A drama first and biopic second, "Pandaemonium" tells of the midlife of renown classical wordsmith and critic Samuel Taylor Coleridge who's life was not terribly interesting though he was on the cutting edge of 19th century neoromantic poetry. Probably taking some liberties for dramatic purposes, the film involves the poet's relationships with William Wordsworth, his opium addiction, his troubled marriage, and, of course, his struggle with the demons of the creative process. Visually beautiful, well acted, but a tad theatrical with some annoying interjections, Pandaemonium" is probably too esoteric for the film-going public at large. A splendid effort which will likely be most appreciated by those into classical literature - particularly 19th century poetry. (B)
32 Reviews
I wandered lonely as a cow into the video store. . .
chetley16 August 2004
I wandered lonely as a cow into the video store. . . and then I rented this film. Alas. I think the director was trying to channel the spirit of Ken Russell while he was making this film. Unfortunately, it was only during the last 15 minutes that the movie took a full bodied lurch into unintentionally comic melodramatic absurdity. With its utter disregard for the historic record, "Pandaemonium" attempts to do for England's greatest Romantic poets what "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" did for the Arthurian legends - but (sadly) without the wit or the humor.
Why is it that so many films about poets fail to convey any essence of poetry? Perhaps if you don't know anything about Wordsworth or Coleridge (or you don't care) you might be satisfied with "Pandaemonium," but I find it impossible to recommend a film that slanders the former while portraying the latter as a slathering dope fiend.
(I did enjoy the "Xanadu" music video shown over the ending credits - now that was truly trashy.)
Why is it that so many films about poets fail to convey any essence of poetry? Perhaps if you don't know anything about Wordsworth or Coleridge (or you don't care) you might be satisfied with "Pandaemonium," but I find it impossible to recommend a film that slanders the former while portraying the latter as a slathering dope fiend.
(I did enjoy the "Xanadu" music video shown over the ending credits - now that was truly trashy.)
Go Dorothy!
way too wired12 April 2004
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.
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.
Far from a "historical" piece it's a lively character piece with interesting direction, although at times a bit empty
bob the moo3 January 2005
In the 19th Century, poets are the rock stars of their time using drugs, living on the edge and revered by many for their creative influence. At a rally where he protests against the war with France and slavery, Samuel Coleridge meets the young William Wordsworth, who idolises him and joins him in his "revolution". When Coleridge flees the city with his wife and baby to set up a self-sustaining Utopia of their own, William and his sister join them. The two friends get down to work, although the writing process starts to destroy Coleridge from the inside although maybe it's the opium? I taped this film because the title and cast caught my interest but, whenever I read what it was about I thought twice because it sounded like a dull historical film about characters I didn't know a great deal about. Despite this I decided to give it a go and see if it was any good. From the very start the film interested me with its strange visuals and interesting characters. The actual plot is not so easy to get into, but the relationships are well written and there is always something going on. I do not know the "real" facts behind these characters so I will not go down the road of picking at this film for what definitely contains a great deal of artistic license (the film ends on the London Eye) but in a way it is the license that makes it more interesting. With this, we are able to enter the experience rather than just the story; it also allows for plenty of interesting touches. I laughed quite a bit to read reviews ranting about errors in continuity, with some shots having modern things in the background perhaps they didn't reach the end of the film to see that this was deliberate and became more frequent as the film went on (why review it if you haven't seen it all?). The precise meaning of this was lost on me other than it being about Coleridge being ahead of his time or timeless in his vision, but it did make the film interesting. The characters of Coleridge and Wordsworth are both interesting and it is they that make the story worth sticking with.
This is not to imply it is brilliant because it isn't, but it is enjoyable, interesting and different enough to keep me watching. The direction is a bit too forced at times but it does have some nice moments that are original if not cohesive. The cast do well to help inject a certain amount of humour, wonder and drama when any or all of them are required. Roache gets all the "wonder" stuff and is pretty good but he has the film stolen from him by stealth as Hannah delivers a great performance. Wordsworth starts out idolising Coleridge and following him, but then gradually turns to destroying his work etc this transformation is very well done by Hannah, who works the extremes well but does the transition better. Support is as strong as you would expect from Morton, Woof, Serkis and others but the film belongs to the lead pair and the director.
