Wonderful character development!

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

I have now seen Colin Farrell in a lead role in two very different films. In both, he gave a ludicrously histrionic performance. In both, the director either made changes to the source material or arranged the accents of the entire cast to accommodate Farrell's thick brogue. In both, a director with considerable talent produced a muddled film with poor characterization and what should be a riveting plot that drags interminably towards a foregone conclusion. Fans of both films try to turn the criticism of detractors back onto them with blanket statements about what kinds of movies they must not like and what sorts of shallow entertainment they must prefer.Taking the last point first, I have seen movies before that were nothing more than filmed plays with a cast of only two people in a single location, so even more limited than Miss Julie in those respects. Those movies had even more dialogue and less action than Miss Julie. Those movies were also every bit as grim and depressing as Miss Julie. But those films had quality dialogue, consistent characterizations, and a story worth investment.I am flabbergasted by the unyielding support of Colin Farrell's fans, but then I'm flabbergasted that he has any fans at all. In addition to having no perceivable acting talent and an accent that he can't seem to shake, despite his character John's comments to Miss Julie about understanding her attraction to him, Farrell isn't even particularly good-looking and has no charisma on screen. On looking up his listings on IMDb, I discovered that he had the lead role in another film I have seen; I do not recall that he ruined that particular film, but then I don't recall much about him from that film even though he was the lead. I have certainly seen no reason to believe he deserves even his limited fame.Many people have criticized the direction in Miss Julie for poor pacing, but a good deal of the problem is in the writing before it ever got to the set. Although I am unfamiliar with the source material, I gather from comments and reviews I have read that certain key pieces of dialogue were left out of the screenplay, namely the servants' discussion of Julie's broken engagement and the menstrual period which are brought up as explanations for her erratic behavior. I don't know what other dialogue changes might have been made, but both Julie's and John's mood and behavior swing so wildly between various extremes, much of the time with no discernible explanation, that it's almost as though with each exchange, the writers rolled some dice to select the characters' moods that time. Even erratic characters need to be comprehensible. It doesn't help matters much that the characterization that does come through the constantly shifting, random moods are two people capable of appallingly cold selfishness while the remaining character turns out to be someone inflexibly judgmental and narrow-minded.Despite a costar who tries to destroy most of his scenes, Jessica Chastain and Samantha Morton deliver strong performances. Morton is understated but powerful while Chastain portrays desperation that grows so deep it becomes painful to watch, most notably in the scene where she proposes that all three of them leave together.** SPOILERS **I know that the story was written in Victorian times when convenient character death was seen as valid plotting, but I wonder how many modern viewers understand that Miss Julie's situation need not have been as hopeless as a melodramatic maiden raised on romances seemed to think. Even after the loss of her virginity in those restrictive times, a beautiful young woman who is the daughter of a wealthy baron could probably still make some sort of match with an impoverished but ambitious gentleman or with an older gentleman. Even if she turned out to be pregnant, she could have been sent to a convent far from the public eye to have her child. She might have to take orders to hide her disgrace, but she did not need to commit suicide. It's also worth remembering that this story was written and set in a time when the church was inflexibly condemning of suicide, no matter what the reason. Suicides weren't even buried in hallowed ground. It's hard to see John's willingness to prod Julie in that direction as anything other than a man willing to manipulate a young woman into needlessly taking her own life in order to spare himself inconvenience. As bad as Julie showed herself to be from her first scenes, John turned out to be far worse.In the end, the film turned into a horror movie, and although it's undeniably a cut above standard slasher flicks, it does not reach the level of meaningful classic to which it aspires. Worth watching for the two female leads but otherwise not recommended.

