This movie is a decent adaptation of the novel--however, reading the novel is almost necessary in order to get the depth of the characters' struggles throughout the film. I have used this film with students studying Vreeland's novel and they have found it a wonderful aid in comprehending the novel. While I am sure many have read the novel and enjoyed it, there is a deeper subtext that the novel implies that is not captured in the film. In each story there is a child/parent relationship that is pivotal to meaning of the painting to that particular owner. I enjoyed the performances---especially Glenn Close, who truly captured the craziness of the character Cornelius from the novel and the story of Magdelena was well told.
Add a Review
-
fblackwelder29 July 2005
-
nonfiction1827 March 2007I had seen this movie years ago when it first came out and while it isn't the best movie ever made, I enjoyed it. First of all, it's original. Based on Vreeland's book, the author presents us with the idea of a lost Vermeer painting. What an exciting thought because it's believable! We live in a world where treasures from sunken ships are retrieved and Dead Sea Scrolls are discovered. Why not a lost painting? And then she creates a whole history of that painting. I have not read Vreeland's book, but I may if only to read the description of the painting, which must have been quite good in order for someone to be able to create the painting shown in the movie. It makes me wonder who actually painted "Girl in Hyacinth Blue" for the movie. I will search a bit more to find out. I'll bet other people will too. Any movie that inspires you to search further whether it be to look at the real Vermeer paintings and discover an appreciation for art or perhaps to read a book written by Vreeland or Russo (Richard Russo wrote the script for this movie and has also written one of my favorite books) is worth while.
-
pdwebbsite2 September 2007Brr, the reviews for this Hallmark Hall of Famer have been considerably chilly. Too bad people can't warm up to the idea of an original movie (though based on a book) that moves slowly in its presentation and theme. Brush with Fate is fascinating. The storyline of tracing backwards to the actual setting of a painting done by a master is quite riveting. It doesn't matter that Glenn Close has a relatively small role. It was all that was needed.
The stories take place mainly in Holland, and the time periods used are colorful, and refreshing. The whole idea of "What if this really happened?" seems plausible by the end of the movie.
Even if the painting is not real, the one created in the movie is captivating in execution. If you love art, enjoy speculative storytelling, and favor Glenn Close, then do check this movie out to form your own opinion. -
danielkonik4 February 2003This film is a history of a painting and the people who owned it over 300 years. It is told backwards through flashbacks, from its current owner, an eccentric art professor (Glenn Close) to its origin. Each chapter tells of the price they paid for their love of the painting. The individual stories are all involving, and there is a rather morbid twist at the very end you won't see coming. Two hours well-spent.
-
This film is a history of a painting and people who owned it over 300 years. It is told backwards through flashbacks, from its current owner, an eccentric art professor (Glenn Close) to its origin. Each chapter tells of the price they paid for their love of the painting. The individual stories are all involving, and there is rather morbid twist at the very end you won't see coming. Two hours well-spent. James Welch Henderson Arkansas. 4/17/21.
-
pimpprincess02431 October 2005I saw this movie for my Composition class last week. It is an adaptation of the Susan Vreeland novel Girl in Hyacinth Blue. In my opinion, the book is more effective than the movie, b/c parts are cut from the story, and it is changed a lot. Characters, situations, and even plot structure is twisted in the movie, while the book was much more linear. Characters like Rika are made to be more likable, and the end outcome of the story is completely changed. Glenn Close does play a good Cornelia, and she does play her character s it was portrayed in the book.The movie wasn't horrible, but I wouldn't watch it by choice. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I would read the book on my own either.
-
nocturnerose3 February 2003This made for TV movie presented by Hallmark was something I looked forward to seeing this Sunday, since it dealt with the painter Johannes Vermeer (a favorite painter of mine) and how a certain painting of his got in the hands of an eccentric woman and her father. The woman is Glenn Close, looking very mousy and spinster-ish, she tells the story to a young man (Thomas Gibson) of how that painting turned out to be in her family. The performance by Kelly Macdonald (Gosford Park) is the highlight of the movie as she plays it like a young Kate Winslet, with a lot of fire and mischief in her eyes. The performances were much better for an actuall theatrical release. Too bad the ending was rather lame, and left many questions unanswered about Glenn Close's character. Still, if you have a fascination with paintings and the stories behind them, this is truly a nice piece of Made for TV fanfare. If you still want more, watch the movie "The Red Violen" for a similiar story and intrigue.
-
critic-23 February 2003I suffered through half this film before I switched to "Dr. Strangelove" on TCM. It is yet more proof that the "Hallmark Hall of Fame" has become hopelessly bad. Glenn Close misleadingly gets top billing, and delivers a magnificent performance, but she is in less than a third of the film. Her performance as an art enthusiast makes everyone else, including the usually reliable Ellyn Burstyn, seem even worse.