Overall this is not a brilliant film but it is an interesting one. The narrative is difficult because the director tries hard to make it obscure and difficult to get deep into, but the general delivery features an interest character story told with humour, drama and good acting. The interesting (if a little pretentious) direction is always interesting even if it can be a little alienating at times. If it sounds boring and "not your sort of thing" then you'll be the same as me in which case you should give it a try anyway, but I do wonder what fans of Wordsworth and/or Coleridge made of it.
This is not to imply it is brilliant because it isn't, but it is enjoyable, interesting and different enough to keep me watching. The direction is a bit too forced at times but it does have some nice moments that are original if not cohesive. The cast do well to help inject a certain amount of humour, wonder and drama when any or all of them are required. Roache gets all the "wonder" stuff and is pretty good but he has the film stolen from him by stealth as Hannah delivers a great performance. Wordsworth starts out idolising Coleridge and following him, but then gradually turns to destroying his work etc this transformation is very well done by Hannah, who works the extremes well but does the transition better. Support is as strong as you would expect from Morton, Woof, Serkis and others but the film belongs to the lead pair and the director.
Overall this is not a brilliant film but it is an interesting one. The narrative is difficult because the director tries hard to make it obscure and difficult to get deep into, but the general delivery features an interest character story told with humour, drama and good acting. The interesting (if a little pretentious) direction is always interesting even if it can be a little alienating at times. If it sounds boring and "not your sort of thing" then you'll be the same as me in which case you should give it a try anyway, but I do wonder what fans of Wordsworth and/or Coleridge made of it.
PANDAEMONIUM (DIDIER BECU)
Didier-Becu15 April 2004
Julien Temple always is a bit l'enfant terrible of British cinema. Not because he made such great movies as after all he largely will be remembered as the man from popvideos (David Bowie, Janet Jackson), the overblown musical that is Absolute Beginners or the dreadful Earth Girls Are Easy but BBC Films gave him the opportunity to shoot Pandaemonium which tells the story about the poet Coleridge and his famous poem Kubla Khan. Whether it is historical true or not is beyond my knowledge but this movie tells the story about some genius poet who lived in the time of the great Lord Byron and whose talents were exploited by his friend who served him opium. At these days opium was the coke and we see how a talented poet with a wish for the family life turns into a total wreck. All by all Temple can control himself (just at the end credits he once again looses himself completely into nonsense) and tells the story in a rather modern way without too many details that can spoil the fun for those who are unaware of the British neoromantism. But mind you, "Pandaemonium" has its weak moments, perhaps a bit too many to be good, but still worth watching.
Doors of Deception
urnotdb22 March 2005
Title word was coined as the capital of hell in a line (recited in the film) from Milton's Paradise Lost. The film examines the politics of poetry in turn-of 18th century England. New approaches to science and government were reflected in a radical/conservative rift among artists. Interesting look at what might have inspired and constrained Coleridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" and "Kubla Khan." Sounds boring but isn't; imaginative depiction of Coleridge's drug-induced visions and how he may have visualized what he was about to write during his "research" (like Method acting). I knew the famous lines from these poems but now I might be better prepared to read the rest. Intriguing, multi-layered story (don't know if it's "true" but certainly plausible) might have benefited from more historical background. Good performances; subtle Samantha Morton.
Lurid Tripe
gorgan5 March 2004
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".
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".
Beautifully filmed treasure
lllama18 April 2002
This beautifully filmed treasure was a special treat to watch, as it transported me into a different world and captured the feelings I had as a student of English literature studying Coleridge and Wordsworth. Through its artistic interpretation of the inner landscape of Coleridge's mind, it reawakened the emotions that Coleridge's poetry itself evoked. I applaud the credit it gave to the women in the lives of these two masters, particularly Dorothy Wordsworth, whose importance to the poetry itself was unrecognized in the original works and has always been underappreciated. The film really brought to life "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," "Kubla Khan," and "Frost at Midnight."
The movie was so powerful because of the beautiful filming--the sets, scenery, costumes, etc., the photographic talents that captured these, the haunting background score, and the talented acting of the cast, particularly that of Linus Roach, who displayed a variety of emotional states so wonderfully, though I was really moved by Emily Woof's acting, as well. At first it seemed to me that John Hannah was merely walking through his role, but I now feel that the subdued acting was deliberate in portraying a much more sinister Wordsworth. I also applaud Samantha Morton and Samuel West for their roles.
