User Reviews (73)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    Effie Gray is the young bride of renowned art critic, John Ruskin. We open with a brief prologue and their marriage, which seems happy enough, though, as was common for that time, money and security seems to have played a hand in the decision making process.

    Things then quickly go south (literally and metaphorically) when they move to Denmark Hill, not into a marital home, but Ruskin's parent's. Two things are quickly established. Firstly, that the parents exert an unnaturally high level of control on John and intend to do the same with Effie. Secondly, this is no ordinary marriage - when Effie offers herself to him, he leaves the room. The rest of the film is then concerned with her wrestling with the predicament of her in-laws interference and freeing herself from a loveless relationship, no easy task, especially for the period.

    This type of film is very reliant on well-wrought characters. Yet the film seems very lacking in several crucial dimensions. The character of John Ruskin as portrayed here seems relentlessly taciturn and one dimensional, even when discussing the pre-Raphaelite movement, something which should really get his juices flowing. What exactly his problem is with Effie is hinted at but never really explored. Is he impotent? Is he gay? Is he mad, as some seem to believe? There are hints he could be gay, ie there is a scene when he seems to be masturbating in bed, another later when there is a "moment" between him and a young painter, and also his father seems very aware that there is something which could have held him back which they have shielded him from so he could become the famous art critic he became. Effie is clearly expected to play her part in this.

    The film mainly focuses naturally, then, on Effie, yet leaves out crucial aspects. We never get enough of a sense of who Effie is, ie who she was before marriage and losing her hair (from sheer neglect, it seems.) So it's difficult to get a sense of the journey she has to go through to liberate herself from a life of misery.

    There is a metaphor used for this doomed relationship when they recall a previous conversation about Diana the wood nymph turning into a tree to escape Apollo's clutches. If anything, it cruelly underscores how unlike this romantic Greek myth they really are. The type of possession Effie seems subject to is not sexual but more akin to a pretty bird in a cage. When she then hallucinates about turning into a tree later it does seem to labour this point in a slightly puzzling way.

    A bit of light relief is provided in the character of the worldly Lady Eastlake (the Screenwriter Emma Thompson) who seems perceptive towards Effie and sensitive to her plight, yet is strangely surprised on learning the marriage was not consummated. She also seems to provide a broader context to the plight of women during this period, but she is a frustratingly fleeting presence, given that she is a mentor and a revelation to Effie and a catalyst for her deliverance.

    The dark heart of the film is certainly Ruskin's mother, played by Julie Walters. Played as a mixture of pompous refinement and thuggery, this is easily the strongest performance.

    Those who are not especially interested in the subject matter (ie art, pre-raphaelites etc) will find little to enjoy here. And the writing is not accomplished enough to be genuinely thought provoking. Still, the performances are good and it does hold your interest for the duration. Be warned, though, it's not much of a giggle.
  • SnoopyStyle16 September 2017
    Effie Gray (Dakota Fanning) is the eager teenage bride to prominent art academic John Ruskin (Greg Wise). On the other hand, he is cold to her affections. His unreasonably overprotective mother (Julie Walters) tells her to leave him alone to his work. He champions pre-Raphaelite paintings and John Everett Millais (Tom Sturridge) in particular. Sir Charles Eastlake is the president of the academy and his progressive wife (Emma Thompson) befriends Effie. Effie grows lonely in the stifling home and more attracted to Millais setting off a scandal in Victorian England.

    The first half is dull like John Ruskin. There are snippets of goodness from Walters and Thompson. Fanning is captured by the costume drama. Sturridge starts to make himself known at the midpoint. The slow pacing really kills this. Society has imprisoned Effie and the narrative has imprisoned this movie. One way to empower Effie would be to make her more compelling and more capable in the artistic world. Is John Ruskin supposed to be closeted and can they make that part of the story? This movie needs something to energize it and spice it up.
  • donflemna13 November 2017
    A number of us tried to watch this movie together. None of us heard a word of the prologue because the music completely overwhelmed the spoken words. It was not quite as bad in the movie proper, but loud enough to interfere with our enjoyment of what would otherwise have been a very enjoyable movie with a fine script,great acting, etc. If the music had been toned down we would have given it an 8.
  • As dull as ditchwater and just as affecting. Almost completely pointless, and with some bizarre casting - the man they have playing Millais looks more like Rossetti! Nothing about the Pre-Raphaelites, and Ruskin is portrayed as a stuck-up idiot, which makes it painful to watch. Effie Gray herself is portrayed as a woman with no agency of any kind, and there's none of the scandal she created shown. No entertainment value whatsoever. Avoid.
  • I did like the story.

    She was a little girl being courted by an old man who married her once she became of age but would rather pleasure himself than touch his wife who he married for the purpose of cultural stature it seems. She needs a way out which was quite difficult in the Victorian-era of England.

    I love movies set in the Victorian age. The costumes the art direction. The set design did stand out in this pic. It reflected how cold and distant the family this little girl married into was.

    Also like how it was set up to be very stage like in the movement of certain people in and out of the scene.