The film, following the pattern of such films as "The Red Violin", tells the stories of several owners of a beautiful lost Vermeer painting through the centuries. Perhaps the producers of this mawkish telefilm were hoping that lightning would strike twice, but if so, they forgot the need for subtle writing and direction, which are both hopelessly sentimental and hardly above the level of soap opera in this film. Ms. Close, as if sensing this, gives a performance that wipes away everyone else. In fact, the acting, with the exception of Close, is uniformly bad, as if we were watching a bad daytime drama in period costume.
The people who made this film obviously thought that by tackling an intellectual, sophisticated subject like a great Vermeer painting they could give the "Hallmark Hall of Fame" the class it once had, but they forgot to leave behind their recent tendency for corny writing and dramatics. -
robert-temple-126 March 2009This is a fascinating film by Brent Shields which, although made for television, was largely shot on location in the Netherlands and must have had a substantial budget for a TV movie. The production values are very high, with excellent sets and costumes and wonderful old Dutch buildings used to great effect. The film has two spectacular performances, one by the amazing Glen Close, as you have never seen her before, and the other by the brilliant young British actress Kelly Macdonald, who was such a strong presence in the British TV series 'State of Play' and in various films since. There are many other fine performances as well, a number of them by Dutch actors unknown to those of us who do not wear clogs, eat pea soup, and pronounce strange vowels. The story is based upon the imagined existence of a lost Vermeer, which for the film was specially painted by a Dutch artist named Jonathan Janson, who succeeded admirably in imitating a Vermeer. The painting is of a girl wrapped in a cloak of hyacinth blue and sitting in the usual Vermeer room by window light. The film investigates the history of the painting through the centuries, in the manner of the famous film which follows the history of a violin, 'The Red Violin'. 'Brush with Fate' is rather a weak title, and must have depressed the DVD sales a lot. This film is really very charming and entrancing in many respects. There are some amazing twists in the story, which is a series of strange tales going back further and further in time until we discover who the girl was in the painting and have a lot of Vermeer himself in the story. The 'topper' in terms of plot twists is the extraordinary revelation at the ending. Anyone willing to sit through a film in which no one gets killed by machine guns, in which helicopters do not crash through skyscraper windows, in which people are not always pulling their clothes off so that the director can get excited, and who have some interest in art, would find this film interesting. It is also a very wonderful glimpse of the Netherlands of the past, and we see much more of it here than we do in 'Girl with the Pearl Earring'. Also, the film should be treasured as one of Glen Close's most bizarre roles, which she pulls off with true genius, and hence is a gem for those serious about great acting. As for Kelly Macdonald, she acts circles round everybody but Glen Close, and shows such fire and character that she sets the screen alight.
-
I assumed, when I grabbed a Hallmark film with the "FHE" label on it, that whatever I was going to watch would be safe. Granted there was no vulgarity and really the film had a lot of wonderful things about it as far as being entertaining. However, I would never recommend it.. especially for families.. This is why: it portrays a woman burying her baby alive, and a pregnant woman's belly being attacked by her crazy brother with a stick with a nail through it. Both being images that one finds it hard to shake off.. especially when it comes upon you so unexpectedly. The idea of the film was fabulous.. but the content was offensive to me, especially when I considered the source... and trusted the source. Perhaps it was true to the book.. I don't know.. but if it is true to the book- then it wasn't good for FHE or Hallmark or anyone with a reputation for safe films to do.
-
vchimpanzee3 February 2003Thomas Gibson is a new art teacher at a high school. Glenn Close is good as usual as a history teacher who invites Gibson to see a painting of a young girl at a table, which she believes to be a genuine Vermeer, and she tells him stories, which we see as flashbacks about the people who owned the painting in the past. All of the stories take place in Holland, and for the most part each story takes place earlier than the one preceding it. I have no idea what happened in the first story, from the late 1800s, except that it seemed to involve a romance and may have had flashbacks within flashbacks. At this point I was not enjoying the movie. Another story took place in the early 1700s when a baby was abandoned during a flood after a dike break. The painting accompanied the baby and was intended to be sold for the baby's expenses.
Things got a little more interesting in the next story, which had some of the movie's few humorous moments. A man left a university to take a job working with the machinery used for the dikes. He got interested in a servant girl who was punished by being put in stocks, and their romance was not seen as a good idea. We find out in this story where the baby came from.
The next story was very brief, but a woman, who was unsuccessful in bidding for the painting at an auction, seemed to know more about the painting than the auctioneer. The next story revealed how Vermeer came to paint the girl's picture, and this was somewhat more interesting than the rest of the movie. At this point we have seen relatively little of Gibson and Close, but it appears things will get better as they return. Gibson doubts the painting's authenticity, so one more story about Jews in 1942 is necessary.
