As another reviewer said--either you love it or you hate it. I loved it. A well acted movie--somewhat far fetched in the storyline. Very intense deep story and you really get caught up in it. I do not think a lot of the comments from other reviewers really see the value of the movie, or look at it from all of the character's points or motives. William Hurt as Barret is totally selfless in his quest for a family and Madeline Stowe as his wife is also very convincing. The big surprise comes from Blythe Danner, although I really cannot figure out exactly what her role was--is she secretly in love with Hurt? Hard to say. But the acting is fine and Kenneth Branaugh does a terrific and convincing job. He is a good actor and this role suits him splendidly. I do recommend this movie.
Add a Review
-
Scoval7125 February 2005
-
lastliberal30 November 2007I was looking for the Australian western of the same name and the Sundance credits writer got it wrong and roped me into this 1930s Boston Catholic melodrama. I still want to see the western, but this was not a bad misdirection.
Whoever cast A History of Violence had to see this film as William Hurt plays the same character in both films - marvelously, I might add. He is a rich Catholic businessman here instead of a mobster, but the basics are the same. He wants to give his wife (Madeleine Stowe in a great performance) a child and Viagra was not yet invented, so he hires someone (Neil Patrick Harris) to do the job. His only mistake was picking a 24-year-old who couldn't just take the money and walk away. OK, so we have a moral question here, but we ignore that for the movies sake.
Into his parish comes a new priest (Kenneth Branagh) and he jumps the Rabbit-Proof Fence, uses The Magic Flute, and we have an Alien Love Triangle. Didn't Richard Chamberlain do that naughty priest bit in The Thorn Birds? There is a lot of Catholic malfeasance, guilt and remorse and penance and symbolism here, but don't let that turn you off as it doesn't interfere with the story. And, no children were hurt in the making of this film.
There are some fine performances and an interesting story. You should check it out. -
ddelamaide10 June 2002Love it or hate it, and the opinions seem to be pretty evenly divided, this is a compelling film because of the performances of three fine actors--Kenneth Branagh, Madeline Stowe, and William Hurt. The story is incredibly far-fetched but, a la Six Feet Under, because it deals with emotions and fantasies we've all felt, it works in some sort of quirky way.
Madeline Stowe is absolutely radiant--confused, vulnerable, strong, passionate. William Hurt perfectly combines the ruthless Wall Street professional and the condescending tenderness of a man of his time. Branagh is a cypher whose screen charisma makes him riveting.
Some of the nitpicking in earlier reviews seems wrong to me. The Mass vestments are exactly right for the solemn high mass of that period, as is Branagh's demeanor. Extreme Unction can in fact be administered for a short period after death, though not, of course, on a corpse in a coffin. In fact, the only reason to open the coffin before burial is so that Eleanor can see who it is that's being buried. -
Oriel16 May 2001Fortunately for me, I stumbled on this film with absolutely no expectations--didn't even know the title until I looked it up on the IMDb! But it kept me watching, fascinated, for two hours (including commercials), and at the end I felt like I wanted to spend more time with it. It has romance, elegant atmosphere, a surprising plot, intriguing themes, and good actors...so, while the pacing and direction sometimes seem a touch stilted, I'd definitely watch it again.
I'm a bit baffled that everyone who finds fault with this film picks on the story. For me, the story was the strong point: it had some truly surprising twists and grew from the complexities and relationships of a range of fully drawn characters--a luxury most films, with their flat cardboard characters, don't offer. And the references to Virginia Woolf, also singled out for criticism by many viewers, actually served to enrich and illuminate the ways the film dealt with the tragic inability of a woman to escape the double standard. In the world of the film, where even a seemingly perfect husband could with no warning transform into a tyrant, even a woman who thought she had it all could be trapped by a paucity of choices.
That makes it sound like a preachy feminist movie, which it isn't. In fact, those who enjoy good old-fashioned murder mysteries will get a kick out of it. Perfect it isn't, but I can think of far worse ways to spend a lazy evening. -
MatthewJP29 December 2000Kenneth Branagh, as expected, performed very well. What was difficult to absorb as "possible" were the Catholic religious elements depicted. They were wrong and inaccurate. For example, the Mass vestments were not correct. The conversations and characterizations of the pastor and the young priest, for that period of time (Boston in the late 30s, early 40s) were off key, to say the least. The plot was interesting, but the film was too long, and there was too much "symbolism", and the "next move" was always predictable. With such a fine cast, and a great story, the producers and the directors should have taken time to be more accurate and correct about details. Another example of the lack of care was the scene where the young priest is seen administering "Anointing of the Sick" [formerly called "Extreme Unction"] to a corpse about to be buried. This never happens and is actually forbidden in the RC Church. Dead people cannot receive "sacraments." Attention must be paid. Details, details, details. The truth is in the details. However, I did enjoy it. I think most people would find this film interesting and entertaining.
