It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Awesome Movie

Absolutely the worst movie.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

In the 19th Century, poets are the rock stars of their time – using drugs, living on the edge and revered by many for their creative influence. At a rally where he protests against the war with France and slavery, Samuel Coleridge meets the young William Wordsworth, who idolises him and joins him in his "revolution". When Coleridge flees the city with his wife and baby to set up a self-sustaining Utopia of their own, William and his sister join them. The two friends get down to work, although the writing process starts to destroy Coleridge from the inside – although maybe it's the opium? I taped this film because the title and cast caught my interest but, whenever I read what it was about I thought twice because it sounded like a dull historical film about characters I didn't know a great deal about. Despite this I decided to give it a go and see if it was any good. From the very start the film interested me with its strange visuals and interesting characters. The actual plot is not so easy to get into, but the relationships are well written and there is always something going on. I do not know the "real" facts behind these characters so I will not go down the road of picking at this film for what definitely contains a great deal of artistic license (the film ends on the London Eye) but in a way it is the license that makes it more interesting. With this, we are able to enter the experience rather than just the story; it also allows for plenty of interesting touches. I laughed quite a bit to read reviews ranting about errors in continuity, with some shots having modern things in the background – perhaps they didn't reach the end of the film to see that this was deliberate and became more frequent as the film went on (why review it if you haven't seen it all?). The precise meaning of this was lost on me other than it being about Coleridge being ahead of his time or timeless in his vision, but it did make the film interesting. The characters of Coleridge and Wordsworth are both interesting and it is they that make the story worth sticking with.This is not to imply it is brilliant because it isn't, but it is enjoyable, interesting and different enough to keep me watching. The direction is a bit too forced at times but it does have some nice moments that are original if not cohesive. The cast do well to help inject a certain amount of humour, wonder and drama when any or all of them are required. Roache gets all the "wonder" stuff and is pretty good but he has the film stolen from him by stealth as Hannah delivers a great performance. Wordsworth starts out idolising Coleridge and following him, but then gradually turns to destroying his work etc – this transformation is very well done by Hannah, who works the extremes well but does the transition better. Support is as strong as you would expect from Morton, Woof, Serkis and others but the film belongs to the lead pair and the director.Overall this is not a brilliant film but it is an interesting one. The narrative is difficult because the director tries hard to make it obscure and difficult to get deep into, but the general delivery features an interest character story told with humour, drama and good acting. The interesting (if a little pretentious) direction is always interesting even if it can be a little alienating at times. If it sounds boring and "not your sort of thing" then you'll be the same as me – in which case you should give it a try anyway, but I do wonder what fans of Wordsworth and/or Coleridge made of it.

All those of you who know the true story of these two giants of english poetry who complain about the inaccuracies, go to the soon to be opened Wordsworth museum at Grasmere. The ones who like truly inventive and emotional movies watch it! the performances are superb especially Linus Roache an underused actor if ever there was one, the script and the direction ARE poetry. These people were the original free thinkers before the word hippie was invented they were Libertines just like the film it's self is liberal. Why this did'nt get a general release bemuses me( made by BBC films)but the sad fact of the matter is that in this country if a film hasn't got Working Title or Richard Curtis among it's credits cinemas ignore it. Which makes my blood boil! Especially my local cinema the plaza at Workington who are as guilty as sin. Support should be given in this country for films like this, original films and not yet more working class angst or romantic middle class slush. Seek this film out by hook or by crook and sit back and let it wash through you, over you and into you.

This movie is totally divorced from the historical realities of the subject matter it purports to represent. It fabricates intrigues and events that never happened to Wordsworth and Coleridge, and omits important stages and events in their lives, like their trip to Germany, or Coleridge's sojourn in Malta.If you make it through the lousy acting and made-for-TV cheesy production values to the climax of the film, you are treated to a ridiculously lurid scene where we learn of betrayal and harm that just never happened in real life.One clue that the screenwriter Boyce had no interest in maintaining any sense of historical accuracy can be seen in that fact that he has his characters refer to Coleridge as "Sam". As it turns out, throughout his life, Coleridge was called by friends and associates "Col" or "Samuel" or "Estece" (from his initials "S.T.C.") but never just plain "Sam".

This movie does a good job of demystifying poets and poetry, and conveying the temptation and wastefulness of drug addiction. Ultimately, though, it's an unnecessarily complicated film with a drifting moral center and a real lack of focus (some will attribute this to its desire to recreate the opium mindset, but that's a cop-out). The splintered sympathies and victimized viewpoints make it hard to care about any of the characters. A waste of solid acting.