This was part of the 'Hallmark Hall of Fame' series, and I usually enjoy these movies, but I found this one to be a disappointment. The best things about the movie were probably the beautiful Dutch houses in the city, and the camera shots of windmills. But this was just not for me. Maybe others would enjoy it. -
rbrb9 November 2003Odiously portrayed German woman living in the States with her equally repulsive father, decides for no logical reason to reveal to a complete stranger the history of a family painting. Then in flash-backs we have an often confusing yarn of the misfortunes which arose from this artwork from the 1700's; the story is suddenly turned to 200 years ahead and we are subjected to the usual propaganda about Nazi's, persecution, the long walk to the concentration camps, etc etc. The lead actress is a complete ham and what I resent is how the movie attempts to lecture us for the zillioneth time on the evils of the world disguising their posturing as the history of a work of art. 1 out of 10.
-
SijtzevanderMeer27 December 2004Terrible story, cardboard characters, badly acted overall, but especially by the dutch actors (the guy playing Johannes Vermeer tops it all, the perfect example of 'how-not-to-act-even-in-a-Hallmark-production'). Yes, even Glenn Close (despite the glasses and sweater)delivers a non-performance. Who is waiting for nonsense like this? Go see Girl with a Pearl Earring if you like time-pieces set in rural medieval Holland. The utter experience leaves me with one question: Who decided that this stupid story should be made into a TV-drama, filmed even on location outside the US or Canada? Get the guy sacked! Now! In short: a 'Do-not-see-because-waste-of-time'.
-
mark.waltz16 November 2021There is definitely some delicious Intrigue in this TV movie filmed in the Netherlands that at times resembles itself a gorgeous canvas recreated on film. That is when it goes back into the past and you see the gorgeous settings that cover this history of a painting that was allegedly by a fictional famous painter of the time but rumor to actually be fraud. It is told to new art professor arrival Thomas Gibson by the quietly mysterious veteran Professor Glenn Close, and through her eyes you see her love for this particular painting and the tales of woe that has been passed down for centuries with it.
Some of those tales attempt ill-fated romance that left a lot of suffering in its wake, and the final segment, a very brief one, is the only one that outside of the artistic look of the film that really left me feeling any emotional impact. The three stories that it tells over a 90-minute period before the last tale is told and the story is wrapped up very quickly are sagas that you have heard in pretty much every Gothic novel ever written, and there is really not enough time to have much empathy outside of the cliched tragic heroine and impact that the presence of this canvas has on them.
I was excited by the double presence of two legends, Glenn Close and Ellen Burstyn, but they do not appear in any scenes together. It's like seeing Close and Meryl Streep billed together in the film "Evening" where they appear in completely different parts of the story. Burstyn appears in one of the several flashbacks as a seemingly domineering aunt of one of the heroes, and while she is of course commanding, it is not really a great part worthy of someone of her status. Close plays a rather dour character who takes care of her wheelchair-bound father, and she does get indeed the one stunning moment where she ends with a sob fans are all too familiar with from "Dangerous Liaisons" on film and "Sunset Boulevard" on stage. It's one of those wow moments that you wish you could say that the rest of the film has, but unfortunately, it comes a little too late to make this a fully satisfying artistic drama. -
njbpitt7 February 2003***SPOILERS AHEAD***
If there is a movie to be made about tracing the owners of a lost Vermeer to the present, this is not it. Of course, Glenn Close was wonderful as Cornelia, the mousy school teacher who brings the new art teacher to her house to see the Vermeer stolen by her Nazi father. That this woman would bring a total stranger to her house and risk her ill father's exposure and the painting's removal is only made plausible by Close's slightly insane performance. Would that there were more of it! Instead we are given several disjointed and not-very-involving stories of early owners of the painting. Not one of them shed any light on the punny title, "Brush With Fate". Brush--painting, get it? I was hoping for some connection with the art teacher and Vermeer, or have Cornelia and him be related in some way. But this shaggy dog story of a movie just left me wondering why I had wasted my time -
Werewearer27 July 2013I checked this out because of the cover. IN the opening scenes, Glenn Close acts so well I sat through the rest of the film, even though she did only the intro and the outro. Her eccentric, somewhat blind old academic was a stereotype, but I won't discuss it further because it would turn into a spoiler. Suffice to say, much of the movie that came after went a little over the top, full of exaggerated conflicts and exaggerated emotions. The interesting part of the film is the structure. It's an ass-backward way to doing history. I imagine Close's character, who narrates the stories to her colleague, opened one can of worms in her investigation only to raise a question about an earlier time, and so on, and that's how she tells the story. A little confusing at first, but when I figured it out, I spent time after making the connections.. That's how it runs, and in that way, it's interesting.
-
edwardkeys15 February 2004The only thing in which I concur with Sanchez Moreno is that Glenn Close has given us one of her very best performances in this movie. For the rest, I thought the story was interesting and at times touching and not badly played at all.