-
A good movie with really good performance by all lead characters, madelain stowe is stunning woman of 90s.
Apart from misusing / making fun of the religion movie is ok .why? A church going n devote woman and wife of wealthy man , but husband shooting blanks. so they hire another guy to impregnate her with old fashion way ? come on.
-------------spoiler----------
even after that wife fall in love with that priest, she went for another guy to conceive a child ? ahh come on. that part was really bad in the movie. -
cerasea3 November 2001Great actors, good story - what went wrong? Kenneth Brannagh as a priest was an inspired choice of casting (If only all my priests were that ruggedly handsome & masculine, I would never miss confession!). William Hurt's presence, however, always seems to blur the edges of the characters he portrays. I never know where the character starts and the typical William Hurt begins (he did a great job though, I was almost convinced). Madeline Stowe is both brilliant and radiant as Eleanor (a pleasant surprise from her typically subdued ingénue roles!). Blythe Danner is a gem (as usual) even though she is horribly miscast, this lady is really foxy - far from the matronly and bitter spinster she plays. Neil Patrick Harris is always a treat (it's hard to forget him as "Doogie", he could play a cab driver and still be endearing and sweet).
It's amazing how art reflects life. The movie deals with death and I couldn't help grieving because this could have been such a great film. The story had (at the risk of being corny) all the timeless symbolism and core themes of love and life. I was excitedly anticipating to see how these themes (such as that of human creation, as dealt with through the issue of "baby-making", or the relationship between religion and gender etc. etc.) were fully explored. Stowe and Brannagh make a tantalizing pair. They remind me of some sort of "fully ripe" Adam and Eve! (their love scene could have been sooo much better).
Like I said, I kept wondering "What went wrong?" : The actors were exemplary (probably to overcompensate for the movie's weaknesses). The story itself was quite good but the plot line was seriously flawed. The cinematography was exquisite, but the scenes were poorly set up (there's one where saucy family secrets are revealed - where else? but in a soup kitchen!). I don't know much about the art of movie-making (movie-watching, maybe) but I think even a seasoned film professional will watch this movie with tears after seeing such a great cast and good concept go to waste. (Like I said, the movie is sad, unfortunately because of reasons other than it intended).
I propose that this movie be redone and soon! (With Brannagh, Stowe and everyone in it, except Hurt and Danner)- yeah right!
The other option is for it to remain as a prime example of when great acting meets a good movie idea, but the sparks just don't fly.
Watch it for the actors, and weep for the film. -
graciego1 January 2012but it might be best to watch this stinker for laughs. After seeing the distinguished cast list, I was prepared for something much better. Five minutes into the "drama", I was wondering if this was actually a Christopher Guest satiric interpretation of a romantic movie. What a hoot!
No expense was apparently spared on the photography, costumes, locations and scenery - all are beautiful.
Hate to be cynical but I can only surmise that some Hollywood pay-off was involved here, along the lines of if you will direct/appear in/produce this for my girlfriend/boyfriend/niece/nephew/whatever, I will do the same for you. -
abrillaonly8 July 2005Though there may have been some inconsistencies to real life, I enjoyed the movie and so did my friends and acquaintances...I was taken by the snowball effect...though some scenes could have been done differently...I accept it for exactly what it is...movie drama, not real life...some scenes were predictable and some I never saw coming...I was impressed with the job interview...the job...and then the transition from BOY to MANHHOOD and then the snowball effect that changes the lives of all persons involved including the priest...for me personally...the movie was well done...I am sure it could have been better but so could every movie once it has been seen and critiqued...GOOD JOB!
-
stancym-131 January 2011what my permanent vote should REALLY be....
The plot is so far fetched in places, you really have to suspend disbelief. However, there is something alluring about the film. A lot of visual beauty in the scenes. Some of the script is good, and some of it not so good.....