    Dakota Fanning did a fine job. Give her an A for always choosing challenging roles vs the easy ones girls her age usually take. I don't see this role doing anything for her career but I could be wrong.

    Impress that Emma Thompson wrote it.

    But overall the movie was too slow and the plot could have been summed up in a smaller amount of time. It seemed that a lot of the movie was to set up the frustration the little girl had with not being able to perform any "wifely" duties and to make her husband and in-laws hated. I found them strange yes, but the film never quite explains the strangeness, which makes it fall short.

    It's based on a real story and It's probably better to hear that than to watch the movie. That'll waste less time and get to the point faster.
  • What marks this as a very good film is that despite the picturesque and exciting use of spectacular Scottish landscapes and of Venetian canals and architecture you remain certain of Effie Gray's claustrophobic life. The views might give a slight respite but you again immediately return to the oppression felt by the protagonist.

    It is a film in which you can feel the young life been squeezed out of Effie. The direction, the filming, the actors and the narrative flow all ensure this happens. It makes for a very watchable if not enjoyable film that you might want to watch more than once.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The author, philosopher, art critic, historian and social commentator John Ruskin was one of Victorian Britain's great public intellectuals, so when his young wife Euphemia ("Effie") petitioned for the annulment of their marriage on the grounds of non-consummation this caused one of the great public scandals of the age. Effie accused her husband of being impotent; he countered with the mysterious allegation that her body had some "disgusting feature" which rendered her less than a woman. (As Effie was noted for her beauty, this allegation was greeted with some bemusement). Ruskin also accused his wife of adultery with the artist John Everett Millais, but a medical examination which revealed she was still a virgin both refuted this accusation and proved the truth of Effie's own assertions.

    This film tells the story of the love triangle from Effie's point of view. The script was written by Emma Thompson, who also appears in the film in a supporting role. (Thompson appears to have an interest in art; she also produced and starred in "Carrington" about the early twentieth- century painter Dora Carrington). I had always imagined Ruskin's marriage to be a May-December affair between an innocent young girl and a man old enough to be her father, but in fact the age difference between the couple was only nine years. Much of the problem seems to have been that they did not have a home of their own, living with Ruskin's parents who seemed to disapprove of their son's marriage and did not put themselves out to make Effie feel welcome.

    The film appears to have divided opinion; I note that the fact that one of the main characters is a painter has prompted some armchair critics to reach for that old "watching paint dry" comparison, which I felt was a trifle unfair. Admittedly the director Richard Laxton does sometimes seem to take an over-leisurely approach to his subject, but there are compensations. The film is mostly visually attractive, especially in the scenes set in Scotland where Laxton appears to have been influenced by Millais' great series of Perthshire landscapes, paintings which rank among his greatest artistic achievements, even though they are much less well known than his earlier Pre-Raphaelite pictures. (Millais can now be seen as one of our greatest 19th century artists, worthy to rank alongside Constable and Turner, but for many years his later work tended to be undervalued following severe contemporary criticism from the likes of Morris and his former champion Ruskin, who had obvious personal motives for denigrating his ex-wife's second husband).

    The acting is generally of a high standard, especially from Greg Wise (previously best known to me as Mr Emma Thompson) as Ruskin. As portrayed here, Ruskin emerges not as a deliberately cruel man but as a cold one, an other-worldly intellectual with little interest in women, in love or in sex, and living under the thumb of his domineering mother (played, in another fine performance, by Julie Walters). Wise is rather older than the historical Ruskin would have been during this period of his life, but this does not really matter because the intention seems to have been to show him as a man old before his time. He also achieves a convincing likeness to the historical Ruskin, something which cannot be said for Tom Sturridge as Millais. (Sturridge is dark and bearded, Millais was blond and clean-shaven). The American actress Dakota Fanning plays Effie with a convincing English accent, but shouldn't someone have told her that Effie was actually Scottish? Or was this a deliberate move on the part of the producers to make the film more acceptable to American audiences, who traditionally have difficulties with British regional accents? (It is said that Cheryl Cole's Geordie accent was the real reason behind her sacking from the American version of "The X Factor").

    After years of dealing with literary subject-matter, the British "heritage cinema" movement now seems to have moved on to the Victorian art world; Mike Leigh's biography of Turner is to follow shortly. "Effie Gray", however, is not principally about art; Millais is only a subsidiary character. Ultimately it is a psychological study or, to borrow Nigel Nicolson's phrase, a "portrait of a marriage". 6/10
  • It's one thing arranging all the finest acting talent in a film, and having great period detail and costume design, but it's totally another to keep you invested enough for 110 minutes of your life. Effie Gray just about manages to get over the finish line, but not with any great impact. Expect to reasonably entertained, but to stay perfectly still in your seat (with the occasional glance at your watch).

    Effie is stuck in a loveless marriage... Her husband is an art critic... Completely under the thumb of his demanding parents... Who insist he stays at home e.g, forget about the newlyweds getting a place of their own. Her new partner is obsessed with his work, to the point of barely acknowledging her existence. He doesn't even show any interest in consummating their nuptials, for instance... The first night he sees her naked, he bursts into tears and runs out the room. Hmm... Can you say 'issues'?