It's double-bill time, two movie adaptations of MISS JULIE, August Strinberg's play written in 1888, with 63 years apart. The 1951 version is made by Strinberg's fellow Swedish countryman, Alf Sjöberg. Shot in dashing Black and White, Sjöberg's film stars Anita Björk and Ulf Palme as the central pair, Miss Julie, the daughter of a Count (Henrikson) and her servant Jean, during the mid-summer night, they test the limit of seduction, passion and dignity between two incompatible classes, it shared the prestigious Grand Prize in Cannes with Vittorio De Sica's MIRACLE IN MILAN (1951).Empowered by an impactful score from Dag Wirén, the film conjures up the pair's gender-and- class tug-of-war with a phantasmagoria of sequences narrating their dreams and past. The desire for falling versus an ambition of climbing from different starting tier concretes Julie and Jean as perfect specimens to explore their moral and emotional clashes. Outstanding cinematography creates amazing shots where flashback merges together with the present, imagination coexists with the reality. There is no win-win situation in the battle of sex, Miss Julie's paradoxical attempt to patronise her servant and at the same time to be sexually overtaken by him is a self-digging grave for her own undoing, and Jean's struggle between his sexual impulse and deep-rooted inferiority complex is the last nail on her coffin.Anita Björk embodies a graceful mien of nobility emitting a whiff of recalcitrance that makes her portrayal of Miss Julie a distant, spoiled figure never truly reveals her true emotions, whereas Ulf Palme delicately betrays his insecurity and immaturity out of his pseudo-confidence and prince-charmant appearance. Among the supporting cast, Dorff's Kristin, the cook, takes a less prominent function than Morton in the 2014 film, and we also see a very young Max von Sydow giggling in his plain nature. Overall, this vintage oldie is a pleasant discovery, especially compared to the more lyrical but problematic latest version directed by the acting legend Liv Ullmann.With a running time around 130 minutes (contrast with 89 minutes of Sjöberg's picture), but maximally axing the bit parts with three characters only (save the two-minutes opening sequence showing a young Julie rollicking in the forest), Miss Julie (Chastain), the butler John (Farrell) and Kathleen the cook (Morton), this austere version is set in Ireland, and is much more loyal to the text's original form with its take-no-prisoners' method to let the acting-trio wrangling in the turmoil with lengthy monologues and dialogues. It is a chancy choice, Ullmann invests a full trust in her cast, and is willing to take the risk of prolonging the takes to let the emotional repercussions permeate, even music is barely used as an immediate mood-mediator, only at times playing in the background with unobtrusive volume."The night is long and it is so tiring", the film becomes tedious as the same plot and twist blathering on and on; and "class is class", the invisible barrier strips them down to their inveterate bias and beliefs. However, the trio's whole-hearted devotion is the saving grace of Ullmann's labour-of-love. Morton, her Kathleen becomes a morally righteous yardstick to the scandalous affair, John is her beau, and Miss Julie is her mistress, her inward feeling is given a more detailed vent to show off, and Morton is always excellent to watch, modest in looks, but tremendously engaging. Farrell, portrays a quite different character from Palme, his John is more approachable to read, more pliable to manipulate, also more reprehensible to condemn for his cowardice, the explicit canary-murdering scene makes him more like a perpetrator than a foolish social-climber in the end.Chastain stands at odds with Farrell and Morton's Irish accent, but her mercurial personae are wondrous to stare, this could be a tour-de-force if it was on stage, yet as a film, her labour (the same can to said to Farrell and Morton) cannot redeem the sluggish rhythm and a length overstays its welcome, in a sense, only true savant of stage play can luxuriate in it, for most people, the 1951 version is more superior.

Miss Julie is a very compelling piece, that cannot be denied. The small, confined setting allows for this epic problem to play out in the most stressful way possible. And the performances by both Jessica Chastain and Colin Farrell are powerful in all of their subtlety and rancor. The two characters are always perfect juxtapositions; one with their innocence and the other with their malice. But which character is which? This is never made clear as they both seem to jump into one of the roles and back again. This leaves you more confused with the arguments that follow and the events that take place, and with questions that will forever remain unanswered. The problem that is the catalyst of the story isn't even, in my opinion, the act that takes place halfway through the film. No. In fact I believe it is the simple explanation that Farrell's character gives Chastain about love. Those conversations are dangerous at the best of times, and this just happened to be the worst of times. He bewildered her at a time of innocence, and whether he was sincere or not is irrelevant. The blow was struck. The two then panic and bounce between what they should do after the fact, both trying to lay blame on the other, neither realizing that it takes two to tango. You cannot help but pick a side while watching. Someone, whether it was him or her, had to be the responsible one; Had to know when to stop. But neither did, and so someone must take on the role of the villain, because the world is black and white. At the end the loser is left to his somewhat cruel fate while the "winner" is left to bask in his victory and shy away from the guilt that will never truly relinquish him of his part in the role. The characters search for absolution the entire time, and even when they they've found it, they will not be completely absolved.For all of the power in this filmed play, I have to say that I didn't like the material or the characters. Sexism, hatred, and sleaze take center stage and leave all who are involved considerably diminished. The ending will infuriate anyone with a soul and leave you questioning the way society works. 5/10

Norwegian actress, author, screenwriter and director Liv Ullmann's fifth feature film which she wrote, is an adaptation of a play from 1888 by Swedish 19th and 20th century writer, playwright and painter August Strindberg (1849–1912). It premiered in the Special Presentations section at the 39th Toronto International Film Festival in 2014, was shot on locations in Northern Ireland and is a Norway-UK-Ireland-France co-production which was produced by producers Synnøve Hørsdal, Oliver Dungey and Teun Hilte. It tells the story about a baron's daughter named Julie and her involvement with a servant named John and a live-in maid named Kathleen. Distinctly and precisely directed by Norwegian filmmaker Liv Ullmann, this quietly paced fictional tale which is narrated by a protagonist and interchangeably from the protagonists' viewpoints, draws an increasingly gravitating and incisively psychological portrayal of a relation which evolves in a kitchen on a Midsummer Eve. While notable for its distinctly naturalistic milieu depictions, majestic cinematography by Russian cinematographer Mikhail Krichman, production design by production designer Caroline Amies, costume design by Irish producer and costume designer Consolata Boyle and film editing by film editor Michal Leszczlowski, this dialog-driven and narrative-driven story about survival, depicts some internally scrutinizing studies of character. This atmospheric, ingeniously dramatic and bittersweet romance which is set in Ireland in the late 19th century and where an at that period in time unsuitable attraction between human beings within a castle which turns into a royal affair, escalates into a crucial competition of mutual insults and condemnations, is impelled and reinforced by its cogent narrative structure, substantial character development, rhythmic continuity, instrumental music, comment by Kathleen: "It is a work of …" and the eminent acting performances by Irish actor Colin Farrell, American actress Jessica Chastain and English actress Samantha Morton. A concentrated and reverently cinematographic character piece.