User reviews

This is a film that I consider quite underrated. There's not a moment wasted. Every little subtle detail counts. And it's for this reason that it's difficult for a person to appreciate the film after a single viewing, especially not knowing anything about it going in. Even once the mystery's solution is revealed, you'll find that a second viewing ties together various details that you hadn't considered the first time, and you'll get a much better overall picture of the story and each character's role.

The acting is superb, and this is a movie that really benefited from its great actors. Too often people will praise the acting of a film just because it has famous people in it, even of their talents weren't fully utilized for the characters they portrayed. But these characters were complex and it was those subtle aspects of the acting, the brief facial expressions, tones of voice, and other details that took the film to the next level.

Interesting character studies, an enticing mystery, a bit of humor, an homage to classic detective films, and a drama that gives you a glimpse of a very specific little world, one that you're probably not accustomed to. Those are the things you can expect from Gosford Park, and I highly recommend it.

Sometimes when i see a movie i walk out of the theater with a strange sensation. Not exactly knowing what it was i just watched. It was not great, nor was it bad. And soon, within fifteen minutes of my departure from my seat, do i begin having trouble retelling the story of the movie or even saying what it was about. Gosford Park is one of those movies.

Robert Altman certainly shows that he is a very competent film-maker here. Both technically complete as well as narratively interesting this movie is filled with directorial skills. It certainly doesn't lack the actors either, this film is very well acted throughout. Which is not really surprising considering the credits, a long line of fine actors. The story is nothing revolutionary, but quite interestingly told. It's given from two perspectives, first the noble people and then their servants. A relationship that is also causing quite a lot of comedy.

So with all that i have recounted above this should be a great movie. Well, i would have to say both yes and no. While i found it to have many qualities there is just something about the whole thing that failed to excite me. Sometimes when i watch a movie i get the feeling that the director has almost worked too hard trying to perfect his style. I get that feeling here. The movie is almost too much, like someone somewhere is trying too hard. Or maybe it's just me. For whatever reasons this polished and well thought-through movie just didn't quite do it for me, even though it was certainly decent entertainment for as long as it lasted. I rate it 6/10.

Do you like DOWNTON ABBEY? Do you like Agatha Christie Murder Mysteries? Do you like the 1970's British television series UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS? If your answer to any of these questions is yes, then do I have a film for you.

GOSFORD PARK is an English Murder Mystery, set in the 1920's, featuring an All Star Cast, Directed by a 7 time Oscar nominee. It received critical acclaim in the year it was released (2001), earned 7 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture) and won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Julian Fellowes...who would go on to create/write DOWNTON ABBEY).

Set in an English Country Manor, overseen by overbearing Lord William McCordle (Michael Gambon, the 2nd Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films), GOSFORD PARK tells of the trials, tribulations, loves and death (yes, there's a murder) of a host of characters both Upstairs (the wealthy) and Downstairs (the servants).

And what a cast it is! Kristin Scott Thomas, Maggie Smith, Charles Dance, Jeremy Northam, Tom Hollander and Bob Balaban lead the group of the wealthy, while Helen Mirren, Alan Bates, Clive Owen, Kelly MacDonald, Eileen Atkins and Emily Watson head up the cast of servants below the stairs.

Both Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren were nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for their work in this film (both losing to Jennifer Connelly for A BEAUTIFUL MIND).

Directed by Robert Altman (M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE), GOSFORD PARK is much of what you would expect from an Altman film...many, many people living their lives, sometimes intersecting with others, often times just going off on their own, tied together by the circumstances of being in this giant manor house on a weekend of a murder.

It is an ambitious, "Oscar bait" film that succeeds for the most part. And, if you are into the costumes, sets, Interior Design and intimate scenes of people talking, then you will be richly rewarded by this film.

I loved this film when it first came out and was anxiously looking forward to re-visiting it.

While I still liked it during this viewing, I did find the pacing to be languid and I started finding myself being frustrated by threads and character direction that just sort of petered out or ended all together with no real resolution. I know this was on purpose, for Altman would argue that this is what happens in real life, but I found this frustrating.