    Then, during an impromptu trip to Venice, she runs into a young painter who is everything her hubby is not... empathic, fun-loving, and deeply in love with her. Sadly, she's stuck with Mr Grump, for the simple reason that if she did split up with him, it would ruin her family name... And besides, getting a divorce back in the 19th century was SLIGHTLY more difficult than it is now. The situation is complicated further by a strange illness she has, which involves copious amounts of hair loss. Hmm... Who'd have though boredom and enforced virginity would have such a toll on your health?

    With Effie Gray, you get the distinct impression that lots of the scenes which involve people pottering about in front of beautiful vistas, and staring in the distance while the music swells in the background, could have been dramatically cut... To no great loss of the plot. My theory is, some self-inflated 'important' movies such as this almost feel obligated to unnaturally expand the length beyond what the script requires, to make it FEEL more epic. This tends to not work (It certainly doesn't here) and just leaves quite a bit of dead air.

    Still, as I mentioned, the cast full of stalwarts such as Julie Walters and Emma Thompson all do their part to keep things ticking over nicely, and Dakota Fanning does the uphill trajectory of her career no harm at all with an emotionally wrought performance, backed up with a dead-on English accent. In fact, there's not a lot wrong here that couldn't have been avoided with the judicious use of a metaphorical pair of scissors. About 20 minutes off the top should do it, luv.

    As it stands, I was mildly interested when I should have been enthralled. Less it sometimes more, ya know? 6/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Oh Emma what a major disappointment! You didn't even bother to add some text at the end to say what happened to Effie. She went on to marry Millais and had several children with him and by all accounts lived happily ever after. The Scotland scenes were slow and boring though the rest was OK. certainly the TV series Desperate Romantics re the pre- Raphaelites was far more dramatic re Effie and Millais. It will be interesting to find out which was the real situation. Such a pity - the acting was OK and the costumes beautiful. The lighting was really weird though- going from dimmish to really dim in the same scene- if that was supposed to be some sort of filmic effect it failed. It made me think there was something wrong with my TV. I was also disappointed with the sound quality nod several times thought they were speaking in a foreign language - and I don't mean the scenes shot in Venice either!

    For people who know nothing about the Ruskin/ Effie/ Millais situation, which was a very unique, scandalous and shocking situation that made Ruskin a laughing stock, it failed miserably. If you are going to pluck stuff from history it really needs to be far more accurate.
  • The eponymous heroine was the only wife of John Ruskin (1819-1900), who was to art criticism and various writings on a variety of social issues as Charles Dickens was as novelist, i.e., of very high stature. Effie Gray (Dakota Fanning) was 20 years old at the time of their marriage and there's an early scene where she lets the remaning garment fall on the floor while standing in the middle of the room on her wedding night. He leaves the room, disgusted, and never gets over it. And so the story is of a neglected wife.

    It seems unlikely that a young bride would exhibit that type behavior in an high-born household during Victorian times but history shows that something did actually happen on their wedding night, though exactly what is unknown. There is a clear impression that there is more going on with Ruskin's sexuality and attitudes toward women than a single incident on a wedding night (though there are no overtones of homosexuality).

    Emma Thompson has a minor role but she wrote the screenplay, which may be a first with her. But I hesitate to put the blame on her for a film that I thought was at times dull. The teleplay seems lacking at the end and I don't know whether there were errors in judgement or whether it was just showing an admirable restraint. Those who like this better than me would probably see this as quietly rewarding (to coin a phrase). For me, perhaps too quiet.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I was looking forward to seeing Effie Gray. I knew the story of Effie's marriage to John Ruskin from the TV series Desperate Romantics.

    I was very disappointed by the movie. While Desperate Romantics played the story for laughs, with a comic air, Effie Gray told the story dramatically. Or tried to, rather.

    The screenplay only told part of the tale of how Effie married John Ruskin but their marriage was unconsummated. No one knows exactly why, but it seems to be because of Ruskin's disgust with "her person". So perhaps the old story that Ruskin had never seen a naked woman and thought they were smooth like statues, and was repulsed to find on their wedding night that Effie had public hair, may have a grain of truth in it.

    The movie shows Effie and John finally getting away from his oppressive parents and living in Venice. However, Ruskin makes it clear that he is in Italy to work and leaves his wife to find her own amusement with Italian officers. Effie resists being seduced by one officer and realizes there's something she isn't getting in her marriage.

    However, the pace of the story moves slowly..... very slowly....I kept saying to my husband, when are they getting to the good bits? Finally Ruskin, Effie, and the artist Millais, leave for Scotland for Millais, to paint Ruskin's portrait. At last they were they getting to the dramatic bits when Millais and Effie fall in love.

    It was slow.... very slow... lots of scenes of rain and rocks and waterfalls and Ruskin making remarks that turn off Millais. The Ruskin in this movie is so cold and callus there's nothing sympathetic about him. Millais though is Mr Nice Guy without much depth to his character.

