A story would have been nice. The message, that being queer and being poor were not much fun in early 19th Century England, well I don't know, maybe somewhere there are people to whom that is news.

Everything is so self consciously understated. The dialogue. The colour palette. The soundtrack. And yes, even the story. It's not a fun ride either. So if a movie tells me nothing and isn't a source of pleasure: what is the point of the 2 hours?

And for those wondering, there is precious little focus on palaeontology.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

A story would have been nice. The message, that being queer and being poor were not much fun in early 18th Century England, well I don't know, maybe somewhere there are people to whom that is news.

Everything is so self consciously understated. The dialogue. The colour palette. The soundtrack. And yes, even the story. It's not a fun ride either. So if a movie tells me nothing and isn't a source of pleasure: what is the point of the 2 hours?

And for those wondering, there is precious little focus on palaeontology.

I believe you mean 19th century England?

Duly corrected.

The movie doesn't have an ending. It literally ends mid scene. The entire movie is made up of a series of tableux that bear little sense of connection to what went before or what follows. Bear in mind that this is a real person. Mary Anning had a very interesting life, and almost none of it gets told. Instead we get lingering images of Winslett's talented eyebrows and dirty hands; some long and needlessly graphic lesbian sex scenes; moody shots of windswept winter beaches; dead insects; cloth...it just goes on and on in this self indulgent fashion.

Biography is a difficult genre to get right. With Anning we have a figure who really was important in science, but was not given proper recognition or reward while she was alive and is largely unknown today. Surely a biographical film of such a subject should at least try to correct that. But no, what we have here is the obliteration of the subject under the weight of the creative ego of those involved with this film.

Worse still, not only do they not shed light on the subject, they further obscure it by the introduction of entirely fictional and improbable material.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Duly corrected.

The movie doesn't have an ending. It literally ends mid scene. The entire movie is made up of a series of tableux that bear little sense of connection to what went before or what follows. Bear in mind that this is a real person. Mary Anning had a very interesting life, and almost none of it gets told. Instead we get lingering images of Winslett's talented eyebrows and dirty hands; some long and needlessly graphic lesbian sex scenes; moody shots of windswept winter beaches; dead insects; cloth...it just goes on and on in this self indulgent fashion.

Biography is a difficult genre to get right. With Anning we have a figure who really was important in science, but was not given proper recognition or reward while she was alive and is largely unknown today. Surely a biographical film of such a subject should at least try to correct that. But no, what we have here is the obliteration of the subject under the weight of the creative ego of those involved with this film.

Worse still, not only do they not shed light on the subject, they further obscure it by the introduction of entirely fictional and improbable material.

I put it on my watchlist a while back because of the time period & I like the two main actors, Winslet more than Ronan but I haven't gotten around to it.

Despite my criticisms I still gave it 6/10. The 'creative ego' that mars the film is still undeniably capable of producing something worth watching: not the least Winslett's performance.

A heads up tho, even tho this is set in the early Victorian era, it doesn't look even a little bit like the Regency/Victorian period dramas that the BBC is so besotted with and which Winslett made her name with. It is very bleak.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Despite my criticisms I still gave it 6/10. The 'creative ego' that mars the film is still undeniably capable of producing something worth watching: not the least Winslett's performance.

A heads up tho, even tho this is set in the early Victorian era, it doesn't look even a little bit like the Regency/Victorian period dramas that the BBC is so besotted with and which Winslett made her name with. It is very bleak.

Thanks for the heads up.