The one odd thing about the movie was the segment shown during the final credits, in which Coleridge walks around in modern London, with dreadful popular modern music playing. I understand that a statement was being made, but it contrasted too sharply with the beauty of the film and the reverie in which I found myself. (The music was dreadful because of the contrast with the earlier context.) I really didn't need to be unkindly startled from the earlier sweet emotions. Only credit-watchers like me have to worry about it, though.
The movie was so powerful because of the beautiful filming--the sets, scenery, costumes, etc., the photographic talents that captured these, the haunting background score, and the talented acting of the cast, particularly that of Linus Roach, who displayed a variety of emotional states so wonderfully, though I was really moved by Emily Woof's acting, as well. At first it seemed to me that John Hannah was merely walking through his role, but I now feel that the subdued acting was deliberate in portraying a much more sinister Wordsworth. I also applaud Samantha Morton and Samuel West for their roles.
The one odd thing about the movie was the segment shown during the final credits, in which Coleridge walks around in modern London, with dreadful popular modern music playing. I understand that a statement was being made, but it contrasted too sharply with the beauty of the film and the reverie in which I found myself. (The music was dreadful because of the contrast with the earlier context.) I really didn't need to be unkindly startled from the earlier sweet emotions. Only credit-watchers like me have to worry about it, though.
Pure drek
pinzka7 July 2002
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.
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.
A visual and emotional splendid evocation of the lives of two English poets
Peegee-33 July 2001
At last, a film that depicts the lives and creative angst of poets that rings true, not just in its literal evocation but in the poetic handling of their inner worlds concurrent with their outer ones...their relationships, their involvement in the politics of their time. Above all, the passion that can possess a creative mind to the point of near self-destruction. Coleridge, the main protagonist in this film, is depicted (and well portrayed by Linus Roache) in all his struggles to reach the deepest source in himself, leading sadly to his addiction to laudanum. We're given graphic images of his creative process, the imagination (of both the poet and film-maker, much credit to Julien Temple) made visual (with some interesting references to our contemporary world). We see Wordsworth pretty much through the eyes of Coleridge and his relationship with him and his sister. Dorothy (beautifully played by Emily Woof). A Wordsworth fan might easily be critical of such a view, but this after all is Coleridge's day in the sun (or shade). Even if you're not a poetry enthusiast (which, alas, counts too many, especially in American culture) this film can bring you entertainment and much more...the suggestion that within us all lies a source of beauty that can allow us to appreciate it in its verbal form. See it! It's in my view one of the finest films in many a moon.
Nice try
Charles MGH3 June 2002
This movie does a good job of demystifying poets and poetry, and conveying the temptation and wastefulness of drug addiction. Ultimately, though, it's an unnecessarily complicated film with a drifting moral center and a real lack of focus (some will attribute this to its desire to recreate the opium mindset, but that's a cop-out). The splintered sympathies and victimized viewpoints make it hard to care about any of the characters. A waste of solid acting.
Very Enjoyable Film
Craig-95 April 2002
I saw the movie on DVD and really enjoyed it. I guess I thought Wordsworth and Coleridge were more friendly than this (and maybe they were) in reality. The film sure is biased towards Coleridge. Wordsworth comes off very badly--he gives up on his revolutionary principles, marries a shrewish wife, and seems only interested in how he will be viewed by posterity. Wordsworth goes to visit Coleridge and to collaborate with him, but can't seem to put a single word to paper. Then, suddenly, _Lyrical Ballads_ is finished and published and filled with Wordsworth's poetry!
The performances are excellent, particularly Linus Roache as Coleridge and Emily Woof as Dorothy Wordsworth. I was reminded of a similar film, _Haunted Summer_, which portrays the meeting of Percy Shelley and Lord Byron. The film is a bit odd at times, with jet trails moving across the skies of the 18th century, but it does a great job of getting at the creative impulse, showing the feverish bouts of imagination that gave rise to Coleridge's _Rime of the Ancient Mariner_ and the fragment _Kubla Khan_ (interesting that it shows an interruption by Wordsworth as the cause of STC losing his train of thought). Also, the scene with frost forming on the window while Coleridge cares for his son Hartley, leading to one of his more memorable early poems, is a standout. This film is well worth your time and isn't the boring, stodgy take on biography that some might be fearing.