    And that's about it. Effie goes to see her friend (played by Emma Thompson) who discreetly arranges a lawyer for Effie, Effie invites her younger sister to visit her in London, Effie leaves the house with her sister, saying they are going to visit their mother in Scotland, and Effie serves Ruskin with annulment papers. The end.

    Where was the drama of the annulment? In this movie there is only a brief scene where Ruskin and his parents shut the door on the lawyer after the papers are given to him. There's no mention of the struggles Effie had to get the annulment through the courts, no mention of how she and Millais married a year after the annulment was granted, and no mention of how Effie was then not permitted to attend any occasion with Queen Victoria, as a woman who had been previously married could not be allowed in the presence of the Queen. This movie was a missed opportunity that took a gripping and fascinating story and turned the major characters one dimensional. Ruskin is a fruitcake, Millais Mr Nice Guy and Effie is an Innocent Victim. Shame- with a better screenplay and tighter direction this could have been a revealing drama about Victorian England behind closed doors. Too bad the script didn't allow any real drama to develop, and like Ruskin shied away from nakedness (There is a scene with Effie spying Millais taking a bath in a lake. Nice to have some full male nudity for the ladies. Alas, he is seen from the back and from a distance.) There's no risk of showing characters' raw and stripped emotions. There's no schmutz here- unlike in Desperate Romantics, which, with all its playing the historical facts with a light touch, led the audience to really care for Effie, Millais, and art in the nineteenth century.
  • I thought it was excellent. Beautifully filmed, great acting and a fascinating story.

    Many reviews criticize Dakota's acting but I thought she portrayed the quiet desperation of a woman trapped in a terrible marriage.

    Odd to me that every silly comic book based movie gets raves and a truly great movie like this gets panned.
  • The movie was delayed a year to hit the screen due to the copyright issue. A biographical picture from Britain set in the late 1840. The movie revolves the story of Euphemia Gray shortly known as Effie Gray and her married life. She was from Scotland and only 19 when she married to the British art critic John Ruskin. But she was kept under certain limits of space by her laws. It makes her a lonely soul in the house, which surface a serious threat to their loveless marriage. Can it be held or not is the movie's final conclusion.

    Dakota Fanning, like I saw her yesterday in teen movies, but now she's in a grown up movie. Felt kind of hard to accept, and then after a while begin to like her performance. That does not mean it was a powerful act, somehow convincible to the viewers. That is mainly because of the story. Actually it's a simple story, if it was set in the today's world. For those periods, it was a big affair to deal publicly as well as family's prestige.

    The movie's settings and locations were good. As usual in a period drama the costumes are very good. It's always pleasure to learn the history through movies than the school textbooks. Other than that it was an average or just above. The thing is, it was a too slow and a little long movie, thus its not a commercial film. Many people aren't ready to pay watch it in the theatres, that is understood. So in my opinion, it should have been a television movie instead, with sliced into 3-4 episodes. Anyway, not for everyone, but for those who love slow presentations would have a good time.

    6/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Great Masterpiece Theatre costumes, characters, and setting, but the whole this is a slow motion bore.

    It's obvious from almost the beginning that the domineering parents don't like Effie. Nothing new about this plot -- been there and done that. Then we learn that something is clearly wrong with Ruskin, the mama's boy, who won't have sex with his wife.

    This story line goes on for an hour or so, and then we are introduced to a painter who captures Effie's heart -- now it's another version of the Forsyte Saga -- but we don't actually see any love scene.

    Then Effie finally goes to the lawyer and finds out she can get an annulment, and the movie essentially ends with the lawyer serving the divorce papers.

    We looked this up in Wikipedia. The story as presented in the movie is essentially true and accurate, but the "real" story goes on to a public scandal over this divorce with the re-marriage to the painter.

    The summary on IMDb indicates this will be about this "scandalous" love triangle. We learn for the first hour about two sides of the triangle, and we meet the third side in the second hour, but nothing about the scandal. This could have been a great movie with lawyers fighting in court, newspapers chasing Ruskin, etc. Instead, Emman Thompson simply wrote a screenplay that strips this historic episode of any dramatic interest.

    In the small art theater where we saw this, my wife and I were the only ones in the audience. The projectionist was just about ready to lock the door and go home. After see this move, we understand why.
  • "When a man is wrapped up in himself, he makes a pretty small package." John Ruskin

    Two reasons compelled me to see Effie Gray, the 19th century period piece about the failed marriage of famed art critic John Ruskin and his teenage bride, Effie Gray: Emma Thompson wrote it and co-stars; John Ruskin is a hero of mine. Neither reason is satisfied, nor in fact are dynamic people barely present in this boring biopic.

    The crux of the conflict is that Ruskin never consummated the marriage; John Everett Millais, the pre-Raphaelite painter plays too little a part in this adaptation; and Effie Gray (Dakota Fanning, looking innocently pre-Raphaelite) is so underwritten as to make me question what such a wit as Thompson was thinking. Or maybe she was too busy miscasting Ruskin played by her husband, Greg Wise.