But this film has much, much going for it and if you haven't seen this - or haven't seen this in awhile - and are a fan of these types of films, then GOSFORD PARK will be a very rewarding 2 hours and 11 minutes of a movie going experience.

Letter Grade: B

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)

When Robert Altman makes a new film, it's always a noteworthy event that gets the attention of critics and audiences alike: large productions with huge ensemble casts of major Hollywood movie stars, playing real people with full, fleshed out characters, each with their own subplots that intertwine only subtly, until the end when it all finally makes sense. In Gosford Park, Altman makes only two changes to this formula: Hollywood stars are replaced by Top British talent that may be unfamiliar to most American audiences, and a straightforward murder mystery supplants his traditionally complicated plot line. It is in these changes, however, where Altman charms his audiences in a new way. The story takes place in 1932 at a gathering of aristocrats and their servants for a hunting country weekend at the estate of Sir William McCordle. Some time after all the guests are settled in and whose affairs begin to intertwine, one of them is bumped off. While all the characters are well fleshed out, it's Mary, played by Kelly Macdonald, who is the focus of the drama. She's the maid of Maggie Smith's Countess Constance of Trentham, and is being groomed to follow a path to become head servant. After the murder takes place, emotions unfold and secrets from the past are revealed that help the characters - and the audience - solve the mystery. The drama is even more punctuated when Mary's innocence and naiveté is lost as she pieces together the deeper scandal, involving servant-master sexual relations and bastard children.

One of the best aspects of film is how it illustrates that fine line dividing the master-servant social structures, and how often that line is crossed, reminding us that life is just a game of costumes and masks, and we're all the same underneath. While the story was reminiscent of Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians, where it's the mystery that captivates the audience, Altman goes beyond the mystery with Gosford Park by using the murder as a vehicle to draw attention to the human condition and class hierarchy.

On the downside, but to no surprise to fans of Altman's work, the movie is often hard to follow. His style of filmmaking involves entanglements of characters and subplots that don't appear to have much to do with one another at first blush, and Gosford Park takes this to the next level. Here, the murder takes place at the climax of this confusion, leaving you rather disoriented in the middle of the 2-hour-plus drama. Fortunately, the tone loosens up when a comedy-dim police inspector basically gets nowhere in his investigation, but the pieces start coming together through the other characters. The good news is that it all seems to come together in the end in a way that didn't require grasping every detail of every scene.

Despite its intricacies and confusing moments, there is so much more to Gosford Park that makes it interesting and enchanting. While it is clearly a sophisticated piece of film work with impeccable acting, directing and design, don't stress about not keeping up with it all the time. Sit back and take it in, and you'll feel satisfied in the end.

I'm not sure I would market this as a murder mystery, the murder doesn't take place til after the halfway mark, and even then it doesn't really take center stage. However, marketed as an upstairs downstairs great British drama, then it fits the bill perfectly. An all star cast rounds out the nobility and staff, and they are cast beautifully. The storyline is slow, and the bit reveal isn't so grand. But the drama and acting is wonderfull and makes for an enjoyable view.

The 2000's was the worst decade of the cinema history. Of course, there were a few enjoyable films and even masterpieces, Altman's Gosford Park is stuck between the category of masterpiece and great work. This films is interesting from the very beginning till the end, while I was watching the film, I almost never cared for who was the murderer because it was so much fun watching the characters invented by Altman. If I was in a party, my guests would be the Gosford Park ones for sure, it even includes Ivor Novello, the star who's most famous role was in the silent Hitchcock masterpiece "The Lodger". This film received the Academy Award for best screenplay (in the same year as Mulholland Drive), the plot was classical, but it still held my attention and even made me laugh throughout the 2h11m. The dialogs and the characters (that I've already mentioned) were very good and the adaptations by the actors were great too, not to mention the photography that I enjoyed a lot. For anyone who has seen Luis Buñuel "Exterminating Angel" before, will find some similarities, they both showed a dark side of the high society, but Gosford Park a even more degrading one, yet, still humorous. It is a film easy for anyone to like and I liked it, I wouldn't call this a masterpiece, but it is close. A must see to anyone.

