, and his f*ing teeth fall out. I mean, what the f*$%?!?! I saw that and nearly threw up in my mouth. Then I went straight to the bathroom and brushed my teeth for half an hour.

Poor Sarah Polley. Someone put her in a good movie. I still liked 'Go,' in which Polley completely steals the entire movie from Katie Holmes.

Like a diamond found in the garbage..

[apsoluten · 10/10 · 15 February 2007]

This movie is actually very deep compared with a lot of Hollywood stories presented to us over the years and the plot is not as uncommon as it might seem on first look. Although the writer and director is a female, this is a story from a neutral perspective and both men and women can find themselves in it. You can identify with one of the characters and understand the other one.

The first time I saw it wasn't from the beginning and it caught my eye in a weird way. I underestimated it when I first saw it but something pulled me to watch it again. I've seen it few times since and I think to really understand it you have to see it more than ones. Before you start calling me names, like dumb and stuff for not getting it right away, I should mention that my profession is psychologist and actually I'm in Mensa. Not that it matters when we discuss taste for movies, but when it comes to analyzing the characters I am more than educated to give my saying. Being amateur scriptwriter is helping me see the story from a different perspective. But enough in my defense, the point is to actually give you a friendly advice if you hated the movie the first time: See it again.

What I look for in a movie is a realistic character with flaws and virtues. Good and bad sides. Actually, in a way, the performance of the leading actors was borderline brilliant and I'm not sure that they even realize it. Harper Sloane is a naive (but this movie is not) girl with low self-esteem not the center of attention she would like to be. So she goes on the other side. The alternative side where she's denying the need for attention on the outside but accumulating it inside. A very common story in real life. She meets the disgustingly ugly character Connie (sorry Stephen :) ) who is giving her the one thing she needs the most. In fact she's identifying herself with him. And thus feels very close to him, he is the only one that gets her or the only one who seemingly cares to understand her. A potential soul mate. Sure, you can see him as a dirty old man if you like, and call him the abuser of a naive young body but think again. Cause you can call her the abuser also, she's getting what she wants from him maybe more than he does. She tells him that she plans to move out (not right away but has plans to do so) and what does he do. Gets insanely drunk and ends up in the hospital. He actually loves her. Perhaps not exactly Harper, but what she represents. And he is actually if need be, ready to put everything on the line for that. What he loves is presented to us by the mother Deborah, another complex character that looks predictable on the first look. Also this is confirmed by the other girls that Connie "loved" in same way. Sweet naive losers with desperate need for attention, and even more, help in the forming themselves into bearable creatures as they mature. Bearable for them not for the others. They are all unhappy and depressed. Looking for someone to save them from these feelings. They are all special in some way; Connie brings them out of their cocoons they might have never left if it wasn't for him, and makes them special.

This is a story of life and death (the nature itself), metaphorically speaking, cause throughout the movie we are constantly waiting for the separation of Harper and Connie. The end points it out very explicitly. Probably for those who failed to understand it during the course of the action. About the archetypes, what can I say, perfectly painted in the modern environment. The old man, the naive girl, the mother… I could go on for hours but that would probably bore the hell out of the ones who care enough to read what I have to say about this piece of work.

I had a feeling when I finished watching it that it can be done much better. Sure, the movie could have been directed better, superstar cast might have done it differently, more appealing, but than it would lose the imperfection. This way, it's like that old book you found with ripped pages, very unappealing, and read about the secrets in it. Like a diamond found in the garbage. It can be private this way, just for those who spend the time to really grasp it. If it would be a blockbuster, it wouldn't be as precious as it is this way.

Quite successful drama; interesting sexual politics

[allyjack · 7/10 · 28 September 1999]

This sensitive drama of a young woman's affair with a much older photographer effectively explores the problematic nature for a woman of finding her identity and maturity through a relationship which inherently seems weighted towards the egotistical gratification of the male. Polley and Rea make intriguing partners in what develops into a subtle power game, even if the conception of Rea tends a bit too much toward conventional self-possessed charismatic distance. The film's side-excursions into satire (mainly through pot-shots at Polley's constipated family of lawyers) are quite successful; in the end, the film allows Rea a measure of indulgence in his grandiose fantasy, but makes that enjoyment explicitly a gift that lies under Polley's control - one might have a satisfying sexual-politics-oriented debate about whether this is a satisfying arrival point.