    In real life, Ruskin was 29 years old when he married Effie, and Wise is 49, adding another layer of intergenerational distance not even historically accurate. As depicted here, Ruskin is a mama's boy coddled by both parents, actually shielded from social interaction so he can write unimpeded. While mom takes John immediately to a bath when he arrives with his new bride, the bride is left to pass pleasantries with dad as she is clueless yet about how mom will co-opt her every step of the short marriage.

    What's boring about these farcical Freudian touches is that they're not even funny or fleshed out, and Thompson gives Ruskin little chance to show the verbal gifts that shot him to the forefront of Victorian art and architecture critics.

    Ruskin best expressed what he didn't do for Effie:

    "You cannot hammer a girl into anything. She grows as a flower does, she will wither without sun; she will decay in her sheath as a narcissus will if you do not give her air enough; she might fall and defile her head in dust if you leave her without help at some moments in her life; but you cannot fetter her; she must take her own fair form and way if she take any." Sesames and Lilies

    By not giving Effie what he says should be done for a girl, Ruskin becomes his own most devastating critic.
  • "Effie Gray" is an adaptation of the true story that shocked Victorian England: the love triangle of art critic John Ruskin; his seriously unhappy wife, Euphemia "Effie" Gray; and his protégé, the Pre-Raphaelite painter John Everett Millais. Starring Dakota Fanning as the young Scottish bride, co-starring Emma Thompson and directed by Richard Laxton. The film is set in 19th century England and revolves around young Effie Gray, who marries John Ruskin, a renowned art critic. Soon after the wedding, Effie discovers that her husband has no sexual interest in her and keeps her in a situation of isolation and emotional neglect. This leads her to a state of deep unhappiness and despair. Effie meets her husband's friends, including the Pre-Raphaelite artist John Everett Millais, played by Tom Sturridge, and Millais' friend Lady Elizabeth Eastlake, played by Emma Thompson. These characters play important roles in Effie's life, both as sources of support and as elements that make her question her unhappy marriage. As the story unfolds, Effie finds an unlikely ally in Millais, who understands and supports her emotionally. The tension between Effie, Ruskin and Millais increases as the relationship between Effie and Millais deepens. The film culminates in a trial that seeks to annul Effie's marriage to Ruskin, as she seeks the freedom to follow her heart.

    Ruskin, the most influential art critic of the time, met Effie when she was a 12-year-old girl. He was 21 years old. It is believed that she helped him recover from depression, and he wrote her a fairy tale, the book "The King of the Golden River". Then, when she married Ruskin in 1848, Effie was twenty years old and longed to leave rural Scotland for a life of cultural sophistication in London. The newlyweds go to live with Ruskin's parents, when things start to go from bad to worse: Mom and Dad spoil John, and make it clear that Effie must sacrifice herself so that he can remain at the altar that was built for him. Then, as the popular story goes, on their wedding night Ruskin was so disgusted by Effie's pubic hair (or the smell of it or the fact that she menstruated) that he never touched her. Their union was never consummated. Effie then finds herself in limbo; with no place in her husband's life; of no use in the in-laws' house.

    Thompson's script shows how limited her options are: the monstrous Mrs. Ruskin won't let her sew her husband's shirts or help in the garden. She does not have the solace of her husband's intellectual pursuits and, thanks to Ruskin, she also has no children to care for. Effie is not a tragic heroine like Anna Karenina, but just an unhappy Victorian wife. At a dinner party, Effie meets the friendly Lady Eastlake, who talks about the miserable first days of her marriage to Sir Charles - but the difference is that they have managed to repair their marriage. In a subtle and affected performance, Greg Wise manages to make it possible to feel the slightest bit of sympathy for Ruskin - he gives us the feeling that the character is as much a victim as Effie. Fanning captures Effie's vitality and also her depression, during the transformation she undergoes with Ruskin as her husband. Halfway through the film, there is a picturesque interlude of the couple in Venice. Ruskin admires the local art, but laments the city's hedonism and decadence - alluding to Effie. For the first time, the young wife has some fun in her life, and Ruskin, predictably, doesn't even notice that his wife's antics provoke malicious gossip. And not even, back in London, does he realize how sick and haggard Effie is. Fortunately for Effie, however, a solution was found in the most basic of medieval European laws: annulment of marriage by non-consummation.

