Good concept, poorly executed.

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

The acting in this movie is really good.

This version appeared on television three years ago, and was supposedly based on Welles' completed script. It got roasted by the television critics (probably unfairly) because it wasn't directed by Welles - lacking his great narration and touches. But it is not a bad film, and it does have a coherence that the other film lacks because of the truncated cutting.The only thing I disagree with is the emphasis on Welles' script. Welles planned to close the film on a down note with Lucy rejecting a crippled George, and Fanny living in a boarding house as the cook. This is not like the television version where an unrepentant, still arrogant George has to be accepted by Eugene as his son-in-law.But it was well acted and directed, and if not as great as Welles' work, it was entertaining and thoughtful. It also explained some of the problems linked to the plot that the truncated version did not go into. For one, why the collapse of the Major's fortune? The Major (John Cromwell) has to sell off his property to support Isabel and George (Madeleine Stowe and Jonathan Rhys - Meyers) on their prolonged trip to Europe. Don't forget, Georgie never had plans for a career, and he is depended on money from grandpa. As Cromwell says, "Does he think I'm made of money?" It also has the real moment of comeuppance that is not found in the Welles' version (in so outwardly a manifestation). George can accept the loss of outward possession, because he knows who he is and what his family was like. But he sees a book on sale in a local bookshop about the first families of Indianapolis. He sees it's expensive, but he buys a copy. He is shocked to find no mention of the Ambersons in the entire book. He is a little less arrogant after that.No, it is not the controversial classic of 1942, but it is - on it's own terms - a worthy film version too.

I had to watch this twice before I could finally settle down and enjoy it calmly. The first time I was so disappointed because it didn't begin the same lovely way that the novel & Wells's film did: with that wonderful sentimental prologue of the fashions and the times gone by. (And I would like to know...why didn't it? Is it a tribute to Wells that they didn't feel talented or inspired enough to "pull it off"?)The second time around I "got over that", and managed to keep an open mind. Overall, it was alright, but somewhat stiff and cold. Did they ever consider using at least some of Bernard Herrmann's inspired score? Because the music used was definitely not memorable.Maybe in the end, this makes a better novel than a film; and maybe it was a mistake for Orson Wells to attempt to film it in the first place. As a free TV movie I give it a 7+.It was interesting to see the scenes that were cut in the Wells's film, and the original ending that Tarkington wrote. Much more coherent overall. They made Aunt Fanny more intense than the Wells's version. Apparently, the 1942 preview audience laughed at her hysterics, so some of her scenes had to be re-shot. The farewell walk between George & Lucy was especially well done, and actually better than the Wells's version. Suffers from the apparent overseas location (Ireland). We are obviously not in the Midwest!(Update 8-3-08) Took another look today, much better this time around (a 9). Part of the problem is that us old timers still want to hold on to the myth that Orson Welles's version was a masterpiece...which in reality it wasn't. One thing you do notice is what a dry, quaint tale it really is. More of a "little old lady story" of wayward youth and ultimate redemption, mixed with the changing times of 100 years ago. Very good this time around...enjoyed it a lot...good production values and acting. How could I have been so blind the first times around? Surpasses Welles's version by a mile...!(Update 10-7-17) It occurred to me after all these years that where this production got into problems was by claiming "it was based on a screenplay by Orson Welles". By saying that a lot of Welles fans expected a verbatim reproduction including the third person narrator and the prelude. Instead they skipped that altogether much to a lot of people's initial disappointment. Once you get over that, like I did the second time around, I enjoyed it very much and came to like it a lot.

A classic novel by Tarkington. A classic (albeit incomplete) film by Welles. If these happened to fall in the lap of your average tax accountant, said accountant could easily direct a better version of "Ambersons" than the mega turd I just witnessed.Anyone who's seen this atrocity knows how bad it is. We know it was filmed in video on a cheap back lot somewhere. We know it looks less realistic than the average Lifetime issue-of-the-week movie. We know that the little letter-writing interludes where the actors face the camera don't so much resemble cinematic art as they do an Allstate commercial. And most obviously, we know that the acting is universally putrescent. The performances aren't just stagy. They're middle-school-production-of-Death-of-a-Salesman stagy. That's some pretty bad stagy, if you ask me. I pity all of the actors involved, but especially young Mr. Rhys-Myers. I know he can and has turned in a decent performance. However, I say in all solemnity that his portrayal of George made me want to find a time machine, travel back to the 2003 Oscars, join the voting committee, and convince my colleagues to bequeath the Best Actor statuette to Hayden Christensen for Star Wars: Episode II. As bad as that performance was, it far exceeds Rhys-Myers' George in every dimension. I never thought I'd live to see acting this bad.And I've seen some stinkers, dammit.All of this, we know. But the question still burning in my mind is, HOW THE HELL DID THIS HAPPEN? My only explanation is one I cribbed from Ebert, of all people, in his review of some other celluloid disaster. According to the Fat One (and I for once agree with him): Bad filmmakers can only go so low. When a bad director makes "I Spit on Your Grave Pt. IV", you know it's gonna be bad, and it's a kind of bad that you've seen a zillion times. But when a well-respected auteur makes a bad film, it somehow manages to plunge into depths of badness never before reached or even thought of. Thus, when you team a good director like Arau ("Like Water for Chocolate") with a dependably professional cast featuring Stowe, Rhys-Myers, Mol, and Cromwell for heaven's sake, it oughta be good. But they managed to create a new level of bad. So I guess the best thing you can say about this "Ambersons" is that it's unique. I certainly didn't see it coming.

I am a huge fan of Jonathon Rhys-Meyers. That is to say, I am a huge fan of Jonathon Rhys-Meyers' pretty face and undeniable sex appeal. This movie was pretty hard to sit through. The characters were badly portrayed and impossible to relate to.