Mary Poppins Returns
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No consensus yet.
No consensus yet.
All Critics (36)
| Top Critics (12)
| Fresh (29)
| Rotten (7)
| DVD (1)
It's worth seeing Jude, a stark adaptation of Thomas Hardy's Jude the Obscure, just for the extraordinary performance of Christopher Eccleston as Jude Fawley.
Young English actress Kate Winslet adds luster and energy to Jude, a bold and generally successful attempt to adapt Thomas Hardy's final novel, Jude the Obscure, to the bigscreen.
Without the benefit of Hardy's prose, the point of the movie is lost in the grim, grayish ether.
Ambitious, sensitive, but ultimately uninvolving.
Jude remains a handsome if gravely flawed film.
The dark, steel engraving look that cinematographer Eduardo Serra has given Jude endows it with a somber magnificence.
The film has its period down cold, but what makes it special is its nerve, about which the best you can say is that it matches Hardy's own.
It's good quality stuff, but sublimely miserable.
Superbly acted by all involved.
Jude isn't a movie to see as entertainment, but is a strong contemplation on man's struggle to overcome oppressive odds.
Sometimes outstanding but is a not always satisfying screen adaptation of Thomas Hardy's last novel.
Among the very best, frankest, and most honest of recent literary adaptations.
Only because of Kate Winslet do I round this up to four stars. One of the strongest actors working in film today, she is radiantly beautiful, even in this overpoweringly sad adaptation of Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy. This viewer felt as though this were the Cliff Notes version of Hardy's weighty tome. So much of this seemed glossed over, with Jude's (Christopher Eccleston) seduction by, marriage to, and separation from Arabella (Rachel Griffith) taking place in the first ten minutes. The whole film came off that way. Maybe this suffers from comparison to the last film this viewer watched (and reviewed) which chose an entirely different approach to a long novel and achieved a brilliant result. The defining tragedy here nearly broke this viewer's heart, but was telegraphed long before the actual events unfolded. Whether this was the fault of the filmmakers or is inherent to the novel is irrelevant. One wonders why this film had to be made. Still, it was nice to see both Rachel Griffith and Kate Winslet, even if the film was less than satisfactory.
Dry and a rather borefest, worth watching only for Kate Winslet's naked body.
meh. It was really sad. the film felt squashed together and I felt that they made things difficult for themselves. It is very hard for me to believe that it would be this hard to be together.
A great movie!
View All Quotes