    Emma Thompson's script makes Effie a heroine who lives in a house where she is treated with cruelty. Dakota Fanning plays her with a cold manner and acceptance of her fate - until a certain moment. Effie and John's marriage was the subject of several books. However, the reason for John's refusal is never clear. Was he gay? Asexual? Or a non-active pedophile who found himself attracted to Effie's childlike face but not her womanly body? In the end, Emma Thompson suggests that he was powerless. The film even has a trip for both of them to Venice. There, John and Effie's paths cross with those of Claudia Cardinale and Ricardo Scamarcio's characters. The latter is obviously fascinated by Effie, but she runs away through the streets and alleys. Was it just out of fear, or was Effie already following a separation plan in her head? The film doesn't make this clear. The problem is that the film ends when things seem like they're going to get more interesting. That is, with Effie running away to file for divorce. And also, the happy ending for Effie, who got a divorce and married Everett, Ruskin's protégé. And they had eight children. It was worth having this happy ending for the viewer who follows his journey of suffering. The change that occurs in Effie in the scenes after the cabin, and when she decides that she will leave her husband with the help of Lady Eastlake, are surprising. However, it would also have been great if the film had perhaps been less about her period of marriage to Ruskin and more about the public humiliation following her accusation of impotence, as well as her reaction to these scandals.

    The narrative of "Effie Gray" is expertly set in Victorian England, with a stunning visual recreation of that era. The details of the art direction, costumes and sets transport the viewer back in time, providing remarkable authenticity. The film's photography is also worth highlighting, as it masterfully captures the melancholy beauty of the English landscape, complementing the story and creating a captivating and evocative atmosphere. The cast's performances are solid, especially Dakota Fanning (with her mesmerizing blue eyes), who plays Effie with sensitivity and empathy. Fanning manages to convey the character's pain and frustration in an incredibly convincing way. Her performance is one of the film's highlights and allows the audience to deeply connect with Effie's internal conflict.

    Greg Wise gives a solid performance as John Ruskin, portraying a complex and troubled man. His portrayal of the art critic manages to convey both his intellectual influence and his emotional coldness toward Effie. The dynamic between Fanning and Wise is essential to the plot and the actors manage to effectively capture the tension and lack of communication between their characters. Emma Thompson, who also wrote the screenplay, gives a solid performance as Lady Elizabeth Eastlake. Her role adds depth to the narrative, exploring the social norms of the time and providing an interesting contrast to Effie and Ruskin's marriage. Thompson contributes to the film with his charismatic presence and interpretive talent. And Tom Sturridge plays John Everett Millais with charisma and empathy, making his character fundamental to the story. His relationship with Effie becomes a central part of the narrative and is played convincingly. Sturridge brings an added layer of complexity to the story, making his character more than just a romantic interest.

    "Effie Gray" presents several important scenes and passages for the development of the plot and the exploration of the characters: We arrive in Scotland: When Effie and Ruskin arrive at the country house in Scotland, the contrast between the natural beauty of the setting and the coldness emotional aspect of the marriage becomes evident. The stunning Scottish landscape becomes an important backdrop throughout the film; Effie begins to explore the surrounding countryside, finding refuge in its beauty and solitude. These scenes capture his search for freedom and tranquility in the midst of oppression; the interactions between Effie and Lady Elizabeth Eastlake, which are central to the plot, offering an insightful look at the social norms of the time; the scenes in which Effie and Everett become closer and in which he suffers because he cannot bear to see her being mistreated by John; plus, of course, the epilogue that offers a glimpse into Effie's future and the choices she made in search of a more authentic and meaningful life.

    Laxton's inspirations are obvious in paradigmatic works of cinema that cover the theme in a disturbingly functional way, such as "Rebecca" (1940)", directed by Hitchcock, and "A Woman Under the Influence (1974)", brought to the screen by John Cassavetes (1929-1989), and the film in turn mirrors later works, such as "The Danish Girl (2015)", by Tom Hooper, which complements "Effie Gray". While in the story of Einar and Gerda Wegener, sex was never a problem, although Eddie Redmayne's character was indeed homosexual - and he discovered, in fact, a transsexual woman -, Ruskin's supposed homosexuality never leaves the cocoon, preserving his manhood. Perhaps the character's problem was even deeper, and he was wallowing in the black mud of crime, with repressed inclinations of probable pedophilia. Speculations aside, the fact is that the three remained stigmatized and outraged throughout their lives, and the history of these unions remains marked by the red-hot iron of hypocrisy.

    Although it can be considered slow at times and delves into some unnecessary subplots, it offers an engaging look at a courageous woman who defies the conventions of her time in search of her own happiness and freedom. It's a worthwhile choice for those interested in period dramas and historical narratives centered around strong female characters. The film also stands out for its stunning visual recreation of the Victorian era and the remarkable performances of its main cast, making it a cinematic work that deserves to be appreciated.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    When most people think about how far women's rights have progressed in western society over the past century or two, they usually think about voting rights, but that just scratches the surface. There has also been much progress under many aspects of law, at the workplace… and in the home. I'm talking about the right of a woman to enjoy a happy marriage – free from physical and emotional abuse, and free to enjoy physical intimacy with her husband. Divorce may not have been illegal, in, say, Victorian England, but it was definitely frowned upon – even in the instances I just mentioned.