The reason why many viewers strongly dislike or even hate the movie "Gosford Park" is because they misunderstand the point trying to be made. Gosford Park wasn't made to focus on whodunit (if it was, why would they tell you who did). If viewers think that Gosford Park is "boring" or "confusing" or even "the worst movie ever", it may be that you're not willing to see what really is portrayed: the authenticity and its story. The authenticity of Gosford Park is as close as it can get to real life as it was back then as it can get. Experts who were maids, butlers, or cooks themselves were constantly at the scene criticizing the actors behavior and moves. Another main focus is the story behind it. The brilliant story as well as excellent character development are like no other: only Robert Altman could do a film such as this. So, next time you see it (which I highly recommend that you do), be PATIENT and actually be WILLING the enjoy the differences in film-making, not just the kind of films you like.

It's 1932 England and murder occurs at a remote country estate with a huge amount of guests. Who did it?

The murder doesn't occur until over an hour into the film and, before that, it's pure Altman. Characters talking constantly, LOTS of overlapping dialogue...usually I love his films, but I had a hard time getting into this one. For one thing, all the actors are British (with the sole exceptions of Bob Balaban and Ryan Phillippe--sporting a really stupid Scottish accent) so it's sometimes hard to make it what they're saying. The first hour contained a lot of dialogue that was simply unintelligible. After the first hour, I got a handle on the accents and was able to follow it.

The murder isn't the main focus--it's mostly about class consciousness (servants and the rich people)--nothing new is said but it's all still very interesting. The acting helps immensely.

They have a huge gathering of very good British actors. Emily Watson, in particular, is superb as a very feisty maid. Maggie Smith is, as always, great--but hasn't she played the mean old rich woman once too often? Clive Owen is--interesting. He's certainly good-looking but seems somewhat stiff in his role (although that's how it should be played). The worst acting is easily from Phillippe--get some acting lessons bud!

Also, blessedly, there's no gratuitous female nudity in this film--Altman seems to usually have a thing for having his actresses strip for no good reason--he held back this time. Why this film has an R rating I can't say. No nudity, no sex, the murder is bloodless and there's no swearing. So why the R?

All in all, not top-notch Altman but still pretty good.

I wish I was more surprised that there are so many negative comments, but I'm not. This is not American Pie. It's a beautifully acted and very well written film for adults with an attention span of more than 5 minutes. Concentrate, it's worth it. I don't give 10's easily. This is a 10!

I cannot believe how I was captivated, rewinding seconds I've missed 1 hr before the murder was committed. Normally I would have fast forwarded or Googled the synopsis. There was no useless actor. I mean if Clive Owen and Ryan Phillippe are reduced to valets, you know this is composed of heavy hitters.

The plot and hidden motives are so complicated. You need to watch this 2-3 times. Do not discount anyone and you may be lucky guessing whodunit before the detective arrived.

Also after watching it so many times, I still am confused where everything is. And I think being aware of the floor plan can help you guess early.

This is Downton Abbey meets Midsomer Murders. I have abandoned Agatha Christie type plots a while ago but I think i am making a comeback.

Altman's kaleidoscopic storytelling can yield a masterpiece like Nashville, or the brilliantly raucous M*A*S*H. But what in those films was inspired chaos is, in Gosford Park, just chaos. And all the King's horses and all the King's men (to say nothing of the knights, ladies and other A-list British actors who mostly comprise the sterling cast) couldn't put Gosford together again.

The idea of creating one movie from several familiar English story lines no doubt seemed tasty to Altman and his collaborators Bob Balaban and Julian Fellowes. They set out to present a scathing examination of the upper class in that time-honored setting—a shooting party—using an Upstairs/Downstairs-style format, and encase it all in an Agatha Christie-esquire drawing room murder plot, with a John Cleese-y bumbling inspector thrown in for good measure. If this sounds like too much, it is. The movie is pulled in so many directions, it never gets anywhere. While some of the class satire is wickedly well done, the murder story is given perfunctory treatment. The subplots explaining why several none-too-suspicious suspects want the victim dead are so forgettable, and carelessly presented, you get the idea that Altman himself doesn't really care. The revelation of the real killer seems more an afterthought than a climax. And Stephen Fry's incongruous, idiotic investigator seems mistakenly edited in from another movie.

