If there's one thing I like about this film it is the very active presence of Dorothy Wordsworth! I am a big fan of both Wordsworth's and Coleridge's works and an currently studying some Wordsworth at the moment in terms of Marxist criticism and even though in Wordsworth's Tintern Abbey he mentions his sister, he does not actually give her a voice - he repressed her voice to a great extent. Collaboration has always been very common, especially in their time period, but was very rarely acknowledged - something pointed out very strongly in this film, and very correctly the film showed Dorothy assisting and advising her brother on his work. The fictional Dorothy makes some very political and arguably feminist comments in this film, she is trying to pave her way in a man's world, but in her alliance to Coleridge she loses her chance...I'm not sure how much of this film was fiction or fact but I am very pleased with the representation of Dorothy as it is about time her voice was heard.

This movie is totally divorced from the historical realities of the subject matter it purports to represent. It fabricates intrigues and events that never happened to Wordsworth and Coleridge, and omits important stages and events in their lives, like their trip to Germany, or Coleridge's sojourn in Malta.If you make it through the lousy acting and made-for-TV cheesy production values to the climax of the film, you are treated to a ridiculously lurid scene where we learn of betrayal and harm that just never happened in real life.One clue that the screenwriter Boyce had no interest in maintaining any sense of historical accuracy can be seen in that fact that he has his characters refer to Coleridge as "Sam". As it turns out, throughout his life, Coleridge was called by friends and associates "Col" or "Samuel" or "Estece" (from his initials "S.T.C.") but never just plain "Sam".

During a movie bordem sets in at some point due to, most often, a lack of continually interesting plot twists and such. For some reason that I cannot fathom, this movie captivated me in a way that I have not felt before. The characters were well developed, the poetry was well read and the plot (though somewhat exaggerating the truth) was interesting and deep. A definte must-see film.

If I had wasted another 1-1/2 hours of my life, I'm pretty sure I would have rated Pandaemonium (2001) a 1/5. It's that bad.The movie purports to tell the stories of the young Samuel Taylor Coleridge and William Wordsworth, considered the fathers of the English Romantic literature movement. This happens to be an area I studied as my major in college. Pandaemonium bore so little resemblance to the actual stories that it might as well have been a film noir.Inept acting and stupefying camera tricks add to the general mess.Whoever is responsible for this piece of junk decided to represent STC and WW as extreme late 18th-century hippies, which insults their memories as well as that of hippies. Unlike some of their later colleagues, such as Lord Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley, STC and WW were conventional men with superb literary gifts. The movie further cultivates the myth of STC as a drug addict, a facade he maintained to add mystery to his reputation.Unlike some bad movies, though, Pandemonium's not even fun to watch.Run, do not walk, away.