Major spoilers ahead:
The film does gloss over very quickly the healing and "falling in love again" that occurs between Hurt and Stowe as husband and wife. It's as though Stowe and Branagh have a period of close friendship, then a very brief and passionate affair, and then in the next scene we are supposed to believe they got over each other almost immediately? There is no transition from THEIR mutual love to the renewed love and passion that Stowe feels for her husband, played by Hurt. And Branagh is not struggling with any lingering romantic feelings for Stowe? And he's happy to just be a priest and watch her raise his kid as Hurt's child?
Well, I'm giving it a 7 at this juncture because it's worth seeing Kenneth Branagh at his physical peak. He's really attractive in this movie and what a voice! He's a fine actor even in mediocre or "fine but flawed" material. I wish they'd shown the sex between him and Stowe in a slightly LESS tasteful and delicate manner! For some reason, I felt Madeleine Stowe could have seemed more like a Boston, 1930s aristocrat. She spoke too fast and came across as a bit contemporary, perhaps too modern and casual for the part she was playing? it's hard to explain.....just a feeling. I'll watch it again and give her another shot. Hurt was very good I thought.
Definitely a soap opera and the plot strains one's belief in places, but enjoyable overall. I'm still waiting for Kenneth Branagh to give a really bad performance. Don't think it is possible. -
notmicro28 May 2001Talented high-powered actors, plus high production values, minus
a dreadful slow-moving story, equals a major waste of time and
money. Hard to see how this project ever got made, especially
with these actors. Has the feel of a "Masterpiece Theater" version
of trashy old TV mini-series like "Lace" and "The Other Side of
Midnight", with a large dash of vow-breaking priest from "The
Thorn Birds". Aspires to tragic 19th century English novels,
however this tale of sex, murder, and family secrets among the
rich and powerful is not quite Thomas Hardy material. On a minor
note, I found Branagh's immaculately coiffed hair and trimmed and
colored beard distracting and annoying after awhile; he's like a
priest with a full-time stylist. -
diligentheart12 September 2008This movie is visually stunning and very well acted by the WHOLE cast. I think it is better seen at home where you can go back and watch portions over again, because in some scenes you must hear every word and pay attention to body language and expression quite closely or the plot can easily lose you. Bad acting or directing would have made this movie impossible to understand, because the writing is extremely subtle. I think the directing and acting is amazing because of what it conveys without language. (Some of the negative reviews were written by people who did not pay attention to key things are explained in few or no words, once, and once only, or to things that were shown only through non-verbal language. You must look and listen the whole time.) It does have the tragic-amazingly-coincidental stuff going on, but so what? It is entertainment, for goodness sakes, not a documentary! Apparently someone who was involved in making it is embarrassed, because it is impossible to get it on DVD in American format, which is a real shame. I love this movie, and am very sad not to be able to watch it since my VHS player broke. It always absorbs me and lets me forget about my own life for a few hours. I like to watch it once or twice a year, and enjoy sharing it with friends who have not seen it. It has been enjoyed by many people I know, but some did say that my pointing out key scenes was necessary for them to follow the plot. A few friends really did not like it, but none of those particular friends like tragic drama in general. I will continue to look for it on DVD every several months, and I will be looking to fix or replace my VHS player just so I can watch this and one other movie that I also love and can't get on DVD.
-
C'mon all you IMDb subscribers. Don't be so serious. A movie is a movie, nothing more. Branagh & Hurt are always good no matter the venue. Stowe is beautiful to watch but she was mis-cast in this one. Remember her in "Revenge"??!!?? "The Proposition" is a good story. It has all the elements and intrigue of human nature. Who can forget the hurt on Barret's face as he watches his wife's lover leaving his home. Watch it, enjoy it, then turn off the TV and make love to whomever is with you.
-
Reb929 September 2001This bomb combines to worst elements of an Andrew Greeley potboiler with performances that should for ever embarrass the actors involved in this poorly written nonsense. The direction is amateurish; sluggish pacing, muddy photography, glaring errors of the period, and no real understanding of the Roman Catholic church of that time. The voice over narration by Brannagh is sleep inducing and his on screen performance is little better. William Hurt is William Hurt, never really giving the character a hint of life. Blythe Danner is wasted. This film is a dog. Don't bother.
-
rob.cottrell-214 August 2002You know there must be a problem when a recent film appears on TV with a cast that includes William Hurt, Kenneth Branagh, Madeleine Stowe, Robert Loggia and Blythe Danner and you've never heard of it. I guess my suspicions were aroused when the TV Channel shoved it out at 3 o'clock in the morning, but I really didn't think it could be that bad.
