Then theres a really, REALLY, thick headed kid that you just hate for most of the movie. His mom kinda sells him off in a way, but at least he has a good job all of the sudden without needing to have finished high school. Right?
Well...its easy enough to do, but again, the kid is dumb as hell.
Theres little in the way of any responsible adults around as they all are either complacent, home wrecking, apathetic, tired and distraught, oblivious, or just senile.
The perfect environment for a slow young fella that needs to still grow and develop into adulthood.
The movie is like a Jane Austin adaptation, but instead of the painfully obvious over dramatic insipid romantic angle, this film just goes nowhere. Except to the local deli. Again. And again. And then wanders around town looking for a friend. I cant even call these spoilers, because though I am not telling anything truly revealing here, there really isnt much to tell. Yet IRONICALLY I LIKED THIS FILM BEFORE THE END! Theres a sequel too which sucked, and also involved way too much freedom of entrance unto others properties as a shabby premise. WHOOPS. Was that a spoiler though? I dont care. Watch this with a good few drinks in you. Otherwise, you will just be lost and angry most of the time.
Add a Review
-
dspeedy-9148618 September 2021Thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Glad I wasn't swayed by other people's reviews. See it for yourself.
-
rampaginghulk200324 March 2016I've seen the movie twice, some years back, and just recently 3/24/2016. Joe's ENTIRE character was not my favorite. I never liked the way he was so aloof about life. Very "meh," kind of depressed, had no friends, but then again...he kind of reminds you of the character Mr. Graham in that they are both so very alone, and socially awkward.
Joe's character: He seems to not have much going for him, no friends, socially outcast, but when he gets his new job he seems to become more naive to the fact that he is all alone in a great big house.
There is something about the mansion that captures you, even simply watching them go from priceless room to room you can see how easily this mansion can fill you with wonderment. Later you start to see a trend that everyone who comes in that house soon becomes changed.
I think if you are just watching the film and not really vested into the background, and the characters, then you might easily not get the movie.
2021: I want to add to this review. I think it is imperative that this movie be called out for what it is: This is an unusual film.
We have a main character that really isn't the main character. One would think that the real main character is not Jow, but the man who owns the house, however I would say even then you'd be wrong. I would say the main character is the house itself...and what it stands for. This is the house of a nazi officer. The sequel ( although not as good without Michael gambdon) sheds more light on this film, by uncovering the past.
On this. -
Kijofreg28 December 2019The first half of this movie was really enjoyable, but then it turned a little too boring for a long while. And also predictable, which was such a shame, because it had potential to be so much more. The ending was fine, I guess, although also predictable. The acting was good, and I since I didn't know what to expect, the movie didn't disappoint. And, TBH, I didn't get distracted by my phone as usual, which is a good sign. But...I just wanted more from this movie, because it began so well, but it never came.
-
bcs419 November 2009It's always a bit of a surprise to visit here after I've seen a wonderful movie. There are intelligent people that see it through eyes that are as valid as mine, yet they saw nothing as I did.
I think it would be wise not to take too much from any of the reviews that you see here. If you are one of the lucky ones that see the film as I did, you will be rewarded by an experience that's as full as "Howard's End". If not, you'll likely know within the first 15 minutes and you can do something else.
I thought the acting was as good as anything I've seen in the past couple of years. It wasn't just Gambon, it was pretty much across the board. Wynter was unbelievably good. Kelly Reilly was perfect.
If you haven't read the spoilers yet, don't. This movie is subtle. Give it a try. -
Strivingforfairness9229 May 2016I agree with the first review here- I didn't want the film to end. All of the characters seem very realistic to me; the plot feels real; the performances are very focused and sincerely done, especially that of Michael Gambon, who really shines but is sly and subtle in this performance; the writing is very mature and paced very well. I didn't read any hints or reviews in advance so the turn in the plot near the end truly shocked and saddened me. I chose to view it because Janet Suzman recommended the author's work to me. Overall, I found the writing and the entire production to be very powerful. It haunted me for quite some time. Thank you, Ms. Suzman, for your advice, and makers of this work for a finely made film! (It's still available on HBOGO.)
-
AlanJenney2 December 2007Several years have passed since his father's death and a billionaire (played by Gambon) finds himself stuck, unable to make a decision about what to do with his inherited fortune that he suspects was built on ill-gotten funds. Everything has been put on hold in his life including a house (once the family home), which is still staffed and cleaned despite being largely empty, opposite his place of residence in London.
The "Joe" of the title is employed to work as doorman at the vacant house. He mumbles his words and has a vacant look throughout the film. Through his uninspiring diary entries, we listen to the lives of those who come and go.