    Such was the problem of Euphemia "Effie" Gray. She was a Scottish girl of 19 who married 28-year-old family friend and renowned English art critic John Ruskin in 1848. Ruskin, however, never consummated the marriage and treated her in a manner that she described as "overbearing". After suffering in silence for years, she got support from some influential individuals and succeeded in having her marriage annulled. This meant some degree of social ostracism, but at least she was able to seek out a happy marriage and have a family. Her story has been told in a silent film, a short film, in radio plays, stage plays and an opera, in a short story and in a book, on TV, and now, in the feature-length motion picture "Effie Gray" (PG-13, 1:44).

    Dakota Fanning plays the title character in the film, written by (and co-starring) Emma Thompson, who has previously won an Oscar for acting and another for screen writing. Fanning plays Effie as full of youthful optimism when we see her leaving rural Scotland for her wedding to John Ruskin (Greg Wise) and her new life in the big city of London. The reality of her situation quickly sets in. Her in-laws don't think Effie is good enough for their son and are afraid that she's in it for the family money and the prestige of being married to a famous art critic. Effie has trouble adjusting to her new role, speaking up when she's expected to be quiet, and humbly trying to help when she is told it is not her place. She's basically expected to be seen and not heard. Effie is not okay with that, but she might have been able to live with it if her husband showed her some respect, or even a little affection.

    Effie's marriage was in trouble from the very beginning. We see a discretely filmed and heartbreaking scene on Effie's wedding night when Ruskin barely looks at his wife and even leaves his bedroom when she comes to him in girlish innocence and vulnerability. For reasons that are speculated on in the film and by historians to this day, Ruskin never consummates the marriage. This leaves Effie feeling lonely and unwanted, feelings that are compounded when Ruskin treats their contrasting personalities as a problem caused by Effie. The couple drifts apart further during an extended stay in Venice where Ruskin spends his time writing and Effie spends her time socializing and site seeing. We see her slowly sink into depression and even become physically ill. The couple travels to her native Scotland for her health and are joined by up-and-coming painter John Everett Millais (Tom Sturridge), who is there to paint Ruskin's portrait. Living in the same cottage as the couple, Millais sees first-hand what Effie is dealing with and encourages her to leave her husband. When she finally opens up to a concerned society woman, Lady Eastlake (Thompson), she receives the help she needs, but it's not that simple. Effie has some tough decisions to make and a tough road ahead including the prospect of being a social pariah for the rest of her life, with no guarantee that her freedom will actually make her life better.

    "Effie Gray" is a simple, but engaging story. It deepens the understanding of what it was like to be a woman in the 19th century and shows us how far women have come in western society. Some audience members may wish the film showed more of Effie's story, but, contrary to the film's title, Thompson's script isn't as much a biopic as a portrait of one young woman's struggle for her right to be happy. Making a movie with such a narrow focus allows for a certain depth in the plot and the freedom to explore a very small number of issues, but also slows the pace at which the story develops. Thompson has every right to choose to tell Effie's story in this way, as I have the right to feel disappointed at not seeing the dramatic moments of Effie's story that occurred after the movie's script runs out. The film is beautifully shot, nicely-acted and well-written, even if it feels incomplete. "B"
  • Warning: Spoilers
    OK, so you marry an arts critic with pushy parents, but start losing your hair - literally - when he freaks out at your bush on your wedding night, preferring hairless statues and classical depictions of the depleted female frame.

    Poor Ethie. And you're stuck in his parents' house and have no occupation or influence, while your famous hubby knocks up his next lecture/art critique tome. What's a Victorian girl to do? Find and bed a struggling artist currently commissioned to paint a flattering portrait of your soon to be ex.Obs. The End.

    After an hour and forty of lushly photographed Scotland and Venice, plus dark - very dark Victorian interiors - the sense of Effie's suffocation is almost overwhelming. Thank God for Derek Jacobie - playing himself, surely - as the divorce solicitor who shows her a way out. Cut. We don't see Effie's new life, but hope it was better than life with the freak- genius, Ruskin. As for his mum, played repressively by Julie Walter, we pray for bad things to happen to her. Often.

    So, its a good screenplay by Emma Thomson, effectively realized - apparently after many legal wrangles which threatened to derail this film project and delayed its release. Made me want to get drunk and find out more about the asexual/repressed Ruskin. In that order!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Minor spoilers... writer john ruskin, well traveled, and well versed in the bible, appears to have had a very different upbringing than his new wife effie. As someone has already pointed out, ruskin was about 28, while the actor playing him is 48. Additionally, ruskin was really only ten years older than effie, while the actors playing those characters are 28 years apart. According to wikipedia dot org, the marriage was not consummated and was later annulled. She later married painter john millais. And had eight children! The pendulum swings. In the film, effie is befriended by lady eastlake, but effie seems to be too embarrassed to tell her the whole story of how celibate ruskin is. Directed by richard laxton. Written by emma thompson, who also plays lady eastlake. Thompson has become an accomplished writer! I think the casting of such an older husband was a weakness in the performance. Odd choice, which does not match the facts. The film is okay, and we are shown what an idiot ruskin is, but i learned more from reading wikipedia. I guess the only mercy is that effie successfully won her annulment and went on to a happier life. Funny moment when we hear why the butler is called george, instead of john. Sums it all up nicely.
  • Prismark1012 November 2017
    John Ruskin a famed social thinker, reformer, art critic and painter has his character thrashed in this film. Ruskin when he was 29 years old married Effie Gray (Dakota Fanning) who was 19 years old. Not that great an age difference but clearly Greg Wise as John Ruskin looks too old and sadly too one note, then again his wife Emma Thompson wrote the screenplay and also plays a supporting role as Lady Eastlake.