The performances are excellent, particularly Linus Roache as Coleridge and Emily Woof as Dorothy Wordsworth. I was reminded of a similar film, _Haunted Summer_, which portrays the meeting of Percy Shelley and Lord Byron. The film is a bit odd at times, with jet trails moving across the skies of the 18th century, but it does a great job of getting at the creative impulse, showing the feverish bouts of imagination that gave rise to Coleridge's _Rime of the Ancient Mariner_ and the fragment _Kubla Khan_ (interesting that it shows an interruption by Wordsworth as the cause of STC losing his train of thought). Also, the scene with frost forming on the window while Coleridge cares for his son Hartley, leading to one of his more memorable early poems, is a standout. This film is well worth your time and isn't the boring, stodgy take on biography that some might be fearing.
Brilliant performances!
tlavs3 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The main reason I watched this movie was the cast - Roache, Hannah, Morton, Woof - brilliant performers - so I decided to see it and wasn't disappointed there. I had read that this wasn't historically very accurate - So I suppose I will have to take the plot with a pinch of salt.
The movie as whoever reads this will most probably know is about Samuel Coleridge and William Wordsworth and how they turned out their masterpieces (Ancient Mariner, Lyrical Ballads, Xanadu). The focus is however mainly on Colerdige and his life and his opium addiction and his 'worse addiction' - his friendship and trust in Wordsworth. Their friendship and the later disagreement in ideals is quite historical fact, I know. The only thing I'm not sure of is whether Wordsworth was the ogre he is made out to be. I know that he is supposed to have lifted most of his poetry from his sister Dorothy's diaries (which is subtly alluded to here). As to whether he really betrayed Colerdige and his friends, I have no idea. I wasn't also sure of the role played by Mary Wordsworth.
Anyway, in the movie, as Colerdige grows more addicted to Opium and dishes out the marvellous "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" which was supposed to be a collaboration between the two; Wordsworth grows jealous and uses his influence to ensure that the later (and much more phenomenal) "Kubla Khan" is not published along with his own "Lyrical Ballads". Colerdige realises the treachery at the end when "Kubla Khan" is almost lost but thanks to Dorothy's memory and devotion to Coleridge's work, (She herself is an Opium addict by now) it is salvaged.
As I said, I decided to watch the movie for the performances and I was vindicated. Linus Roache, as brilliant as ever, was stunning as the Opium-addicted, idealistic yet simple-souled Coleridge. He exudes mind-blowing energy throughout - simple, idealistic and open in the beginning, getting more complex as he comes to know Dorothy and is enchanted by her and heartbreaking in the opium-addicted sequences. It is impossible not to sympathise with the character. The man is a great actor. John Hannah is great as the straitjacketed, power-hungry Wordsworth. He mirrors the conflict in Wordsworth's mind very well - his devotion to Coleridge opposed to his disagreement with his revolutionary ideas, his devotion to Dorothy opposed to his disapproval of her devotion to Coleridge, his appreciation of Colerdige's genius opposed to his own jealousy - it's a perfect foil to Roache's Coleridge.
Emily Woof is a revelation as Dorothy Wordsworth. The final sequence when she recites Kubla Khan as a drug-addicted invalid is very touching. Samantha Morton doesn't get much to work with as Sara Colerdige, but she does an excellent job with whatever she has got.
Also noteworthy is Andy Serkis (Gollum :)) as the revolutionary John Thelwall and Samuel West as Robert Southey. The rest of the cast are competent as well.
An important part is the imagery and symbolism employed throughout the movie. The drug-induced dreams that Colerdige has about the ship of the Ancient mariner and Xanadu are very well done. Particularly mentionable is one scene where he climbs up a tree thinking it is the mast of the ship. Subtle symbols like the trail of a jet airplane across the sky, a concrete/glass dome in the background and in the end Colerdige reading his poetry in a modern home also work well. There is also a constant recitation of Coleridge's poetry in the background which creates a good atmosphere and Roache does a great job of the same.
The final credits, where Coleridge is shown in modern day London(?) to simulate him in Xanadu was dragging it a bit too far.
On the whole, I thought the movie will work well if you like Coleridge's poetry and if you are ready to see it as a dramatic endeavour and not as historical fact.
The movie as whoever reads this will most probably know is about Samuel Coleridge and William Wordsworth and how they turned out their masterpieces (Ancient Mariner, Lyrical Ballads, Xanadu). The focus is however mainly on Colerdige and his life and his opium addiction and his 'worse addiction' - his friendship and trust in Wordsworth. Their friendship and the later disagreement in ideals is quite historical fact, I know. The only thing I'm not sure of is whether Wordsworth was the ogre he is made out to be. I know that he is supposed to have lifted most of his poetry from his sister Dorothy's diaries (which is subtly alluded to here). As to whether he really betrayed Colerdige and his friends, I have no idea. I wasn't also sure of the role played by Mary Wordsworth.