Many of the characters connected to the house are lonely in one way or other: the doorman that Joe replaces; the cabinet minister who brings a mistress to the empty house to "make use of an upstairs room"; the housekeeper and her oppressed staff; the homeless man and the night security guard; Mr. Graham himself. You wish for some drama to happen and although each has their own scene in the sequence of events, nothing of real consequence happens.
This depressing atmosphere runs through the entire film. So the one moment of real emotion that occurs is heightened by this empty background.
The main plot line is that Elliot Graham recalls moments from his childhood and suspects his father accepted money and gifts from the Nazis. Researchers turn up nothing out of the ordinary in his financial dealings but one of his father's diary entries is discovered by the shop assistant from the local Delicatessen. The diary speaks of his father witnessing the humiliation of Jews whilst arranging a business deal in a park in Germany. Days later, Graham heads off to a castle and Joe tags along. It turns out Graham has gone there to commit suicide. In the only poignant scene of the film, Joe sees a gun in Graham's hand and he rushes him.
Strangely, we are then robbed of the chance to see the struggle between man and boy. From this point until the end of the film, things just fall down into sentiment.
Much of this film seems then appears unlikely or uninspiring...
(a) The politician's mistresses are a long-lasting sub-plot which begs to go somewhere, but instead it fades away.
(b) It seems bizarre that the historians and researchers do not turn up anything about the Third Reich business arrangements and it's only the diary entry that says anything about it. The implication is that they are either afraid of Mr. Graham or do not make any connection to what he wants to know.
(c) Despite all the other information that comes his way, Joe does not enquire about the only interesting thing that is discovered about Mr. Graham before the suicide attempt. Yet in the closing monologue, Joe professes to have been behind the old man's rehabilitation. Really, he's been a bystander to much of what happened.
(d) Elliot Graham comes out of his reclusive state simply by returning the trinkets to relatives of the family they were taken from. This seems to place little consequence on the circumstances in which they were taken and makes his earlier indecision and suicide attempt appear extreme. After all, exactly what he suspected had been uncovered.
Disappointingly, it is only Michael Gambon's welcome appearances that hold a lot of this together. Without him, there's barely anything to commend about this story. -
Sleepin_Dragon14 June 2017Joe takes on an unusual job, looking after an unused house for wealthy millionaire Elliot Graham,who curiously lives across the road. Without any residents Joe resides in his palace, which boasts masses to explore. Elliot could be described as the idol rich, Joe is from a humble background. As time goes on Joe hosts MP Richard Reece, and his mistress Charlotte.
I'll admit to being a Poliakoff addict, his writing and artistry for telling a story is spellbinding. Every piece of work he's done has captivated me, it's a toss of a coin between Joe's Palace and Perfect Strangers which I'd give top billing.
There's a wealth of talent, Kelly Reilly, Michael Gambon and Rupert Penry Jones are all wonderful, but it was the relatively unknown talent of Danny Lee Wynter that blew me away, one of the best acting performances I think I've seen. Why is he not better known?
A wonderful scene featuring the Antiques Roadshow team, the pieces are beautiful, I love the way that segment plays out.
I don't quite know how to put into words just how much I enjoyed this, it's moving, funny and somehow addictive. Only Poliakoff can tell a story like this. I miss this style of 90 minute drama.
Not often do you feel like you're watching a film through the eyes of a character, with Joe you do. A fabulous character study 10/10 -
paul2001sw-18 November 2007Michael Gambon is one of Britain's finest actors, and Stephen Poliakoff one of our more interesting dramatists; but rubbish is rubbish, and sadly, 'Joe's Palace' is not very good. Polliakoff has for a long time been interested in the aesthetics of aristocracy (and concordantly sympathetic to the beautiful), but in this film, he indulges these sentiments in the absence of any meaningful context. A reclusive billionaire does nothing with his life because he is consumed by what he fears his father might have done, although he apparently has no idea what this might have been; several historians fail to discover anything, but the girl from the local deli proves a better researcher than them and discovers that the father had been sympathetic to Nazi values; despite having always assumed that his Dad had been a Nazi collaborator anyway, this persuades the billionaire to think of suicide, although not very hard. Then he gives away a tiny proportion of his wealth (some things his father has stolen) and lives happily every after. Meanwhile, he employs a collection of social misfits (a familiar Poliakoff theme) to staff a huge London house he keeps empty; one of them, Joe, a young man with learning difficulties, is patronised by everyone telling him "what a bright boy" he is and watches silently everything that happens, commenting innanely in his diary but somehow becoming everyone's confident. A slick politician (played by Rupert Penry-Jones, who invests his lines with exaggerated faux-earnestness) and his beautiful mistress (plated by Kelly Reily, who emotes breathlessly but is also unconvincing), also feature for little apparent reason. Meanwhile, everywhere is empty: not just the house, but the streets and parks of London; in every scene, the background is blank, so the Polliakoff can maintain his trademark atmospherics, although you'll never see real life looking like this. The film as whole, meanwhile, is self-important but no less empty, devoid of real meaning and life, with no real dialogue (a scattering of monologues substitute for it) and, criminally for a film starring Gambon, desperately dull.
