Watch Rowing with the Wind For Free

Too much of everything

the audience applauded

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

I can't decide whether this is one of the best films I've ever seen or one of the worst, but it is definitely one of the strangest. I was expecting a benign period piece, with the challenge to write a horror story issued over a glass of port in front of the fireplace. What I found was an exploration of the egos, neuroses, and idiosyncrasies of some very creative, intelligent, and troubled people. The appearance of the monster in the middle of the film bothered me, but I've since realized/decided/guessed that it's SYMBOLIC (emphasis intentional) of the influence that Mary Shelley's book and its reception by the literary world had upon this group of friends. I'm going to have to dig out old textbooks and read up on these writers, as I don't recall knowing before of the wave of suicides and unfortunate deaths which washed over them in a short span of time. The settings and photography of this film are as good as it gets, with beautiful natural light used most of the time. I'd recommend this movie to adult viewers, but not for anyone under 17. This thing would've been disturbing to me when I was in my early teens, and the monster would've scared the crap out of me.

Rowing With The Wind took an excellent idea from the life of Frankenstein's author, Mary Shelley. For anyone who is familiar with the life of Mary Shelley, this film will make more sense and be appreciated better. However, for the average movie-goer, this film will probably be of disinterest. Having said that (and for those of you still reading), I would have to applaud the youthful talents of today stars, Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley, who play Lord Byron and Claire Clairmont, respectively. This Spanish production keeps with European exposure in several nude scenes, most notably of Elizabeth Hurley. The film in a nutshell describes a visit to Lord Byron by Mary Shelley, her husband Percy Shelley, half-sister Claire Clairmont, and Byron's physician Dr. Polidori. According to history, Lord Byron challenged each of them to develop the most horrific story they could come up with. This is when Mary Shelley came up with the idea for Frankenstein, published in 1818. Oddly, Mary Shelley's biography was rife with a large number of deaths of those around her. Her mother died when she was born. One of her sisters died. Her husband's ex-wife died drowning. Ironically, her husband dies drowning.She loses a couple of children. And on and on. She seemed so unable to escape death soon after the publication of Frankenstein. This film takes on the idea that her abominable creation is the cause of such deaths.Kudos definitely go to whomever wrote the script for Lord Byron. Hugh Grant plays him brilliantly and in a very intelligently decadent sort of way. He's hilarious! Elizabeth Hurley and the other actors are good, not outstanding. But the film fails, despite its great plot creativity, when it hands out a quick and un-compelling revival of the evening in which Mary Shelley came up with Frankenstein. It gives far less attention than it should have, as I would have thought it a bigger turning point in the story.With better direction and production (beginning of the film is a bit grainy), this would have truly made a compelling story. 5/10

Although the story of how Mary Shelley came to write her famous horror story FRANKENSTEIN is a familiar one that has been touched on in quite a few movies, there is always room for a different viewpoint and probably there is the germ of a good idea here but something went horribly wrong. It could be a case of too many cooks which often happens in these international co-productions. It has obviously been heavily cut but I don't think the edited scenes would have helped any, we would have just been bored for longer that's all. The acting is generally poor and the actors are miscast especially Hugh Grant as Lord Byron who has none of the brooding qualities one associates with the poet and who also looks downright ridiculous in some of the costumes even they may be historically accurate. There are one or two rather pretty scenic shots but that's about it.The whole thing ends up as so boring I would suggest it as a cure for insomnia but the music is so inapt and irritating is would probably have the opposite effect.One to avoid.

After watching this film, I thought to myself that it was an interesting film, and there were individual scenes which were strong. However, the pacing seemed to be a bit off, and somehow the flow of the film didn't feel right. Then, I noticed that the version I saw was 95 minutes long, while the original version was 126 minutes long. That's thirty whole minutes cut! As far as I'm concerned, this is criminal! Obviously, Miramax re-released this film during early 1999 in order to cash in on Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley. In the process, they cut the film to shreds, and perhaps rearranged the scenes around to make it more "coherent."