Crizzap

[sideshowbob210 · 3/10 · 23 August 2010]

Crappy film posing as art. Older man, younger woman. Why does she want him? B/c he manipulates her constantly by promising to teach her the art of photography that throughout most of the movie she has no interest in learning. He calls her Guinevere, as he calls all his "pupils". She continues to let him call her that even when learning of all his other "pupils". Realistic in the way that the only way an older man could get a young girl to satisfy him and support his unemployment is through intense, cruel manipulation of a hopeless wanderer with the self-esteem of a gnat. The end was not realistic in the slightest. Loved Sarah Polley in "My Life without Me" but she did her career injustice by doing this film. And her grill looks so messed up.

A Must See If Crushing On Sarah Polley

[aimless-46 · 8/10 · 29 August 2007]

Sarah Polley fans, especially ones going all the way back to "Ramona", are generally big-time "Guinevere" (1999) fans simply because it is the film in which she peaked physically. And Director Audrey Wells picked up on this during casting, seeing in Polley (at that time of her life) someone physically perfect to play her heroine Harper Sloane. Wells needed a young woman who simply glowed in front of the camera, whose face looked better "without" make-up, and who projected both innocence and restlessness. With Polley she also got a bonus, one of the most talented actresses of her generation.

In this sense Wells resembles Alfred Hitchcock, a director with an uncanny ability to identify actresses at the one moment of their lives when they are physically perfect for a particular role. Sylvia Sidney in "Sabotage", Nova Pilbeam in "Young and Innocent", and Joan Fontaine in "Rebecca" come to mind.

Wells, who also wrote ''The Truth About Cats and Dogs'', captures that moment in some young women's lives (yes, the film could be considered a feminist statement) when they are able to break free of expectations and programming. The Harper Sloane character seems so authentic and the portrayal so lacking in glib cynicism that it most likely has a lot of autobiographical elements.

Harper is tracking along toward Harvard Law School when she meets Cornelius Fitzpatrick (Stephen Rea), a middle-aged Irish artist who has been hired to photograph her sister's wedding. His well-practiced seduction technique and irreverent world-view causes a major attitude adjustment and she abandons her career track to become his protégé and lover.

The story is told from Harper's point of view and the viewer soon learns along with her that this is not the traditional "Pygmalion" scenario. While not exactly a rogue and a roué, "Connie" is a compulsive Henry Higgins who has repeatedly played this game with repressed young women. He goes into these relationships with a five-year time limit. Consistent with the POV factor,

Harper's story is told with intelligence and compassion, with a lot of emphasis on the fragility of a first love and the pain of a trust betrayed. The film's feminist slant is revealed not so much by what is explicitly shown but by its failure to bring any dimensionality to Connie's character. No clues are provided to explain his aversion to a long-term commitment, Harper discovers that his promises are empty ones but she never learns the roots of his insecurities.

Although Polley's best scenes are those with Carrie Preston, who plays her best friend and confidante; the most entertaining scenes are those with her mother (Jean Smart), an unstated version of Susan's mother on "Seinfeld". The dysfunctional nature of Harper's family and her mother's unfulfilled life are slowly and somewhat comically revealed, but the bottom line is that her mother is sincerely trying to shield her daughter from mistakes.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

whatever THAT meant

[sissypower · 7/10 · 3 October 1999]

Stephen Rea as the on-screen Weinstein surrogate?

Sarah Polley, the Gwennie stand-in?

Jean Smart swaggers into the Bohemian photographer's loft as Eileen Heckart might have done some twenty-seven years ago.

What's wrong with honest work?

Audrey Wells reminds us here in her directorial debut.

Interesting, but not sadly misses "something"

[Carol-23 · 5/10 · 4 October 1999]

I can't say exactly what, but something is missing in this movie. Poor Connie. I think he gets less out of the relationships than the Guineveres. Maybe I like things "tied up" too much, but I wish we'd seen a little of Harper's work so we could judge just how well Connie taught her. A scene of her in a gallery or studio somewhere surrounded by her work as she answers a ringing telephone (presumably with Billie on the other end) would have been satisfying--no dialog necessary, just a look of sadness on her face. Whatever else, this movie sure spurred some dialog between my 25-year-old daughter and me.

Interesting that (along with another reviewer) I saw the connection between the Stephen Rea character, Connie, in this movie and Herman Wouk's Noel Airman in the 50's novel "Marjorie Morningstar" and talked about that as we walked home. And as big a bitch as Harper's mother was, she had it right as she saw through Connie. Beautifully acted by all principals!