Trying to tell too many stories at once isn't the only problem afflicting Gosford Park. It also suffers from too many characters. While the many roles in Nashville were as deftly and distinctly drawn as Hirschfeld caricatures, Gosford is confusing in its superfluity of indistinguishable minor parts.

The frustrations noted are lightened by the many fine performances. Clive Owen, Eileen Atkins, Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren earn top honors, with honorable mentions to Kristen Scott Thomas, Jeremy Northram, Michael Gambon, Ryan Phillippe, Emily Watkins and Richard E. Grant. Alan Bates and Derek Jacobi are also on hand to ensure that Gosford Park offers the most spectacular cast assembled since Murder on the Orient Express.

All in all, not unenjoyable, but a very mixed bag.

What an experience watching the opening credits and seeing name after famous name popping up. A shame the rest of this long-winded movie couldn't equal those giddy heights.

After about an hour or so of watching this supposed murder mystery, I realised that Robert Altman wasn't interested in making a mystery film at all. Instead, this is the classic "upstairs/downstairs" drama, exploring the interactions between upper class twits and their servants during the 1930s. Anyone who's seen DOWNTON ABBEY, REMAINS OF THE DAY or, indeed, UPSTAIRS, DOWNSTAIRS will know what they're getting into here.

I was entertained, but not overly so. The film did a good job of getting the different characters interacting, and the twists and humour when they come are good. But the use of a huge cast sacrifices any emotion, leaving this a very cold, technical exercise in filmmaking and something I wouldn't want to experience a second time.

Robert Altman's long, fragmented and very hit-or-miss career reaches another of his periodic highs with this clever and beautifully realised dissection of the English class system and skit on the classic Agatha Christie whonunnit.

Altman's preferences for kaleidoscopic social observation has sometimes failed in the past due to the weight of its own ambition: multi-plotted and multi-charactered snapshots of time and place held together by loose ties or a general thematic framework. Sometimes it pays off spectacularly (Nashville); sometimes it flatters to deceive (Short Cuts).

It works well here due to the necessary discipline of the single location and the greater opportunities for interaction among the characters this affords. Add to that an exemplary cast of (mostly) British character actors and a knowing script by Julian Fellowes that gives Altman's keenly observant camera plenty of time to make its own points.

Rightly, Altman is less concerned with the murder mystery, which is almost an aside, than with the opportunity given by a shooting party at a 1930s stately mansion to observe the English aristocracy and their servants in social interaction.

Never happier than when involved in a bit of human anthropology, Altman lightly dissects the complexities and hierarchies which go on both above and below stairs; in which many subtle and unsubtle rituals are played out among groups of people who clearly dislike each other but are forced through circumstance, need or employment to observe the fundamental social practices required.

1932 is also a time of intruding change into the nature of the old English ruling classes, slowly disintegrating in this between-wars period and, in this case, largely reliant on the wealth of one particularly reluctant patron to keep them in furs and flunkies. In on this act comes the (to them) faintly odious whiff of 20th century new money, represented by Hollywood and popular culture. These intruders are kept in their place, but the message is clear - change is coming, and coming fast.

The muted colours and autumnal setting continue this theme of a world in terminal decline and of a group of characters keenly conscious of place and tradition yet also wearied and exhausted by it. Only at the very end, when fundamental change has occurred and many characters are left to face up to very different destinies do we see a bit of sunshine creeping in, heralding the dawn of a new era.

The cast are all excellent, with special mention deserving of Maggie Smith's effortless scene stealing as a bitchy but broke old Countess; the ever reliable Jeremy Northam as matinee idol Ivor Novello, well aware of his place in the great scheme of things and young Kelly Macdonald in the pivotal role of Smith's harassed maid who's inquisitiveness rattles a whole load of family skeletons.

