A BORE of a Film!
Before I am judged, let me just say that I am a huge Emma Thompson fan. Her best screen performances have been The Remains of the Day, Much Ado About Nothing and Sense and Sensibility, not to mention her wonderful television work in HBO's Wit and Angels in America.
However, I just couldn't get into her performance or the movie here. For some reason, Howards End never picks up steam. I'm all for a good period piece, but this one didn't make an ounce of sense to me. It's VERY subtle, VERY talky and VERY overwhelming. And I really wanted to like it. Should I just try to re-watch it? I don't want to come off prudish. I am glad Emma Thompson won an Academy Award for acting, but this was not her best work. I think she was a refreshing new face to Americans back in 1992, but I wouldn't have given her the trophy for it. However, I do love Thompson as an actor, find her marvelous as a person, and think she's one of the wittiest artists of our time.
Why then, is this film not working for me? None of the performances, for that matter, are very alluring- save perhaps Vanessa Redgrave- but even here, I wasn't understanding the dynamics of the scene.
1992 was a weak year for female roles (which is ironic, since the Oscars deemed the theme of their ceremony "Year of the Woman", while failing to nominate crucial performances from women- like Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct and Geena Davis in A League of Their Own). While those performances may come off 'easy' to some, they stand the test of time today.
I am all for a Merchant-Ivory production, but this one feels flat and dull. It never kept my interest.