Studio: Acorn Media Release Date: 09/13/2005 Run time: 180 minutes Rating: NrFrom Sarah Waters, author of Tipping the Velvet, comes this twisting and twisted Victorian-era thriller with an L-word charge. Sally Hawkins stars as Sue, an orphan who grows up among the reprobates of Lant Street to become an accomplished “fingersmith” (thief). Elaine Cassidy costars as Maud Lilly, an heiress who, as a young girl, was plucked from the madhouse and raised by her stern, bibliophile uncle (Charles Dance). He makes her wear gloves at all times so as not to smudge the precious tomes he makes her read every night. Enter Richard Rivers (Rupert Evans, the otherwise sterling cast’s weakest link), an artist hired to give her painting lessons. But he has designs on Maude’s fortune, and recruits Sue for an elaborate con. That’s when the gloves really come off. Originally broadcast on the BBC, this riveting three-part tale of illicit passion and betaryal is by turns harrowing and quite erotic (the tasteful sex scenes manage to generate heat without baring a lot of skin). The literate script reveals its feminist leanings (“You are a man and might do everything,” Maude tells Richard during their first meeting. “I am a woman and might do nothing.”). The superb cast includes Academy Award-nominee Imelda Staunton (Vera Drake) as Mrs. Sucksby, a Fagin-esque character who mentored Sue, and has a few surprises for Maud, as well. –Donald Liebenson
Buy “Fingersmith” For Only $18.56
May 5, 2008
#1
I never read the book. I rented the DVD and while I enjoyed the body of the movie, the ending and many parts of the movie left me saying, “Huh?! What’s up?”. To me the ending ruined the movie. What happened? Why did that happen? And what was the purpose of it?? It didn’t make sense to me. What did Maud & Gentleman have to gain by it? What did they need Sue for if that’s what they’d planned? I’m just confused by it.
May 5, 2008
#2
I bought this film after buying another on the ‘people who bought that sometimes buy this’ kind of link. My original purchase was of a DVD called ‘Tipping the Velvet’ which was based on a book by Sarah Waters. I had seen the original of this when it was screened as a TV mini-series and very much enjoyed it.
Now to the Fingersmith DVD. This film claims to be based on the same book and the synpsis is similar. Other than this there is no similarity in the two films.
Fingersmith has a completely different plot and though it is a good film I cannot see how the makers can claim a link to the original book.
There are some outstanding performances in this film especially by Imelda Staunton.
A good film and worth the time watching it.
May 5, 2008
#3
After reading the book, I’d heard that BBC had done a mini-series of it. They usually impress me with their accuracy and character depiction. This was not the case this time. Not only did they miss the mark on the characters and scramble the sequence of events, they added more sex scenes. Actually, the sex scene in the book was mostly alluded to and was more of an emotional love scene. The movie went for the blow by blow approach, with 2 more scenes that never occured. Furthermore, they left out essential story line information that makes this tale a thriller. If I had not read the book, I still would have found the movie weak and flimsy. I was totally unimpressed.
May 5, 2008
#4
It was pretty good. I would rate it as 3 stars. It’s not a favorite, but I’m glad I watched it. Now that I have seen it, I wouldn’t recommend it for a video library or anything.
May 5, 2008
#5
Fingersmith (Aisling Walsh, 2005)
Fingersmith, actually a two-part British TV miniseries, came to America as a three-hour DVD. Based on Sarah Waters’ novel of the same name, it details the dealings of Susan Smith (Sally Hawkins, recently of The Painted Veil), a thief (thus the title) in London in the nineteenth century who becomes involved in a complicated scheme to swindle a large sum of money out of Maud Lilly (The Others’ Elaine Cassidy). Smith, through a series of intrigues, becomes Lilly’s handmaiden, but the two of them quickly develop a friendship on top of that, and possibly something more (I haven’t read the novel, so I don’t know if it’s explicit there; it’s certainly implied here). The trick is, there’s a great deal more to Maud Lilly than anyone realizes; once you hit the halfway point, the surprises here come thick and fast, and what looked to be a simple crime story blossoms into an all-out mystery/thriller that I was in no way expecting. And what a pleasant surprise it is.
It helps, of course, that both Hawkins and Cassidy are almost painfully beautiful, and that, plus the script’s implications as to their relationship, certainly helps propel the first half of the film, which is half crime story and half Merchant/Ivory comedy of manners (a genre of film to which I have never been able to warm myself). At the halfway point, though, I stopped noticing, and for someone like me, that’s saying something. How many red herrings can you throw into one script? How many little side perversions can you add without things becoming too overloaded for anyone to see your plot? How many twists and turns, how many character revelations, the whole bit? Yes, it does end up playing the Vitorian-melodrama card so loved by writers like Nathaniel Hawthorne (I heard a pretty strong echo of the last line of House of the Seven Gables in the last few minutes of this film, though it’s not quite as deus ex machina as Hawthorne allowed himself; still, it’s awfully convenient), but it’s such an enchanting thrill ride getting there I actually didn’t half mind. There’s a great deal of fun to be had here, even if you’re not a big fan of Victorian costume drama; a very entertaining little film, well worth watching. *** ½