User Reviews

A couple of Oscar winning Best Actresses star in this Showtime version of the Tennessee Williams novella The Roman Spring Of Mrs. Stone. Unlike in the big screen film, Tennessee Williams himself is in the story played under a pseudonym as an acid tongued southern fried playwright viper by Roger Allam. We all need a gay confidante in the line of work Anne Bancroft is in, supplying boy toys for the rich, horny and bored. Unlike the 1963 version, it is clear she caters to the male as well as the female.

One of those is Helen Mirren taking over the part done so well in 1963 by Vivien Leigh whose own life was tragically close to character Karen Stone. Mirren after a happy marriage that has seen a wane in the carnal embarks on a new quest for that after the death of husband Brian Dennehy. It's how she ends up with Olivier Martinez, a callow and spoiled youth who wants his women to treat him in a lifestyle he's gotten used to.

Having just seen Behind The Candelabra which is another story about an unequal sexual relationship in terms of power, it's given me a fresh insight into The Roman Spring Of Mrs. Stone. Even the best of gigolos should have a day job to fall back on.

Just as in the original the ending with the ever present and silent young street kid played by Rodrigo Santoro proves to Mirren that she can get what really wants without as much maintenance charge.

It must have been an interesting film to attract such an array of comment which both support the film and criticises it. The interest for me lies not in the fact that it is of itself a good film or a bad film, nor in the fact that it is a remake of a Beatty/Leigh film. The interest lies in the fact that such a range of comments both approving and disapproving could be made about the performances of the actors, including Dennehy, with such vehemence. I must say that I do not find comments like; "He's hot! He gets to take his shirt off a lot" any more an objective comment about acting ability than Leigh was much better at acting 'the neurotic' than Mirren because that wasn't acting either, she really was that way! Williams often concentrates upon characters who are emotionally fractured or ragged: Kowolski in "... Streetcar ..." and Laura Wingfield in " ... Menagerie." Karen Stone is likewise emotionally frail. Cossetted by a rich husband for years and harbouring doubts about her acting talent, she is also physically unfulfilled. When her husband apologises to her for not fulfilling the physical role in their marriage, she retorts: "If I'd wanted to behave like an animal, I would have married an animal" but clearly she does want to behave like an animal as is evidenced by a string of marcetta that escort her in Rome. She is damaged goods, She is emotionally scarred and physically and emotionally vulnerable, a fact recognised by the Contessa, a vengeful, embittered, exploitative, parasitic harpy, whose business it is to know these things and arrange for a remedy. Ironically, Karen is anything but hardened like stone, whatever her name suggests. She embarks on a series of assignations culminating in Paolo, an arrogant aristocrat whose genius for story-telling rivals the Brothers Grimm. We cannot be sure he is even a Conte, when Karen attempts to phone him using the number on the gilt-edged card he has given her, the line rings strangely, but not unexpectedly, dead. Nor is Karen Stone unaware of what is going on. She remarks upon the series of young men that the Contessa has supplied, all of whom coincidentally had some friend in dire (fiscal) need. But she is content to be 'shook down' (to a degree) in order to have the attention of these attractive young men who could and would do with enthusiasm what her husband could not. I wanted to shake the woman, not for her stupidity because she wasn't stupid, but for her susceptibility and vulnerability. I wanted to say: "Act you age, woman, you're making a fool of yourself." Mirren's eyes flicker almost imperceptibly when Paolo changes his story about the six brigade members who were killed. First, they were killed "on the plains of Africa" but hours later they were killed "on the boat". He doesn't bat an eyelid, she does! But neither of them seem to care. He is so self-assured in his supposed aristocratic arrogance and she is so needy, the lie passes.