    We are given very little to go on as to why Ruskin would not consummate the marriage, after all Effie is pretty which means either he was turned off by the female body or was homosexual. It probably did not help that Ruskin chose to live with his parents who seemed to have a heavy influence on the adult Ruskin.

    Ruskin also encourages his wife to have a developing relationship with his art protégé Everett Millais (Tom Sturridge) even if Millais at one point tells Ruskin how this would look to polite society.

    The film does not tell you that after the annulment, Effie married Millais and Ruskin never married again.

    This is a handsomely mounted leisurely paced film, there is some location filming in Venice but it is rather dreary, inert and conventional.

    Wise and Sturridge are not the strongest actors. Fanning though is rather good, Derek Jacobi and James Fox are rather wasted in their cameos.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    As someone steeped in Pre-raphaelite history and having read many books re the Effie Gray/Ruskin marriage I was interested in seeing this film. At first I was ready to dislike it based on inaccuracies like the fact that Millais paintings shown at the beginning, where Effie was the model. were on display when the artist hadn't met her yet. I also disliked Julie Walters who was back doing Mrs Overall. However, after a while I began to warm to it and although it was slow I enjoyed watching it. My only criticism would be that the build up to a climax (more than Effie got) was wasted as there should have been much more about the court case annulment and Effie's marriage to Millais. The masturbation scene was completely unnecessary and did not add to the film. I did wonder why Celestia Fox who was responsible for the casting, made Millais look like everyone's idea of Rossetti and nothing like the baby faced golden haired artist of fact. Greg Wise seems to be cornering the market in cold, austere characters witness the reason TV production Outcast, but he plays them well. I wasn't sure about Emma Thompson, she has mannerisms that can be irritating. When the film ended I was left feeling that we were left hanging and anyone who knew nothing of the story would have wondered what the point of the film was.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I was looking forward to this film having heard a play on radio about Ruskin and Effie, but didn't know the full story.

    Unfortunately the opening scenes weren't promising, with some wooden acting from the actress playing Effie (why not cast a British actress? A stilted false accent obviously affected her performance) Also. the actor playing Ruskin has one expression and one tone of voice throughout the film.

    It doesn't get much better and carries on slowly, dull and boring with slow, boring performances from most of the cast (with the exception of David Suchet).

    There are a few things unexplained: what was the medicine Ruskin's mother gave Effie that made her sleepy/ ill? And why did she give it? Why did Ruskin senior say to Ruskin, we warned you about that girl yet you married her? Why did the Ruskins seem unhappy at the Eastlakes visit?

    It actually picks up towards the very end (yes, I kept watching) when Effie confides in Lady Eastlake (a very orange and tanned Ms Thompson - completely wrong look for the time). And things finally move on. This is about 15 minutes before the end. The story should have started here and continued with her next marriage.

    Apparently the film had a huge budget (spent on what?) and recouped a mere fraction. I'm not surprised. The poor acting and script lets it down. A poor example of British film making.
  • signlady21 December 2021
    What it seems has been missed by so many who reviewed this movie as; slow, dull, 'a snooze-fest', etc, is the slow, dull pace of the film portrays exactly what life was like for this young woman.

    The one scene in which her husband actually asked what she was thinking, she replied, '. . . A great many things' turns out to be the key to her liberation in the end.

    The vast majority of individuals on the planet cannot imagine abiding Effie's circumstances with any level of resignation, acceptance, dignity, depression, scant verbal responses - and those in low key tones barely above a whisper.

    The acting & overcast days effectively put you in her position, and regardless of whether you can identify with her actions & reactions, you remain entranced by sheer curiosity of what must possible be going thru her mind - until we see by the end, she still has retained hope in the possibility of change, and taken Herculean steps to accomplish her freedom.

    A beautiful movie. Well done.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Holds your interest as a visually correct period drama casting several veterans of many among them Emma Thompson, Greg Wise, Derek Jacobi, Julie Walters and Claudia Cardinale. The story on the surface has merit. An impotent man marries beneath his station a young bride he traps in a gloomy gilded cage. Once several good samaritans separately believe they can help her adjust without losing everything she schemes a path which will make her a rebel Victorian society. She historically challenge her husband's exalted place in the community herself again changing locale and socioeconomics hoping for a better life. An enticing true story not in my opinion well scripted by Emma Thompson which seems the reason the general audience and critical reaction is not higher.
  • Calicodreamin9 December 2020
    About as boring a movie as I've ever watched. Very little in the way of a plot, almost no dialogue, and definite lack of chemistry. Though decent enough acting but cinematography was a bit lacking.
An error has occured. Please try again.