There seems to be a good bit of confusion from some viewers of this film, confusion probably because the screenwriter, in order to demonstrate that our actions, both simple and complex, not only affect our own futures, but the futures of our friends and relations, sometimes for decades, has not headlined his message. This film is worth watching simply because of an outstanding cast, legends before they were legends--Vanessa Redgrave, Ian Holm, Judi Dench and Tom Wilkinson for starters. And there is a scene early on in the film both graphic and shocking; many reviewers of this film seem to think it has nothing to do with rest of the story except as a plot device which fails to work. I would differ: this intertwined tale bears careful watching, a viewer's ability to link two main stories told nearly simultaneously, seemingly unrelated. There is a good deal that is not said, and one must be like a teacher or a parent to read between the lines: several simple actions combined with expected outcomes provide some guidance. So this reviewer is not going to lay out a spoiler except to say that this complex, well-thought out film makes complete sense once the actions of the characters are made clear; notice particularly the strange young woman who comes to stay with Redgrave after her first unasked-for guest shocks us. See what that young woman sees. Observe what she touches and how she reacts. Understand why she might be a little more unhinged than Redgrave expects. The answers are there; they may not be cut and dried and as easy to solve as a Charlie Chan mystery--but they link us to our own amazing capacity to survive with truth over time. This film, if you have the patience, can be fascinating.

This is the most confusing, self-indulgent and pretentious movie ever made.It looks like it was written and shot by the evil spawn of Fellini, Woody Allen, and Wes Craven.I defy ANYONE to explain what this movie meant and what all the sub-plots were.Vanessa Redgrave is fun to watch no matter what, but I bet she is ashamed to have made this movie.Dark, depressing, violent and indecipherable, this movie will leave you wishing you had believed this review.It could be a good object lesson in what not to do.Basing a film like this in Yorkshire is blasphemy.

"Books. I like books."Yet she never has any books with her and seems to speak too slowly for someone who would consider lengthening her education. This is just one of the many things wrong with this movie. The "dramatic" lighting was simply clichéd. The plot was far too drawn out and it bludgeoned us with the following themes: books and education, loneliness in love, Nixon/Thatcher, and lack of human understanding. But the problem is that everyone is so stupid and hapless that certain themes (like lack of human understanding) seem to stem from their own stupidity.And how many policemen spend so much time on a case that isn't a crime, brooding away with their mustaches?

An intriguing film which plays with time in an interesting way - it is based around the bizarre suicide of a young man, and scenes are shown in no particular order, some from before the suicide and some from after. Often it's hard to tell when chronologically a scene occurs. I like this kind of narrative structure (cf. Pulp Fiction).Towards the end of the film further scenes are interspersed from an apparently independent storyline about American soldiers during the war. When I saw the film (quite a few years ago) I couldn't work out how this related to the rest of the film at all. But it all seemed to make some kind of sense anyway.Definitely worth a look.