Williams's preoccupations were generally local, or at least American. In this story, however, he has introduced a European/American theme and I wondered if Williams had not been recently reading some Henry James. Here we have the American ingenue confronted by the might and deviousness of the European sophistication and tradition. The Italians may be impoverished, they may be reduced to running scams and fixing up lonely ladies with gigolos, they may be living in penury and have to beg but they have the weight of the European tradition and culture to support them in adversity. So the age of Rome is mentioned at least twice, overstating its age by some hundreds of years, and Paolo draws attention to the oldest street in the city. Whether it is or not, it serves his purpose to say it is. But to Karen he says: "You are only fifty years old" which to her should be an unspoken criticism, and shocks her that he should say it aloud. But he is really saying: You Americans have no history compared to us", a sentiment espoused earlier by the Contessa who opines that any country with less than 400 years of history, has no tradition. We see in advance the pathetic contempt that the vanquished European has for the triumphant ( and sometimes triumphal) American. It is fully articulated in the last scene with the Contessa in a bitter attack born of frustration. Without assessing the relative moralities of Karen Stone or the Contessa or Paolo, it is the American who morally crumbles at the end, inviting an unwashed, unkempt, possibly very smelly young man (he's a bit too old to be an 'urchin') into her bedroom. Her degradation is complete. It doesn't require anyone to murder her. She is already destroyed. The Italians still have their culture, traditions, and history to fall back on.

Much has been said of the acting of various characters so I don't want to comment on this other than to say that Olivier Martinez seems to have received special attention for being wooden. Having not seen him in anything else, it's hard to make a comprehensive statement about his acting but I thought he conveyed the stiffness and arrogance that one would expect of a 'titled' person. Others may disagree.

There's much about this production that is very good. I think Martinez is much better than Warren Beatty, who was dreadfully miscast. Some things are better realized in the recent version, such as the young man who waits in the shadows. The camera work is outstanding and I think Mirren's wardrobe is better than in the earlier film.

But I think there's a fatal flaw in the casting of Helen Mirren as Karen Stone, for the reason which I think made Vivien Leigh more suitable to the role. This goes to the heart of a major theme in Tennessee Williams: evil people bent on destroying those who are fragile and vulnerable.

For all her greatness as an actress, there's nothing vulnerable about Helen Mirren. She's too strong and formidable a person to play a fragile flower. I always feel a sense of "Don't tread on me" when watching her.

This beautifully costumed and photographed update of the 1961 film is vibrant, honest, and wonderfully acted. Helen Mirren's performance as the aging actress is at times playful, as when she brushes off an old "friend" with a lie about having a tumor, and heart-breaking as when her eyes travel from the perfect body of her lover to her own arms and then breaks down. Unlike most Tennessee Williams' works, "Stone" relies more on silences than on dialogue. Mirren registers every step in Karen's journey from humiliated actress to grieving widow to woman in love to woman scorned. Anne Bancroft, as the Countess, is also dead-on. Her arch manipulation of Karen conceals a passionate outrage at her own poverty that pours out with devastating effect in the film's final moments. Martinez and Santoro as the two young men are also effective.

"Roman Spring..." is a theatrical teleplay which revolves around a recently widowed wealthy American actress in post-WWII Rome (Mirren), a handsome Italian gigolo (Martinez), and his pimp (Bancroft)...oh, yeah, and a bum (homeless person). The film moves like molasses uphill as it delivers its meager story with heavy histrionics, minimal believability, and yammering ad tedium. Too long, too presumptuous, with an unsatisfying conclusion and poor psychodynamics, "Roman Spring..." is a lukewarm small screen watch which will have limited appeal. (C+)

I am old enough to remember when Vivien Leigh starred in The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone. Although I was a fan of Ms Leigh, I remember that I was quite unimpressed with the film. It was not particularly well-received. It was not one of Ms. Leigh's greatest roles. It is not a classic. This version of Roman Spring starring Helen Mirren and Olivier Martinez harkens back to the original novella by Tennessee Williams. The setting is returned to post-war Italy, and the story is told with great passion and drama. The plight of the Contessa and Paulo is much more understandable in that setting. The greatest difference is in the performance of Helen Mirren. In Mirren's capable hands, Karen Stone is shown as a woman who has known love but never real passion. In spite of her intelligence and common sense, Karen cannot resist Paulo, and her life changes irrevocably. In Mirren's performance, the transformation of Karen Stone is revealed in her actions, her clothes, and every nuance of face and voice. I think Tennessee Williams would approve.

A new version of Tennessee Williams' story, about a 50-ish retired actress (Helen Mirren) who finds herself adrift in Rome after her husband passes away. She is soon preyed upon by a gypsy (Anne Bancroft) and her gigolo (Oliver Martinez). What happens from there is how Mrs. Stone deals with the pair and how she tries to find her way in her widowhood and her retirement from the theater.