-
deepdive1019 August 2021An extraordinary film that exposes the tortured and amoral empty world of power, position and possession. Michael Gambon plays Elliot Graham a man of deep sensitivity who has inherited a great fortune from his father, the symbolic opulent and empty house Joe's Place, being one of them. Graham is paralyzed by the need to find out how his father's wealth was acquired and fears the worst, I won't say what that is to not give the revelation, in itself an indictment, away; is seen in contrast to that of Joe Dix, a guileless Everyman character played to perfection by Danny Lee Winters whose performance was utterly mesmerizing. Gambon of course can, yes, make reading the phone book, riveting. See this extraordinary film.
-
hoyayer20 December 2017In "Joe's Palace", the power of Joe's actual palace appears to be supreme and irresistible.
Entire lives have been defined for generations according to the social parameters, class distinctions, and boundaries exemplified by this magnificent home. The individual's inability to comprehend the extent to which this mansion exerts its power is the gist of the story.
The house can be seen as a surrogate for religion or the monarchy, or the most worshipful possible love for England and its history. The building has a force of personality that cannot be resisted, and everyone whose path crosses it understands perfectly -- even Joe.
Ultimately, the house is a monster that seizes control of those who enter. It rips them from themselves and then leaves them diminished or humiliated. Joe fares best, apparently because he sees the hold that the house exerts on people, but himself does not experience it. -
willians_franco30 July 2020I sum up this film as boring, tedious, slow, and meaningless. It's a BBC TV production that brings the London atmosphere and humor. In my opinion, the big attraction of the film is the actress Kelly Reilly (always beautiful). As a recommendation, I sincerely DO NOT recommend it.
-
cescfabulous4 February 2021The scene with Sir Michael Gambon at the Castle, when he talks about his father is Oscar worthy acting. The rest of the film is ok, but the acting of Sir Michael Gambon in close-up is the best thing about this film I don't know if what happened in the park was true, it's a new one on me, I wear WTF ladders and Birds, the writer has a bit of a weird mind
-
mats12323 February 2012Trademark Poliakoff story that pulls you in; mystery in a languid way. I love several of his earlier BBC dramas. However, after spending 100 minutes watching this film, I must cleanse myself by writing. The author's writing is a bit unfocused and the characters are not very believable, but that is all forgivable.
However, when the author wants to tie his yarn together he does not know how. So he uses a tried and tested way; he brings in the Nazis. The archetypal evil can be trusted to do anything strange so that the yarn can be tied up. So utterly pathetic and conventional. And he returns some objects to some Jewish survivor that happens to live in the US (read: HBO Films funded the film). What I hate is how utterly conventional the film becomes in the end. All the mystery in the first 80 minutes evaporates into some politically correct trivial resolution. -
josephemeryprank16 April 2024Joe's Palace, dreadful acting, dreadful dialogue, dreadful people, dreadful music.
It thinks it's really deep and moving but it isn't.
Boring boring boring.
And often utterly ridiculous - an old man in his 70s returns to a castle, and a canoe in which he sailed around the castle with his father, when he was still a child, is still in exactly the same place and in rowable condition. Yeh, right.
Gambon says the word 'Joe' in practically every sentence he utters. Yes, we know what the lad's name is, thank you.
Gambon's character whining on self-indulgently.
A clandestine affair that is only here for the vapid sex scenes. Despicable people.
The revelation towards the end is obviously truly horrible and disgusting - and genuinely upsetting - but even here the unnecessary dialogue nearly kills its power.
It's like Poliakoff doesn't trust his audience to know what his characters are thinking and feeling - they have to verbalise absolutely everything.
So much for the old dictum "Don't tell, show".
The self-indulgent suicide attempt evokes no empathy - if you're that sorry give all your money back to Jewish Holocaust organisations.
Additionally there is an incredibly irritating special feature interview with Poliakoff who says "um" all the time, has an unwarranted unshakeable confidence in his work and talks the usual guff that people do in these interviews.