Reading reviews is one of the fun parts of watching a new (to you) movie. The biggest comedic relief of this reading is the reference by so many to this film as a comedy and/or mystery. It's a drawing room drama of near epic proportions. The producers/directors seemed to want to throw it all in, and the crime part of the thing surely was not intended to be taken seriously. Blake Edwards may have recognized that police inspector, but Agatha Christie would have shuddered. She didn't do comedies, and her detectives were expert and successful. And, how can this be a "whodunit" when they show you who did it?? Clearly, everyone connected with the project worked hard. And they got their "A's" for effort. And a big "Q" for quantity, but "0" for quality. No matter how much talent you assemble, rabbits pulled out of hats, it all just gets lost in the jabbering herd.

A lot of people are referencing this movie right now because of the huge current following of PBS' "Downton Abbey." There are comparisons of site and theme and so forth. So, it sends one to or back to GP. It no doubt was ground breaking, in proportion at least, for its type and in its time -- but it has been majorly eclipsed with Abbey. Somehow, the more civil versions of this theme have surpassed offerings of this sort. You can scream artistic expression in many categories on this, but the period films (or other) that are the most revisited (and awarded as well) are not of this ilk. These characters don't live on. Who could even remember half of them? That's not the case with other period films of the type and subject, which have and are becoming classics, like "Downton Abbey," one in the works - undeniably a smash hit.

There's a problem today with confusing filthy talk and wholesale shoddy behavior with realism. Again, the characters that become real to people are not from films that attempt to standardize lower forms of human nature and expression. People have a way of wanting to spend their time and revisit works that reflect upward from dysfunction, with liberal sprinklings of sleaze. Sorry, but that's basically what you've got here. It may be a part of real life, but most people really aren't impressed by it, nor seek it as entertainment. "Adult themes" can be represented without being crammed down your throat. Applause to those with the artistic skill and human depth to bring that off. Unfortunately, that did not happen here. Innovative spectacle for its time -- a reach for a positive commentary.

This film opened the London Film festival and I was lucky enough to see get tickets. Robert Altman was there and so were most of the cast.

I've seen over half of the Altman cannon of work and this has to rank up with his best. Set in the 1920's, a group of people get together for a shooting weekend at the estate of Lord and Lady Mcardle. There are two sets of characters, the Toffs upstairs and the servants downstairs. With his customary multi-streaming overlapping narrative, cross cutting dialogue and interwoven storylines, Altman sets up dynamics within and between the two classes. There are up to 32 speaking parts and each of them is invested with a clear identity. Just from a few lines, a gesture, raising of an eyebrow, we have an idea of a character's feelings and motivations.

At times the narrative moves at such a fast pace, but we never lose track of whats going on. Scenes such as the Toffs in the Drawing room having tea - many conversations happening, dynamics being set up - and another where the servants are rushing around downstairs, as the camera weeves its way through the corridors, are exhilirating cinema!! Altman has a tight grip on the proceedings and this only wavers slightly towards the end.

There is a fantastic scene, where Ivor Novello - a guest, is invited to sing for the other guests and all the servants listen covertly from whatever vanatge point they can find. Novello oustays his welcome, amongst the gentry, but the servants cant get enough.

What Altman has done here, helped enormously by the wonderfully humourous script by Julian Fellows, is invested these period characters with a modern sensibility. These are not the boring, stuffed dummy museum pieces of your typical period picture, these people are real. Rich or poor, their fallibilities, desires, disaffections and frustrations are evidently clear.

This movie is so good, I wanted to get up and cheer at certain points. Altman is well served by the 'creme de la creme' of British Actors. All are excellent; Maggie Smith, Emily Watson, Helen Mirren, Kristin Scott-Thomas and Jeremy Northam to name a few. This film may not be everyones cup of tea and i am someone who can go watch anything from Scream 3 to the latest hot film from Asia, but those that invest the time on this film, will be much rewarded. Altman deserves the Oscar that has eluded him for far too long.

One should never expect Robert Altman to do the obvious, so when he tackles a genre, he usually goes the long way around and ends up someplace else. His war movie, M*A*S*H, is a black comedy. His musical, NASHVILLE, ends up being a political drama. His satire of Hollywood, THE PLAYER, is a facade for an amoral film noir. So when Altman tackles the classic murder mystery formula, a la Agatha Christie, one is apt to be intrigued by the possibilities. The murder mystery is, by nature, the most structured of all genres in that it is actually a game that is played by the filmmaker and the audience. Whodunit and howtheydidit are the film's secrets that the viewer must discover. Therefore, there are unwritten rules. One must expect Altman to break the rules, yes; ignore them, no.