Since this is a modern telling, there is a lot more sex, which Miren excels in, I have to say! As with most Williams' stories, this is about lost people, so things aren't going to turn out so happy. That being the case, it's a good film overall, and the Rome scenery is cool.

The best part is the film score by John Altman. It is very reminiscent of Gabriel Yared's work. He scored films like "The English Patient."

****** (6 Out of 10 Stars)

This movie contains some of the most unintentionally funny lovemaking scenes I have ever seen in a movie. Anne Bancroft's accent is hilarious. And it's a good thing Olivier Martinez is a hunk because his acting skills are pathetic. When compared to Warren Beatty's performance in the original movie, Olivier comes off as a high school novice actor. What is most funny, though, is that the imdb users who have rated this movie have given it a higher rating than the original movie. It's pretty obvious that most of the voters here have not seen the original. While it's not a great movie, it sure beats the Roman pants off of this one!

Badly acted, pitiful storyline. Waste of time. Don't bother watching. Unless you're into masochism. There's no redeeming factor in this movie, except for the fact that Rome is a beautiful city. But that's about it.

This film is one of the best cinematic adaptations of a Tennessee Williams play that I can recall. As always in Williams' plays, people's desires aren't so pretty, but they ring true. This film does a great job of capturing the physical, spiritual and psychological realities of the immediate post-war period by documenting Mrs. Stone's "drift" into sexual awakening, social humiliation, and moral uncertainty. The movie poses difficult questions, but it asks them beautifully, and Helen Mirren gives an awesome performance.

If you did not know this was a Tennessee Williams story, you could not tell from this film. This was more of a Harlequin romance than a Williams tale. Obviously Mrs. Stone is Williams' alter ego, and a respectable female heterosexual is not the equivalent of a male homosexual, respectable or not. You cannot play any of Williams' female protagonists as though they were actual, realistic women, and end up with a result that is anywhere near what Williams intended.

Much has been written of how the director wanted to play up the sudden poverty in post-war Italy which brought otherwise respectable people to remunerative decadence. That may very well be accurate, may very well have been noticed by Williams in his story, but that is not the point.

This film was boring. I can't fault the acting, and it would be very interesting to see what Anne Bancroft and Helen Mirren could do in creating Williams characters. I think that with the right direction, either or both of them would set fire to the screen. But they didn't get a chance to do that here. All I can advance as an explanation for this tepid romance is that the director had no clue. Williams has an undercurrent of repressed desire and unfulfilled yearning that causes disaster, regardless of whether it is indulged or repressed. The Glass Menagerie is a memory play and not a sex opus, and Summer and Smoke had a generally hopeful ending (though Alma might still come to grief, perhaps becoming Mrs. Stone). But those are the exceptions. The closest play to this story is Sweet Bird of Youth. Take the melodrama out of Sweet Bird, and you should have Roman Spring. But you should still have the erotic tension.

This production, though it had steamy scenes in its latter half, seemed more like a photo session for the cover of a romance novel than a Williams story.

What a waste of talent! The film was not horrible--one unfamiliar with Williams might not notice--but we know what might have been.

One star each for the glorious Brian Dennehy and Anne Bancroft just for being in this sleazy monstrosity.

Helen Mirren looks totally embarassed to be trapped in this parody of parodies doing a dutiful turn at faking an American accent. She should have known better.

As for Santoro and Martinez, ugh, just ugh! Two less charismatic presences have never ungraced the silver screen, or in this case Tubi's digital streaming.

Martinez can not only not act to save his pinky, his grotesque mangling of English is incomprehensible. There are continental accents and then there's this atrocious industrial smog coming out of his mouth.

Just what they were all thinking?

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.

I can't find one redeeming thing about this movie. Other than Helen Mirren the acting was horrible. The nude scenes were unnecessary. I realize this was shortly after the war but Karen had no backbone. I realize her need for passion but really? This was a smart woman. Use those boys for entertainment but don't love them. Why did she keep up a friendship with the disgusting Contessa? If you like this kind of relationship film I think American Gigolo was much better.