Boring

A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

In the 50's, the psychiatrist Max Raphael (Hugh Bonneville) is hired to work as superintendent of an asylum in the outskirts of London, and he moves with his wife Stella Raphael (Natasha Richardson) and their son Charlie (Gus Lewis). Stella has a passionless marriage and is ignored by Max; her boredom changes when her son befriends the handsome inmate Edgar Stark (Marton Csokas), an sculptor that in a crisis of jealousy had killed and disfigured his wife, and that is treated by Dr. Peter Cleave (Ian McKellen), an ambitious psychiatrist that aspired Max's position. During the afternoons, Stella has a hot adulterous affair with Edgar until the day he escapes and their affair is discovered. Stella has to take a decision between her family and her wild passion for Edgar."Asylum" is a sort of combination of "Madame Bovary" with "La Ragazza di Trieste", telling the wild and tragic passion of an ignored and bored woman and her descent into a hell life with a madman. The narrative is sexually tense, and the still sexy Natasha Richardson has a fantastic performance in the role of a woman that becomes obsessed by her destructive desire. Her chemistry with Marton Csokas is amazing, combining tension, madness and eroticism in a stylish cinematography. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Paixão Sem Limites" ("Passion Without Limits")

I did not realize Natasha Richardson was the daughter of Vanessa Redgrave and what a lovely, talented actress she is. Sounds just like her mother. Beautiful people. And did anyone notice how the gentlemen in the film, Martin, Ian and Hugh, were marvelous at showing her off? She is, after all, the center of this Anna Karenina-like drama. I don't know why folks are referring to Stella as a "cold" person though. This was not my impression at all, but to each his own. It seemed to me that Stella appeared to be too passionate about her feelings toward the institution and the people around her to the point that she sent everyone around her spinning out of control. She seemed to feel that every person around her had no compassion at all and she was living in an uncaring world. I mean, does anyone like this woman in the movie except her son and Peter? Her own husband treats her with contempt and disgust, so why wouldn't his mother? Even Edgar, right from the start, has no respect, and is unable or refuses to control himself around her, while they are dancing; what was she supposed to do? Slap him in the face and call for the guards to remove him immediately? Probably. But, no, she was a lady and carried on with the dance. And, I guess that's the last time she was a lady because at that point on she basically decided "to heck with this lady business". Which was her downfall. And the whole point of the movie. She broke the patient-doctor's wife trust barrier that is mandatory for every patient's health by allowing herself to become deluded into thinking she could cure a killer (well, to her, he was just a handsome sculptor whose life had been ruined by the hospital) by being with him and, even worse, he should be free. I'm afraid, Peter, Edgar's psychiatrist, was right. She was delusional. So delusional, she was unable to save her beloved son from drowning because she was so lost in her thoughts about Edgar. The shame of it all is that no one in that community of pleasant and cheerful women surrounding her reached out to help (Peter should have asked one of the ladies for help)her. Yes, Peter tried to. And I believe his intentions were good, but he did it the only way he knew how, as an administrator whose entire daily life was surrounded by ill people. He would have no background to deal with a woman, wife and mother, from the "real world", in any other way, except to say "we may have to keep you here" (thinking of her protection). Obviously, Stella took this the wrong way, probably thinking she would be admitted as a patient. I don't think that's what Peter would have done though. As far as Peter being "a queen", it may have been true that Peter was fond of Edgar, but I didn't get the impression that he broke the patient-doctor relationship by having a tryst with him. And Edgar blew him off anyway when he said, "What would she want with an old queen like you?" Peter was amused himself. I mean, these guys knew each other, for 6 years. They were laughing about it. No, I think he was really trying to help Stella by marrying her. He could see she really mucked things up, had nowhere to go, no employment prospects, no son to live for, truly was delusional about Edgar who truly was a danger, yet he, the honorable man that he was, just might be able to come to the rescue and save her. This is why, underneath it all, I think his underlying motive was to help her (he had a need to help) with the possible benefit that maybe they could have a relationship that would warm through his silver years and be good for both of them after all. Yes, even if he was a "queen". And Edgar? He was just an attractive guy who had been and could be a monster, but people were so sparkled by his good looks, they forgot about that "oh so dazzling" monster inside. Anyone heard of a story like that before? I did notice that the movie was dedicated to the patients of an institution, which I thought was very touching and is a clue that the film might have been about caring for the people around you and how hard it is to do that sometimes. Well done.

There was so much promise in this story, but it just wasn't there. Maybe, if they had beefed up Sir Ian's role or had a husband that drew more sympathy, it could have been a great film.As it was, it was just passable, and not worthy of a watch recommendation, even with Sir Ian in the cast. He just seemed to phone in his role. That was a shame because he could have been written as more mischievous and allowed to stretch to the capability we know he has.Except for the utterly forgettable Maid in Manhattan, this is the first time I have seen Natasha Richardson. She did a good job in the role of a neglected housewife and pawn of Sir Ian.This was also the first film of director David Mackenzie's that I have seen. he appears to have some promise, but he just didn't show it here.

i have seen this movie and its OK but far away from a good one.its little bit about love ,insanity and this is all have seen this movie and its OK but far away from a good one.its little bit about love ,insanity and this is all.i have seen this movie and its OK but far away from a good one.its little bit about love ,insanity and this is all.i have seen this movie and its OK but far away from a good one.its little bit about love ,insanity and this is all.i have seen this movie and its OK but far away from a good one.its little bit about love ,insanity and this is all.PS if you don't have anything to do...watch it !