As is, GOSFORD is less a whodunit than an obvious essay on class distinctions. Indeed, for all it is worth the whole murder mystery angle could have been forgotten all together. Having rounded up a remarkable cast of Britain's finest actors, Altman gives them precious little to do: Those upstairs set around being arrogant and bored, those downstairs stand around being bitter and stuffy. Along the way, there is a murder and no one seems to care.

Therein lies the fatal wound. Everyone treats the killing as if it is, at best, a dreadfully uncouth faux pas, not the social embarrassment it should be for the aristocrats and the threat to the livelihood that it should present for the servants. Okay, that's the joke: a murder of an important person who no one will really miss. But if the murder mystery is inconsequential, then Altman owes us a distraction that would also make us indifferent to the violence. He does not deliver.

The obvious model for this film is Jean Renoir's classic THE RULES OF THE GAME, a similarly themed film, rich with colorful characters, intriguing plot twists and a general air of orchestrated chaos. Altman's exercise in class confrontation doesn't even come close to matching Renoir's: Indeed, it doesn't even come close to matching Altman's own ramshackle satire A WEDDING. A few of Altman's mighty cast, such as Maggie Smith and Jeremy Northram, manage to infuse their roles with a bit of color, but most just seem bored. So will the viewer.

Jeremy Northam's voice instantly hypnotizes the cooks, maids, and footmen at Gosford Park. He lifts their spirits, they forget themselves, and for a moment all work ceases. The irony here is that because they're so entranced they fail to grasp the song's meaning, which is about hopeless longing and dreams unfulfilled. It puts smiles on their faces anyway, but has no effect at all on the upstairs guests, who spend so much energy posturing that they can't seem to recognize the value of any of the many graces offered to them. The downstairs staff certainly appreciates the entertainment, since they toil day and night over details like the distance between the knife and the fork, and whether strawberry marmalade will suffice when the raspberry jam runs out. 'The perfect servant has no life,' declares Mrs. Wilson, and while her pride is admirable, her sacrifice is tragic. What a shame, giving all of your time away to dote on people who don't themselves seem to know how to live, either.

The super wealthy can't be entirely blamed for their plight, which I think stems from loneliness. People tend to behave oddly around the rich and famous—they get nervous, begin putting on an act, or trying so hard not to that they clam up. Like a highway patrol cop in traffic, the presence of esteem inspires everyone close by to alter their behavior. It makes sense then that the rich prefer to surround themselves with hired help who are paid to behave respectfully rather than go out into the world and live their lives in public. Their wealth affords them the illusion of a public life in a private and controlled setting. The danger is that after spending years dealing primarily with one's own servants, one might become incapable of dealing with anyone else… even, say, an inspector who needs help solving a murder.

Consider the inspector's interactions with the guests. They treat him like the pizza delivery guy. They talk at him flippantly, begrudge him a moment for questioning, and fail to summon a shred of helpful information. This apparent insubordination is more out of apathy than defiance, and the inspector isn't blameless either. He treats witnesses with kid gloves, allows himself to be interrupted but never himself interrupts. I imagine that he would have more vigorously interrogated potential witnesses had the murder occurred in a poor or middle class district, but he behaves submissively when dealing with the guests at Gosford Park.

Attending a shooting party like this one is an exercise in straddling that line between intent and image. Image obscures intent, so it must be hard, being a wealthy host, to trust whether guests are attending out of true friendship. We, the audience, can certainly be sure that they are not because of the film's fly on the wall point of view. We quickly become aware of their disparate natures, that they only harmonize in their collective effort to remain in the good graces of Sir William. To open up to each other is to risk exposure or embarrassment, so distance is crucial to maintain a safe proximity. These aren't friends; these are satellites in tow. I makes sense, then, that when Sir William is killed and an inspector starts asking questions, no investigative headway is made. This is because as far as the guests are concerned, with Sir William gone there is no longer any need to engage. It's time to float away, like debris in outer space.

