The problem with most of the reviews on this is that they are trying to like a movie that does not exist. It is the old problem or reviewing the movie you wanted to see, not the one on the screen.
This is a beautifully shot movie with consummate actors all doing their job. The dialogue is good, the filming and direction is good, and everyone brings their A game no matter how small their part. In fact, brevity is the order of the day. Whole backstories and motivations are given in one line or throwaway comment. This is the consummate theater we all want. With all of this, the only thing the story is missing IS a story.
The other reviews will give you more of the plot, but basically, Miranda Richardson plays Ruth Ellis, the last women to be hung in England. It is post World War 2 and she is a woman who has made a lot of mistakes in her life. Rupert Everett plays the epitome of British Aristocracy in the 20th Century. He has the title and deference, but no money. Ian Holms loves Miranda also, but we never really know why. "Ruth" is drop dead gorgeous, and now a "B" girl at a local pub. Her dysfunctional relationship with "David" pushes he over the edge and she kills him (no spoiler and irrelevant to this film).
This is not a look at the social pressures and changes of post-war Britan. It is not a look at the changing role of women in the 1950s or of the problems they faced. If you would like to see a good series addressing that then I would suggest "Call the Mid-Wife." "Ruth" is no feminist icon that has been done wrong by some misogynistic society bent on holding her down. The killing is NOT the last act of a desperate, abused, woman. In the end, you are left with a "Ya, so" attitude of the events. Which is a shame because until then you had the makings of a really good movie.
My only guess is that they ran out of money and had to rush the conclusion of the story, or never had any real reason for telling it and did not realize that until they had too much invested. Even a trial scene might have given "Ruth" some empathetic moments but in this film you only think that this is a woman who made a lot of mistakes and squandered every opportunity she was ever given. You don't feel anything for her because she was never any type of sympathetic character. In fact, other than being stunning, she is no character at all.
I like actor-driven movies and this is a good example of one. Everyone came to the set ready and willing to do a good job. The faults of the film are not theirs. There just was never a real story to tell.
This is a beautifully shot movie with consummate actors all doing their job. The dialogue is good, the filming and direction is good, and everyone brings their A game no matter how small their part. In fact, brevity is the order of the day. Whole backstories and motivations are given in one line or throwaway comment. This is the consummate theater we all want. With all of this, the only thing the story is missing IS a story.
The other reviews will give you more of the plot, but basically, Miranda Richardson plays Ruth Ellis, the last women to be hung in England. It is post World War 2 and she is a woman who has made a lot of mistakes in her life. Rupert Everett plays the epitome of British Aristocracy in the 20th Century. He has the title and deference, but no money. Ian Holms loves Miranda also, but we never really know why. "Ruth" is drop dead gorgeous, and now a "B" girl at a local pub. Her dysfunctional relationship with "David" pushes he over the edge and she kills him (no spoiler and irrelevant to this film).
This is not a look at the social pressures and changes of post-war Britan. It is not a look at the changing role of women in the 1950s or of the problems they faced. If you would like to see a good series addressing that then I would suggest "Call the Mid-Wife." "Ruth" is no feminist icon that has been done wrong by some misogynistic society bent on holding her down. The killing is NOT the last act of a desperate, abused, woman. In the end, you are left with a "Ya, so" attitude of the events. Which is a shame because until then you had the makings of a really good movie.
My only guess is that they ran out of money and had to rush the conclusion of the story, or never had any real reason for telling it and did not realize that until they had too much invested. Even a trial scene might have given "Ruth" some empathetic moments but in this film you only think that this is a woman who made a lot of mistakes and squandered every opportunity she was ever given. You don't feel anything for her because she was never any type of sympathetic character. In fact, other than being stunning, she is no character at all.
I like actor-driven movies and this is a good example of one. Everyone came to the set ready and willing to do a good job. The faults of the film are not theirs. There just was never a real story to tell.