Anyway, in the movie, as Colerdige grows more addicted to Opium and dishes out the marvellous "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" which was supposed to be a collaboration between the two; Wordsworth grows jealous and uses his influence to ensure that the later (and much more phenomenal) "Kubla Khan" is not published along with his own "Lyrical Ballads". Colerdige realises the treachery at the end when "Kubla Khan" is almost lost but thanks to Dorothy's memory and devotion to Coleridge's work, (She herself is an Opium addict by now) it is salvaged.
As I said, I decided to watch the movie for the performances and I was vindicated. Linus Roache, as brilliant as ever, was stunning as the Opium-addicted, idealistic yet simple-souled Coleridge. He exudes mind-blowing energy throughout - simple, idealistic and open in the beginning, getting more complex as he comes to know Dorothy and is enchanted by her and heartbreaking in the opium-addicted sequences. It is impossible not to sympathise with the character. The man is a great actor. John Hannah is great as the straitjacketed, power-hungry Wordsworth. He mirrors the conflict in Wordsworth's mind very well - his devotion to Coleridge opposed to his disagreement with his revolutionary ideas, his devotion to Dorothy opposed to his disapproval of her devotion to Coleridge, his appreciation of Colerdige's genius opposed to his own jealousy - it's a perfect foil to Roache's Coleridge.
Emily Woof is a revelation as Dorothy Wordsworth. The final sequence when she recites Kubla Khan as a drug-addicted invalid is very touching. Samantha Morton doesn't get much to work with as Sara Colerdige, but she does an excellent job with whatever she has got.
Also noteworthy is Andy Serkis (Gollum :)) as the revolutionary John Thelwall and Samuel West as Robert Southey. The rest of the cast are competent as well.
An important part is the imagery and symbolism employed throughout the movie. The drug-induced dreams that Colerdige has about the ship of the Ancient mariner and Xanadu are very well done. Particularly mentionable is one scene where he climbs up a tree thinking it is the mast of the ship. Subtle symbols like the trail of a jet airplane across the sky, a concrete/glass dome in the background and in the end Colerdige reading his poetry in a modern home also work well. There is also a constant recitation of Coleridge's poetry in the background which creates a good atmosphere and Roache does a great job of the same.
The final credits, where Coleridge is shown in modern day London(?) to simulate him in Xanadu was dragging it a bit too far.
On the whole, I thought the movie will work well if you like Coleridge's poetry and if you are ready to see it as a dramatic endeavour and not as historical fact.
I shut off the movie at the point where...
Josef Tura-27 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
(minor spoiler)
where Wordsworth turns with gleeful villainy and spouts some sort of line like "I destroyed it because I DETEST it, and everything it stood for." And then he curls his moustache and ties Coleridge's small son to a railroad track... well
maybe I made up that last part...
The performers were quite good, but script was awful because the script I assume was written on a bet to try and mix a Scooby-Doo adventure with BBC melodrama. Because at the end our villain is unmasked, our hero is vindicated and Wordsworth might have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those darn hippies. CURSES, foiled again.
This film is an embarrassment to history, to screenwriting, and to literature. I gave this film a 1 because there is no zero.
where Wordsworth turns with gleeful villainy and spouts some sort of line like "I destroyed it because I DETEST it, and everything it stood for." And then he curls his moustache and ties Coleridge's small son to a railroad track... well
maybe I made up that last part...
The performers were quite good, but script was awful because the script I assume was written on a bet to try and mix a Scooby-Doo adventure with BBC melodrama. Because at the end our villain is unmasked, our hero is vindicated and Wordsworth might have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those darn hippies. CURSES, foiled again.
This film is an embarrassment to history, to screenwriting, and to literature. I gave this film a 1 because there is no zero.
Funny, sad, moving, epistemological! BBC at its best.
p-r-newman2 January 2004
I knew some of Wordsworth's poems from reading, and a few of Coleridge by repute. This film was a very enjoyable and wonderfully acted experience from which I learned, as well as laughed and sighed. Now I want to read more of both, and return to the north-east of England again.
A bored movie viewer not bored at all
james_slovak21 January 2004
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.
