Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Overrated and overhyped

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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 thought Jonathan Rhys Meyers performance as the snobbish, bullying, insecure Georgie was great. This guy bases his whole life on being the scion of a wealthy, upper crust family. When his family status drops, Georgie must find himself to escape from his arrogant dependence on his family name. I found the romance between Bruce Greenwood and Madeline Stowe somewhat tepid. Stowe looked old, and hardly the radiant beauty that Greenwood remembers. However the critics who say that Georgie shouldn't have been able to break up his mother's romance don't understand the social climate of the time period. The turn of the 19th to the 20th Century was an interesting time in America. Tarkington's book is about the changing social order, by showing the rise of self-made men over old money and lineage. I thought that was done very well in this production, but based on the other comments I appear to be in the minority.

One would think that, given the way A&E was touting "The Magnificent Ambersons," the actual film might be something to sit back and take note of and maybe enjoy just a little bit. The truth is, I've had bikini waxes that were more enjoyable, if only because they didn't last for three hours, like this incessant piece of drivel.The film is marred by five lackluster performances. The unfortunate thing is, they also happen to be the ones with the most screen time. Madeleine Stowe is supposed to be the intriguing, haunted heroine Isabel Minafer, but the only thing that haunted or intrigued me was wondering how much Collagen she must inject to make her lips looks so pouty all the time.Jonathan Rhys Meyers, as Isabel's spoiled son Charlie, is over-the-top and extremely annoying, a little rich boy run amok. His performance also runs amok, to the ruin of the film. You not only want to slap his character for being such a little snot, you want to slap Rhys Meyers for acting so poorly.His obnoxious character makes you wonder why in God's name Lucy Morgan (Gretchen Mol) would even be interested in him. After all, she's the spunky daughter of a self-made man and plays hard to get with all the other boys. But that's about it. Mol gives the character little depth or spark. It's not that she's as bad as Rhys Meyers, but like all of the other performances (save the glaringly bad ones), she's just forgettable.The same could be said for Bruce Greenwood's work as Lucy's father, entrepreneur Edward Morgan. As the man who falls in love with Isabel, Greenwood certainly looks dashing. He's a handsome inventor working in the automobile business, which stick-in-the-mud Charlie thinks is just a passing fad. The forbidden love between Isabel and Edward is supposed to evoke pathos and haunt our souls, but passion never ignites, and though the actors make googoo eyes and send each other love letters, which are ridiculously read straight into the camera by the characters, they never really convince you that they are madly in love.I thought Jennifer Tilly's turn as spinster Aunt Fanny Minafer might provide a respite from the other boring performances, but all she does is further annoy you, if only because of her obnoxious squeaky voice. Aunt Fanny, played by an actress of greater ability, could have been one of the more complex of the film, as she has led a disappointing and unfulfilled life. But like the rest of the character, you find you really couldn't give a rat's about her, either.It seems that Booth Tarkington meant for the title "The Magnificent Ambersons" to be ironic. While they may have loads of money and live in opulence, the Amberson/Minafer family are by no means interesting, exciting, intelligent, or worthwhile, much like most of high society today. They fall from riches to insolvency, while the entrepreneurial class represented by Morgan gains prominence and wealth, which only emphasizes the irony of this title. It seems that Tarkington may have meant his novel to be a commentary of the constant state of flux in which societal structures often are found. But then again, that probably didn't cross the director's or the actors' minds. The film never delves deep into any of these issues.There's nothing magnificent, even mediocre, about this film. It is a waste of time, and A&E is probably realizing, a waste of money as well.

I went back and watched this movie for a 3rd time. I do not see anything bad to comment on about it. Rubbish it's not. I see a truly unique film here. It is rather odd which I enjoy. And, JRM, portrays characters like Georgie to perfection. The whole cast played their parts well. As I mentioned before nothing is perfect in any film, but Myers is in his role here. His character really angered me at times, but hey isn't that what a movie is suppose to do? Evoke our emotions? I loved the movie. Worth watching 3 times.