The House of the Spirits (1993)

this film has spirit, hope and courage. a love story spanning three generations, dealing with mystic experiences, cruel ambition and selfless devotion. wonderfully moving performances by entire cast. irons plays a powerful fool who's lost his humanity, but not his desire to love. streep is wonderful as a woman who is a bridge between life and spirit. close is moving as a woman who denied her own desires tending first her mother, then her brother. rider blossoms with courage and passion for banderas who is fine as revolutionist. do not attempt to watch this film--feel it, experience it, open your heart to it's romantic and passionate tale. allow it charm you and take you back to timeless story telling of hope and disappointment and cruel injustice and forgiveness. it's clear that this piece is a collective gift of love from all involved to all whom are willing to be transported to romance, to spiritual connections, to love strong enough to reach beyond death.

Fmovies: Isabel Allende's magical, lyrical novel about three generations of an aristocratic South American family was vandalized. The lumbering oaf of a movie that resulted--largely due to a magnificent cast of Anglo actors completely unable to carry off the evasive Latin mellifluousness of Allende's characters, and a plodding Scandinavian directorial hand--was so uncomfortable in its own skin that I returned to the theater a second time to make certain I had not missed something vital that might change my opinion. To my disappointment, I had not missed a thing. None among Meryl Streep, Jeremy Irons, Glenn Close and Vanessa Redgrave could wiggle free of the trap set for them by director Bille August. All of them looked perfectly stiff and resigned, as if, by putting forth as little effort as possible, they expected to fade unnoticed into lovely period sets. (Yes, the film was art directed within an inch of its life.) Curious that the production designer was permitted the gaffe of placing KFC products prominently in a scene that occurs circa 1970--years before KFC came into being. Back then, it was known by its original name: Kentucky Fried Chicken. Even pardoning that, what on earth is Kentucky Fried Chicken doing in a military dictatorship in South America in 1970? American fast food chains did not hit South America until the early 1980s. "The House of the Spirits" should have been the motion picture event of 1993. Because it was so club-footed and slavishly faithful to its vague idea of what the novel represented, Miramax had to market it as an art film. As a result, it was neither event nor art. And for that, Isabel Allende should have pressed charges for rape.

The book was fabulous and remains one of my favorites. The movie, for some reason reminded me of "The Thorn Birds"--I guess because I felt so much was left out, and it would have been better as a mini-series.

The book evokes a much more magical, mythical, and "Spirit"-ual feeling that reflects the special flavor of life in South America, especially with Clara having green hair, and more powers in the book. A lot of that feeling is left out of the movie.

However, the movie mostly makes up for this lack in the extremely vivid presentation of the characters' emotions.

The House of the Spirits fmovies. The book on which this movie was based is a wonderful, engaging story of the Trueba family, with a typical South American ambiance, in a way similar to the stories of another great author, Gabriel Garcia Marquez. The House of the spirits has all the ingredients for a entertaining, gripping and compelling motion picture. The movie however didn't quite live up to my expectations.

What really bothered me was that the chronology of the movie didn't match the book. Clara for example lives through the revolution, while in the book she passes long before the civil war. The most annoying 'error' is that in the movie the storyline of Alba has been replaced by Blanca. I can't understand why it wouldn't have been possible to be true to the book in this feature. Maybe the director thought it necessary for Winona Ryder to play a larger role.

Furthermore, there were little wonderful elements of the book which might have been added to the movie, without much trouble. A single shot of Barabas, Clara's dog, when she marries Esteban. The time when Esteban breaks almost every bone in his body, because of an earthquake. This would have added even more depth to the character, one of Jeremy Iron's finest acting jobs.

I also thought it was a shame that the twins Clara also gave birth to, Jaime and Nicolas, were not included in the script. But because there story lines would have added substantially to the length of the picture and therefore would have made it too long for a regular movie, I understand why they are left out. That might also be the reason why Alba plays just a minor role, because her life is quite intertwined with that of her uncles.

To conclude, movies based on a novel rarely give a satisfying image and for people who haven't read the book it will probably be quite entertaining. If you have read the book, however, it is hard to accept the choices made in the script and you end up feeling disappointed with the result.

This movie is based on the novel of the same title by Isabel Allende. It tells the story of the Trueba family over a span of 50 years. Jeremy Irons plays the passionate yet harsh patriarch of the family. He is a man of contradictions-in public and with his family, he is proper. Behind closed doors, he has many secrets-affairs, brothels, and a bastard son whom he utterly neglects. Time and fate make him confront these demons and he ultimately learns the blessing of forgiveness. Meryl Streep plays his psychically touched wife like an angel-she is so ethereal she seems of the spirit world. Glenn Close plays her love-starved sister-in-law;she conveys her desperation so adeptly. Meryl Streep treats her as a real sister and showers sisterly affection on this poor creature. It is a spellbinding tale and one that has relevance to all families.

I just do not get very inspired in this treatment of Isabel Allende's novel. The worst thing is that I cannot even identify exactly what it is that does not succeed in really drawing me into the story. Evidently the film is well made, beautiful filming, and the cast is really extraordinary, with some magnificent interpretations. The make-up department did excellent work on the aging process of the players. This is the second time I have seen this film, but the story's continuity did not get me really sympathising with and feeling for the characters. There is something missing: however, no way can either Meryl Streep or Jeremy Irons, among the other leading actors, be blamed for this. There is something abstract here which I cannot explain. It may be arguable that this film is better than `Missing' (1982) (qv), however `Missing' pulled me much more into the story.

Certainly, in no way should you pass up this film if you get a chance to see it: there are very good interpretations, at times even wondrous, combining with very intelligent photography and Hans Zimmer doing some of his best work.