Absolutely terrible
thurinius31 March 2004
This is a truly dreadful film. Samuel Taylor Coleridge was a fascinating man, unhappily married, he lusted after Wordsworth's sister in law who would have nothing to do with him He was a habitual opium taker with a genius with words but his utter self obsession ruined him. Why make up such a ludicrous tale as Wordsworth getting him hooked on opium and plotting against him? The truth is much more interesting and far more entertaining than this excuse for a film. So horrifically, utterly awful I can barely type this for the bile dripping from my mouth. Note Emily Woof (here playing Dorothy Wordsworth) is the daughter of the current Director of the Wordsworth Trust....
A Study in the Ways of the Imagination
mythago-328 September 2003
Pandaemonium is one of the better films I've seen in a long time. Some of its themes are much like the ideas (ala Hassan i Sabbah & assassins & hunger for paradise) that have attracted me lately. It is about the poets Wordsworth & Samuel Taylor Coleridge (who wrote "Kubla Khan"). The exploration of the creative force, mingled with the desire to see deep into reality is amazing (Coleridge tried to do it with opium, and both succeeded and kind of destroyed himself in the process). The movie is based on real history but I think it took some liberties to make it a more powerful story. Coleridge also wrote "The Ancient Mariner," and that poem is incredible, I've even more taken by it to see it so lushly explored in a visual sense in how the idea and language came to Coleridge. There's some really funny parts too, like a time when they eat datura and almost fall up off the world (or their perceptions convince them they are about to, and then they start playing with it, realizing the joke, but still pretending that they can fall up.) There's a scholarly literary study on Coleridge published in 1927 called "The Road to Xanadu - A Study in the Ways of the Imagination" by John Livingstone Lowes, a brilliant book, and I wonder if the filmmakers got many of their ideas and details from that extraordinary book.
A Stunning Movie!
eVissa10 March 2002
I've been a movie fan for only a year, and have seen dozens in that time. This is by far the most exciting and memorable movie I've seen. Before seeing the movie I had no interest in English poets and knew little about them. After seeing the movie, I was entranced and had to find out more.
The movie tells the story through the laudanum delusions of Coleridge. Linus Roache is awesome in the role and the weaving of his poetry and his weird and scary visions is breathtakingly original. Coleridge and the Wordsworths lived 200 years ago and yet they seemed of our time. Using drugs, craving new experiences and sensations, they are like young people of today, scandalising their elders and shocking polite society.
The camera techniques are spectacular, as are the costumes, the locations and the editing, as you would expect from a production connected with the BBC. Watch and enjoy - you will not be disappointed!
The movie tells the story through the laudanum delusions of Coleridge. Linus Roache is awesome in the role and the weaving of his poetry and his weird and scary visions is breathtakingly original. Coleridge and the Wordsworths lived 200 years ago and yet they seemed of our time. Using drugs, craving new experiences and sensations, they are like young people of today, scandalising their elders and shocking polite society.
The camera techniques are spectacular, as are the costumes, the locations and the editing, as you would expect from a production connected with the BBC. Watch and enjoy - you will not be disappointed!
a beautiful film
quesrah25 July 2001
A bit weird in places (every once in a while an unexpected reference to Coleridge/Wordsworth's impact on the modern world), not completely historically accurate, and definitely biased in the favor of Coleridge (but hey - I think it's the director's prerogative to tell the story how he wants to).
But that's all forgotten because the characters are delightfully complex and wonderfully portrayed by Roache, Hannah, Morton, and Woof. It's a visually beautiful movie that brings Romantic poetry to life.
I've already seen it three times and I'd love the opportunity to see it again.
But that's all forgotten because the characters are delightfully complex and wonderfully portrayed by Roache, Hannah, Morton, and Woof. It's a visually beautiful movie that brings Romantic poetry to life.
I've already seen it three times and I'd love the opportunity to see it again.
A superbly acted and beautiful film. It must be seen!
rgervais-220 September 2000
Julian Temple's 'Pandaemonium' is a terrific film. I had the good fortune of attending the Gala Premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival and it was the highlight of all of the screenings I attended. I saw many good films at the Fest, but 'Pandaemonium' is the one that will stay with me the longest. Julian Temple's film blends spectacular cinematography and imagery with a compelling and dramatic story. It takes a slice of history and gives it life. It succeeds on every level, and this is a rare feat for any filmmaker. I highly recommend that you go see this film and I look forward to seeing it again when it is released in the local theatres.