I was wrong. One of the previous comments summed this film up far better than I could but I would still like someone to tell me who the hell is Blythe Danner supposed to be? The mother, sister, best friend,'Mrs Danvers', I still haven't got a clue. I'm certainly not going to watch it again just to find out..
However, by far the saddest thing about this movie is watching talent like Blythe Danner, Madeleine Stowe and William Hurt being wasted in rubbish like this (I didn't miss out Mr Branagh by accident , incidentally).
Come on Hollywood, give them something decent to get their teeth into! -
Someone once said that it is impossible to extract a good film out of a bad script. Well, I believe this is one of the exceptions to that rule. The script is really very weak, beginning with the absurd situation of Kenneth Branagh telling the story to Robert Loggia when it was Loggia who witnessed the initial facts, Branagh not being present. Besides there are several "intellectual" dialogues, including a Virginia Wolf citation, that are said on the most improbable occasions, as on the second encounter between Madeleine Stowe and Neil Patrick Harris. Notwithstanding this, the direction manages to hold a firm grip on the proceedings throughout the whole film, avoiding it falling into ridiculousness. Most of all, the whole cast led by William Hurt and Kenneth Branagh imbue their characters with such a high degree of dignity and seriousness that makes us think of one of those good Bette Davis vehicles.
-
leandros19 October 1998I like Kenneth Brannagh, as long as he stays in his hilariously made Shakespearean adaptations. But it should be discussed why such a brilliant Shakespeare actor cannot be more than what the script suggests... is it his discomfort acting in somebody else's film, or his uneasiness of the director being "Shakespeare's Sister"?
Well, "The Proposition" has indeed many weak spots, being a period flick, but primarily it doesn't have a goal. It seems really hard to concentrate on anything while thinking of the object of all the efforts of the characters. Though I believe that especially Arthur (the unmistakable William Hurt) was a well-developed character, even he doesn't fit in the storms stirring dark waters of his family. Madeline Stowe proves herself to be a much mature actress than she used to be; age sure does help.
All in all, turn down the proposition and rent it on video. -
1st watched 01/10/1999 - 7 out of 10(Dir-Lesli Linka Glatter): Uneven at times in it's format, but otherwise very well acted and filmed story of surrogate pregnancy involving a Catholic priest. The acting by Branagh lifts this film above mediocrity.
-
overseer-318 May 2002This film is a waste of time, even for romantics. The actors looked embarrassed to be mouthing off such ridiculous lines. The characters' actions made no sense; they seem to act totally on whim and not conscience at all. After having an extra-marital affair with an attractive Roman Catholic priest we are expected to believe that all of a sudden Eleanor falls in love with her wimpy husband again? Come on! William Hurt's Arthur was such a stiff, he reminded me of a cardboard box. And the priest's decision at the end was hypocritical and totally unbelievable. The last line of the movie had me laughing hysterically, it was so preposterous. Only good thing about the film was the music, but even that got on your nerves at times. Skip it.
-
zydonk14 September 2019Spent an evening listening to German 1980's punk/new wave/synth dance - like breaking down a wall called the Future. Then went into another room and watched this film.
Dreaded reading the reviews here afterwards to find out what kind of sentimental idiot I am. Yep, a sad case.
And yet: pick a spot in the film to start with. How about Madeleine Stowe saying something to the effect that she thought she had it all only to find that she had nothing at all? Not what she says: but how she says it. Did she find it easy to open her face like that? And what about her lying dead and men trying to save the children? How did she manage to look so dead - when she obviously wasn't dead-looking?
The thing about plots is not are they realistic/logical, but do they work. The trick is to find out what the plot is really about. The plot of The Proposition centres on Madeleine Stowe's question: How does she have such power over men?
I'm sure you know the answer now, if you have actually watched this film. -
rrl-119 January 2005I ran across this film whilst flipping channels one rainy afternoon and found the storyline to be surprisingly engaging. I was glued to the couch waiting to see how it would play out and how such flawed characters could find redemption. I felt the casting was good and Madeline Stowe's character in particular was easy to relate to. As for William Hurt, such a somber and sympathetic character could be compared to the likes of Heathcliffe...so full of longing and unfulfilled dreams. While I am not always fond of movies that have a narrator, I felt that Kenneth Branaugh's voice and character added weight to the tale and only increased my interest in the movie as more was exposed about his involvement in the lives of the "Barrett family". The storyline contained plenty of interesting twists and turns, and was not altogether predictable (as many movies are today). Definitely worthwhile and a lovely depiction of love, charity and forgiveness.