The idea of behavior obscuring motive is relatively foreign to Americans. I recently hosted an English traveler who needed a couch to crash on, and he told me that in English culture, protocol of behavior is of the utmost importance. "We can enslave entire cultures, but we'll do it with a stiff upper lip, while we have our afternoon tea," he said. I believe Americans tend to flaunt our motives more overtly, embody them. It's seen as a sign of virtue when a salesman embodies salesmanship, an athlete competition, a computer whiz nerd-dom. I feel (and this is pure conjecture) that to embody 'good manners' is valued but not to the degree that it is in Europe, particularly England. In America, we are almost suspicious of those whose intentions aren't clear. Consider the way characters in reality shows interact. Their behavior is motivated by primordial urges—chiefly, the urge to impose their personality. The line 'I'm not here to make friends' seems to be a reoccurring catchphrase. Gosford Park operates by almost opposing values: America's brand of 'reality' is best concealed so that the surface always appears squeaky clean. I would guess that even a non-English speaker, having spent a weekend with the casts of any of the new 'real world' shows, would walk away with a pretty good understanding of who those people are simply because the personalities are so unabashed. Yet I feel as though a fellow English speaker, even a thoughtful and aware individual, could spend a weekend at Gosford Park and walk away thinking only of how charming the affair was, but having no clue as to what was really going on.

Despite all of this I can't agree with the film's outlook, an outlook I would call altogether cynical. The alternative to the lifestyle of affluence is a lifestyle of needs-based living. For years I lived minimally, considering excess a burden and ambition a form of avarice, and you know maybe I wasn't wrong. But if we must rise with each new day, I don't see the harm in striving for some form of highness, even if illusory, as long as an attempt is made towards balance. This film is about the imbalance, the extremity of Postbellum English aristocracy. It emphasizes the evils and the folly that wealth and servitude cause without acknowledging that wealth is simply the end result of something inherently good. It doesn't express the reality that if we didn't posture whatsoever, we would be left crawling.

Had never heard of this until a friend recommended it to me. A stacked cast of Brits all getting together for a good ole whodunnit? Yeah, I'm game. As far as mysteries go, this feels like it was taken straight from the pages of Agatha Christie. At least I imagine it does, I've never actually read one of her books. There's wit and charm and sophisticated classism oozing out of every frame.

Where this loses me is in the pacing. This feels soooooo slow to me. The first hour was a struggle to stay awake through as they introduce character after character and all the little intricacies of the relationships. My problem is that I end up comparing this heavily with the more recent Knives Out and where Johnson added flare and quirk to the cast of Knives, Gosford feels very flat and monotone. It's so dry and one note the whole way through that things started to turn into just noise, like listening to Charlie Brown's parents.

I still think this is a solid movie, I'm just not sure it's for me. The pacing really made this a tough experience and the overall drudgery made it difficult for me to get invested but I can see the cleverness, the intricate web of layers being weaved. When the credits rolled I felt like I was glad to have watched it, intellectually, but I don't know that I'd ever feel compelled to visit it again.

I've read through the first page of comments made by the many users, and I think I can understand why many think this film is overrated. People think that this film sucks because they don't like multi-story plot and they find it difficult to follow the stories. Some may expect a spine-chilling murder and want to be scared and wet the seat. However, those who really appreciate and understand the movie know more than clear that the film itself focuses on the life of the upper-class people (and the life of the time) rather than a bloody crime.

The movie defines the word originality no better. In fact, Julian Fellowes deserves all the awards he received since the screenplay is challenging to write and it's difficult to pack all the stories in a 150-minute movie. He explains the complicated relationship between the visitors so well, and he virtually creates a motive for murdering Sir William for everyone so that the crime itself becomes very mystifying. Of course, I must admit that there are really too many characters and it's simply impossible to keep track of everyone's movement in the first half of the movie; but Julian leaves the necessary hints for our understanding that our feeling intensifies more and more as the story unfolds. Even better is the dialogue - sharp, sarcastic, amusing, clever. It confers life to the film and fully delineates the character of the many visitors however short the time is when they appear on the screen. Before I saw it, I had always asked why Memento did not win an Oscar. But the time when the film ended, I was left stunned on my seat. I mean both stories are great and original, but when comparing the relative difficulty in writing the screenplay, Gosford Park apparently wins.