Congratulations to the whole 'Pandaemonium' team.
Congratulations to the whole 'Pandaemonium' team.
Best film of the 2000 Toronto Film Festival
JigShaun-216 September 2000
This movie was a Gala Presentation at the 25th Anniversary Toronto Film Festival. I left the World Premier in stunned silence. The film is a wonderful blend of history and drama based on the life of Samuel Taylor Coleridge and his relationship with William Wordsworth. Yes, it sounded kind of dry to me too. It's not! The performances are full of passion and energy, especially Linus Roache (Priest) as S.T.C. John Hannah (Sliding Doors), Samantha Morton (Sweet and Lowdown), and Emily Woof (The Full Monty) are also wonderful. The cinematography is stunningly beautiful, mixing a perfectly realized past with images of the present to create a breathtaking view of the poets world. The script is a portrait of a haunted, drug dependant genius and is totally compelling and absolutely authentic. The score is understated and emotional. Julian Temple's visual approach to a highly emotional narrative accentuates the spirit rather than the letter of the time. He manipulates time with a full range of visual effects that seamlessly combine the political and cultural background of 18th century Great Britain with contemporary themes like creativity, addiction and betrayal. A powerful look at the lives of two of the English language's greatest poets, Pandaemonium is one of those rare films that communicates the passions that drive great writers and intellects. Destined to be one of the important films of this new decade!
I'ts not meant to be a documentary.
flashman1_2000-17 April 2004
All those of you who know the true story of these two giants of english poetry who complain about the inaccuracies, go to the soon to be opened Wordsworth museum at Grasmere. The ones who like truly inventive and emotional movies watch it! the performances are superb especially Linus Roache an underused actor if ever there was one, the script and the direction ARE poetry. These people were the original free thinkers before the word hippie was invented they were Libertines just like the film it's self is liberal. Why this did'nt get a general release bemuses me( made by BBC films)but the sad fact of the matter is that in this country if a film hasn't got Working Title or Richard Curtis among it's credits cinemas ignore it. Which makes my blood boil! Especially my local cinema the plaza at Workington who are as guilty as sin. Support should be given in this country for films like this, original films and not yet more working class angst or romantic middle class slush. Seek this film out by hook or by crook and sit back and let it wash through you, over you and into you.
Cast and crew screening,22nd October 2000
pandaminehead22 October 2000
I saw the movie at the Warner Village,Leicester Square,London.Director Julien Temple thanked everyone for their hard work and then the film started.What ensued was just wonderful.As other reviewers have said a movie about dead poets is not going to be everyone's cup of tea but Pandaemonium succeeds on every level by being truly accessible, dramatic, funny, sad and beautifully shot. For me the acting honours go to Emily Woof as William Wordsworth's sister Dorothy for a performance that is faultless.Linus Roache as Samuel Taylor Coleridge puts every ounce of energy into the main role and John Hannah does well to make Wordsworth come to life. Overall the true star is director Julien Temple for his extraordinary ability to capture the tortured genius of the poets and the way in which the superbly photographed landscapes of Somerset and The Lake District inspired them to write some of England's greatest literature. I hope this film does really well. It's entertaining, thought provoking and is one of the best British films I have seen.
Temple has finally come good in this entertaining movie.
blevinsky30 September 2000
I was taken reluctantly to the Toronto screening of "Pandaemonium" expecting to see an old time movie about boring dead poets. Instead it is the most imaginative Brit film I've seen for years. Temple has used the difficult relationship between Wordsworth and Coleridge to give us quite stunning insights into creativity and addiction as well as friendship and love. The film has humanity and great beauty combined with a surging narrative that will enthrall both young and old as well as opening up a whole new world for them. I hated poetry at High School and yet I rushed to the bookstore for the products of Coleridge's fractured genius. The performances in all the main roles by four young stars of British Cinema could attract awards: Linus Roach as Coleridge, John Hannah as Wordsworth, Samantha Morton as Sara Coleridge and most surprising Emily Woof (late of the Full Monty) as the gifted but unstable Dorothy, sister of Wordsworth. In a key scene of the film Temple depicts with great flashes of humour all the back-stabbing, envy and bitchiness of an awards ceremony, just like the ones we know and love. "Pandaemonium" will be shown time and time again for many years to come, it begins a new genre of costume drama where the social and moral issues of the past are made vividly relevant to our present time.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
