|
| The Far Pavilions | 
 enlarge | Director: Peter Duffell
Actors: Ben Cross, Amy Irving, Christopher Lee, Benedict Taylor, Rossano Brazzi
Studio: Acorn Media
Category: DVD
List Price: $24.99
Buy New: $14.19
You Save: $10.80 (43%)
New (40) Used (10) from $9.99
Avg. Customer Rating:  39 reviews
Sales Rank: 11592
Format: Box Set, Color, Dvd-video, Ntsc
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Number Of Items: 2
Running Time: 90
Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.3
Dimensions (in): 7.4 x 5.3 x 0.6
MPN: ACRD427499D
UPC: 054961427499
EAN: 0054961427499
ASIN: B00004WC7Y
Theatrical Release Date: April 22, 1984
Release Date: September 12, 2000
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
Rather far fetched... October 19, 2007
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
I agree with whoever posted the review before me. Amy Irving makes a very unconvincing Indian princess. In fact, the other princess Shu shu, full of tantrums and lacking feeling and nobility, is pretty unconvincing too. For one, Anjuli, raised in an Indian palace has no reason for having the accent that she does, other than perhaps to increase her appeal to a Western audience. Princely families had European governesses sometimes but that would hardly change the accent of one princess and not the other. I am also pretty sure that no Indian princess in the 1870s-1880s would have adressed her lover as "Oh my love". And we have had some beautiful actresses that might have done greater justice to the role.
Another rather weird thing from an Indian perspective, I am pretty sure Indian girls (princesses or not) were never so eager to jump into bed...most still are not. And this tale is from over a century ago. Honor was an issue and shyness appreciated. The makers of the movie seem to suggest that ideology is inherited rather than imbibed. So having a half-Russian mother is responsible for making you most of what you are.
 amy irving is beautiful, but not an Indian princess October 13, 2007
2 out of 4 found this review helpful
Disappointing at best. It tries to be a visual feast of Indian culture and history at the turn of the 19th C in the height of the British Raj in India. But the colors are washed out, the what ought to be visual lavishness and opulence, dusty and tired, the sets and scenes basedly ruin this movie. The plot is the familiar one of star crossed pre-puberty friends who become lovers separated by enormous differences in time and culture. The subplots are war, the expansion of empire and the wasteful extravagance of the maharajis and other ruling classes of India. But no amount of good writing or excellent acting could have overcome the deficiencies of visual presentation.
And despite a stellar cast of actors, the acting wasn't up to excellent, but rather stuck pretty closely at the level level as the scenery, average at best, bottoming out in the dismal, despite the actor's abilities and the natural beauty of the countryside.
but one problem, above all the rest sticks in my mind. Amy Irving's makeup to portray her as a quarter caste (her mother was russian-indian) european and indian princess. I'm afraid that her makeup and skin tone darker make me constantly think of "blackface" and white people playing at being other races, other cultures, other people. Frankly it is irritating and a bit racist. There are lots of (and even were in the mid 1980's when the movie was made) talented and beautiful indian actresses who could have played the part to the hilt, without skin darkener. You are always conscious that it is Amy Irving, that she is Western, not Indian, that she is out of place, despite her enormous talent and most beautiful blue-gray eyes. She is a knockout in Crossing Delancey and mis casted as the princess here.
It would be interesting to see a good review of the movie from an Indian's viewpoint. Is the movie convincing? would she have leapt into his bed, risking loss of not just life but of family honor? would she really have made the transition from loving a 11 year old indian street waif to lusting after a British Raj military officer? i suspect that the movie coherence and continuity is in the minds of Western viewers, however not in the culture it proposes to portray.
In any case, it is a C+ movie, damaged beyond repair with the lousy scenery and upheld only by a plot and character development that probably doesn't really fit the time and place.
Good Stuff August 23, 2007
0 out of 5 found this review helpful
Although it looks very old when compared to new movies technologies but Its very nice.
Regards
 A classic novel made dull and boring.Stay FAR away! July 21, 2007
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
If you have this debacle on vhs, keep it! The dvd is not worth anything better. It is the same print and the same misdirected, terribly acted mess. Amy Irving and Ben Cross could not have acted any flatter. The story plods hopelessly through all 300+ minutes. There is no relief for a thirst for a better film.Stick with A PASSAGE TO INDIA, HEAT AND DUST,GANDHI, WATER,FIRE and EARTH.
 Should Go In The Smithsonian July 5, 2007
4 out of 8 found this review helpful
Once you have seen this masterpiece, you will be spoiled forever and unable as a result to watch any other TV show. This is quite simply a work of art. Yes, even television can and has produced masterpieces worthy of comparison with the other performing arts, film and theatre. This is gorgeously conceived at every level, well directed, acted, costumed and all the rest. My god, the settings... the elephants, ... it is all worthy of other epics of its kind that have received far greater praise. Like "Gone With The Wind" or "Lawrence of Arabia," the film convinces the viewer of its world absolutely. You are there and dreaming the dream along with the characters who are utterly convincing.
|
|
|
 Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