Gosford Park is to me perhaps the second best movie I've seen this year (after A Beautiful Mind). If you like films like Magnolia and Traffic, which require much patience to enjoy, it's perhaps the greatest movie of your lifetime.

It's the 30's. Various guests are gathering at English country estate Gosford Park for a hunting weekend. Countess of Trentham (Maggie Smith) arrives with her servant Mary MacEachran (Kelly Macdonald). Actor Ivor Novello (Jeremy Northam) arrives with American vegetarian film producer Morris Weissman (Bob Balaban) and his valet Henry Denton (Ryan Phillippe). Lady Sylvia McCordle (Kristin Scott Thomas) and Sir William McCordle (Michael Gambon) are the hosts with their daughter Isobel. There are also Lady Sylvia's sisters, Louisa, Lady Stockbridge, and Lady Lavinia Meredith with their husbands Raymond, Lord Stockbridge, and Commander Anthony Meredith. There are also Freddie Nesbitt and wife Mabel, Lord Rupert Standish and his friend Jeremy Blond. The help includes butler Jennings, George, and Elsie (Emily Watson). Secrets are revealed by the upstairs and downstairs interactions. Someone is murdered and Inspector Thompson (Stephen Fry) investigates.

Like many Robert Altman movies, this has an avalanche of characters. I'd be lying if I say that I followed everyone and everything. It's a big task to keep everyone's story straight. It does have a compelling flow through everything. Kelly Macdonald is the eyes through which I see this movie. The acting power is vast. The cinematography is beautiful. The plot does ramble as Altman movie does but it's the endless supply of characters that make it compelling.

Excellent movie about an "idea." The murder mystery is itself a "MacGuffin" to the central question of some of the characters' inter-relationships. This film is deserving of its Academy Award and nominations !! Watch it twice since it bears more insights on a closer viewing; it is full of "inside" entertainment for those who love the films of that era and the pop music genre of the 1930's. Truly an ensemble effort with some excellent work by hardworking veterans and young British geniuses.

I saw Gosford Park in theaters way back in April 2002, after it was nominated for a slew of Academy Awards a month earlier. Naturally, I was looking forward for some good social satire in the shape of the always reliable "clash of the classes" theme. Robert Altman had the right pedigree as a director, and I actually liked some of his previous works such as The Player and Dr. T and the Women, so there was some cause for interest there. Also, this was promoted as a story of a classic old Hollywood murder mystery, another motivation to go see it. Boy was I wrong.

I can't even start to explain how many things went wrong for me upon watching this train-wreck of a film. For starters, the film was way too talky - not that its bad, but in this case, the endless discussions never actually reached a point. Also, it was very hard to relate to the belated ensemble cast, given the fact they were mostly made up of actors portraying pretentious and extremely dull English snobs, who lead a decadent and obsolete way of life. The movie didn't make me care for any of the characters, want to learn more about them and what motivates them, or give any further attention to their boring tea parties, hunting trips or twisted relations with their butlers and maids.

At one point of the film I just began looking at my wrist watch, trying as hard as I can not to fall asleep, waiting for the promised murder mystery to occur so there would be some sort of force of interest to push the plot forward. After all, there is a certain degree of patience one can bare when staring helplessly at yawn-inducing characters talking about ever so boring issues. I felt as though the film was just going on and on with no real plot or point to look forward to at the end of the tunnel. When the foul felony finally took place, I was apathetic towards whatever was happening, that I couldn't care less. It was THAT bad.

Thankfully, I gave Altman another chance and really enjoyed A Prairie Home Companion, his final work before passing away. However, that still doesn't erase the fact that Gosford Park is one of the slowest, pointless, dullest, unsatisfying experiences I've had at the cinema. I'm usually into dramas, and I have an incredibly low bar of entertainment – even the most overused clichés in films tend to amuse me the slightest bit. Alas, Gosford park was just a step too far, even for my relatively low standards; as this now sits as one of the worst films I've seen of this decade to date.

I gave it a 1/10.