Best movie of this year hands down!

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Anytime you get involved with Tennessee Williams' characters, you are sure to find yourself at 3 AM in the dark night of someone's soul, when the last waltz has already been danced. But that someone is not necessarily a "real" person. Rather, it's a "creation" by an author whose own life was so "unquietly desperate" that reality had not much meaning for him, a fact which is reflected in his "unreal" characters. These "people" of Williams' certainly give and have given a number of actresses considerable work over the years, and Helen Mirren is surely one of the best. This novella is one of Williams' darkest tales, but should not be regarded as in any way a look at reality, unless you conceive that most of the people of this world are certifiably insane, a condition which Mirren limns admirably. Williams, I think, was intent on delineating a world, which he thought of as real, but which probably derived from his worst nightmares, waking or otherwise, could not actually be realistic. A look at this world is not necessarily an "entertaining" experience, and I doubt that Williams intended it to be. So why bother? Well, you can enjoy the work of the actors, if not the story, and you can speculate about the author as I have been doing. As he was a homosexual, I have considerable doubt that Williams can be taken seriously when he deals with women. Yet almost all his protagonists are women. I wonder why. Oh, I haven't even discussed the story, and I don't think I will, except to say it involves a woman whose actions will seem absolutely incomprehensible to us "normal" folk. My rating of 9 reflects mainly my admiration for Helen Mirren's work. Otherwise, the film offers many irritations, which you can select for yourself.

Having waited many years for the DVD to finally appear I've now watched this movie for the third time. How could one not enjoy the gorgeous photography and scenery combined with marvelous actors and a lush music score? Sure, some of the final scenes were a bit silly but overall it was a delight to watch. Much better than the original version with Warren Beatty's terrible Italian accent. Helen Mirren's acting was great, as expected, but I also liked Olivier Martinez' performance as the handsome sleazy gigolo. His natural accent was perfect for this role. Rodrigo Santoro's haunting face of the urchin beggar was very intriguing. I felt that Anne Bancroft rather over-acted as the Contessa, however. A lovely DVD to watch with a few friends at home and then discuss afterwards. Not to be taken too seriously, just enjoy it.

The movie was not the best and Martinez has always been a little weak in his films... (I could not except the fact that he was the the other guy to Diane Lane in "Unfaithful" over Richard Gere... I'm not gay or anything but Richard Gere is much more appealing than Martinez)... That being said... I'm 30 years old... and I hope my wife is that sexy and looks that good when she is over 60 years of age. Mirren was downright sexy and so appealing for a woman her age. I'm a huge fan of hers. God bless her and her continued sexiness. Her measurements have barely changed in over 40 years. How does she do it. Has she had plastic surgery or boob enhancements? Does anyone know any info about her?

Since the other users have provided details, ad nauseam, I will only say that Mirren seems to be channeling Vivien Leigh at times, especially in the last half. Many mannerisms are nearly identical to Leigh's actions in the 1961 studio version.Also, strangely enough, I prefer the sound stage artifice of the 1960s. This cable movie was actually filmed on location, but in muted, boring colors. The 1961 feature has the wonderful Technicolor hues.I found the actor portraying The Young Man/stalker to be far more sexy than Martinez's Paolo, even though he eats food off the ground, urinates in public, hacks up phlegm and never speaks.Bancroft is fine, although I would have loved to have seen Sophia Loren take a stab at it.And will you cable movie directors STOP overusing the "atmospheric" smoke machines?!! It looks like your entire film crew was smoking cigarettes during the interior scenes.