-
hanny-c26 January 2005horrible, horrible, horrible movie... so boring, so SLOW moving, makes you go crazy watching it... oh, it was so bad.. I doubt that there is anyone who enjoyed this movie. My mom was watching it so i had to watch as well and at the end of the movie i couldn't help but blurt out how horrible it actually was...wow this has to be on the ten top worst movies of that year...trust me don't bother wasting your time or money to see this movie because i promise you will regret it...oh jeez was it h-o-r-r-i-b-l-e... On a scale from 1 to 10 its a 1...and it doesn't even really deserve that. Two thumbs down...way down. OK i need ten lines to write but this was so bad there's nothing more to say than how bad it actually was...worst movie no doubt..
-
crimson-107 January 2002Oddly enough, I really fell for William Hurt and Madeleine Stowe in this film. Wanting so much for his wife to have a child, but sterile himself, Hurt's character Arthur Barret arranges for a young Ivy League student (played by Neil Patrick Harris) to sleep with his wife as long as it takes to impregnate her. This is where the story begins. The story made me laugh and cry. I have rented this one so many times I ought to just buy it! On my personal top-10 of all time movie list.
-
tomsview22 September 2013Did the makers of "The Proposition" set themselves the challenge of coming up with the record number of outrageous plot developments in a single movie? Because they just may have succeeded.
Opinion about this movie falls into one of three groups. First are those that think it is a compelling, stylish drama with a fantastic cast – they love it. Second are those who believe it is an overheated piece of rubbish, and a huge waste of talent – they hate it. The third group feels that although it has a great cast and is well acted, it has a deeply flawed story. I go with the third group to a point, although I must admit, despite the craziness of the story, it kept me going until the end.
The story is told in flashback by Kenneth Branagh's character Father Michael McKinnon. He tells how he arrived from England in the mid 1930's to a posting as a new priest in Boston's most affluent Catholic parish. He wants to concentrate on helping the poor, but also wants to avoid the Barrets, the richest and most influential family in the parish.
Eleanor Barret, played by Madeleine Stowe, and her husband, the powerful Arthur Barret, played by William Hurt, are unable to have children due to Arthur's infertility. Eleanor is desperate to have a child, so Arthur arranges for a surrogate to perform the necessary service for Eleanor.
Roger Martin a young law graduate played by Neil Patrick Harris is offered $25,000 to impregnate Eleanor. Although he is inexperienced, an added inducement is that Mrs. Barret is extremely hot. Eleanor falls pregnant, but young Roger finds that he enjoyed the work so much that he would like to continue working for free – he begins to make a pest of himself, and threatens to expose the deal, all of which leads to unexpected developments.
While this unfolds, Father McKinnon, no longer able to avoid the Barret's dinner invitations, announces that he is in fact Arthur Barret's nephew.
Many other revelations follow in a story that encompasses 16 years.
Without spoiling the ending too much, one of the least expected developments occurs when Father McKinnon compromises his priestly vows with an affair with Eleanor. The sight of Father McKinnon in full clerical garb pashing Aunt Eleanor is far removed from Hollywood's classic depictions of priests in films such as "Going My Way" and "The Miracle of the Bells".
Although not Catholic, I can't help feeling uncomfortable with the way filmmakers treat the church these days. Although many faiths have had to deal with big sexual abuse problems, I still feel an on screen affair between a priest and a married woman will offend a lot of people. Showing irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable by others is the essence of blasphemy, while picking targets that don't fight back is the essence of bullying.
Too be honest, this aspect of the plot almost totally eclipses what was already an intriguing plot development involving Neil Patrick Harris's character – it's all just too much.
At about the midpoint, you know you can't take this movie seriously. If at the end, it had claimed to be based on fact, I would have fallen out of my chair. But it doesn't, so it's safe enough to just lean back and take the ride, erratic and jarring as it is. -
newjersian26 October 2020The plot of this movie has more holes than the fisherman's net. There are bad movies that just didn't work out for various reasons: poorly chosen script, bad actors, bad direction, etc. And there are those which were initially created for a stupid audience. This movie is like this. The film is full of illogical and stupid actions and absolutely impossible behaviors and dialogues of real people. It's amazing how anyone can give this drivel a positive rating.