Customer Reviews
Poetic licence - By: International Cowgirl, 03 Aug 2008 
This workaday biopic calls itself 'Sylvia' but it might just as easily have been 'Ted'. In the 50s, Plath & Hughes were poetry's Posh & Becks & the whole film hinges on their relationship, wiping outin one fell swoop the rich pickings of her early life & all but ignoring her poetry. We get the last few lines of 'Daddy', but virtually nothing about Plath's late father Otto. Her two children appear from nowhere, & her relentless pursuit of the domestic ideal (so lovingly detailedin her letters & diaries) is reduced to a fit of cake-baking. She had a notoriously complex relationship with her mother Aurelia but you'd never guess it from 'Sylvia' (although Paltrow's own mother Blythe Danner is perfectly castin the role). So too is Paltrow herself (well, come on, who else could it have been?). Daniel Craig, however, is a horrible misfire, palpably ill at ease with Hughes' Yorkshire tones & simply not charismatic (or tall) enough.
The film sits on the fence about whose fault 'it' was (I think everyone knows the ending by now). We don't get all the facts, though. Whatever the rights & wrongs of Hughes' actions, he was certainly guilty of leaving an unstable womanin charge of his two children, enduring the harshness of a London winter. The film chooses not to tell you this, but I think it's important to know that Hughes' mistress Assia went on to kill herself & their daughter Shura just six years later. She, too, was disturbed by Hughes' persistent cheating.
The worst failing, though, is the virtual dearth of poetry. Plath was hugely confessionalin her writing; you only need read it to understand her. The film doesn't even quote 'Tulips', one of the most significant of the 'Ariel' poems. She's not loved because she wore red lipstick, or because she married the future Poet Laureate, or because she went mad; she's loved because of her work. Ignoring that renders the film merely prosaic.
A disservice to Sylvia - By: Alma, 18 Jan 2008 
I'd have given this movie 3 stars if it weren't for the brilliant performances of its cast. Despite an unforgettable portrayal from Gwyneth Paltrow of a haunted, tormented soulin a performance that is almost disturbing, the film glossed over Sylvia Plath's relationship to her art while focusing mainly on her relationship to her husband, poet Ted Hughes.
The movie version showed collaboration between the two poets only during their courtship phase, with Sylvia losing touch with her art shortly after her marriage. However, biographies of Sylvia stress how, for several years during her marriage, & before its collapse, there had been a period of productivity & fruitful collaboration between her & her poet husband, where they both helped, encouraged & inspired one another. The relationship the-movie-Sylvia had with her poetry seemed marginal, & after her marriage, nearly non-existent.
Was it that the film-makers, with eyes on the box-office, feared to "alienate" their average customers with any emphasis on poetry, so they decided to flatten out the story, believing that focusing on her mental disturbance & putting "that bit about art" on the backburner would sell better? Or was it simply that Hollywood is completely out of its depth whenever there is any depth to be dealt with?
So, the-movie-Sylvia was this deeply disturbed woman, jealous of nearly everything her husband did, & her own relationship with poetry & her work was skimmed over & presentedin a most superficial manner. Daniel Craig's performance was sophisticated, leaning more towards the portrait of an estranged husband rather than a womanizing scoundrel. Other supporting cast were excellent.
If viewers didn't know much about Sylvia Plath, the impression they would get from this movie would be that she was a mentally disturbed soul, but not a serious artist. A sad distortion, with the performance of its cast as its only saving grace.
The Colossus - By: Leeloo, 14 Dec 2006 
There are many differing opinions on the marriage of Ted Hughes & Sylvia Plath & ultimately the makers of `Sylvia' are not going to please everybody. However, the film was not weighted to either Plath's or Hughes' point of view, holding them both up as great poets who had a great connection, however positive or detrimental that might have been. The relationship between Plath & her mother is also beautifully explored, as is the relationship between Plath & poetry. This is not just about the marriage of Ted & Sylvia.
The casting is magnificent. Both Paltrow & Craig give superb performances & the supporting cast are equally commendable. The film is beautifully presented all round. I loved the use of the colours red & blue to indicate different moods (asin Hughes' poem `Red'). The attention to detail (drawind from both Plath's & Hughes' poetry) is astounding.
`Sylvia' is ambitiousin what it attempts to convey but I'm not sure the entire audience get the point. I only wish there had been more poetryin it. Watch with an open mind & a hankie.
A wonderful film.
A surprising success - By: duirsgrove, 14 Nov 2005 I feel compelled to redress the amount of criticism this film has ensued since it's release. Perhaps being so disturbingin content it draws people to take character sides or to find fault with technicalities, yet if you take it as a seperate entity, a peice of film making, aside from the Ted & Sylvia that are public images it's actually very well done.
If you come at it wanting a pre defined angle then you'll either be enamoured & rejoicing over it or spitting at the injustice. If you want to have an opinion on either author, then read the books they wrote, a film cannot cover their input into literature significantly & inevitably takes a personal line, from what information remains available (questionable on both accounts with the destruction of various parts of her work & the medication angle)
I found it very similarin theme to the self-autobiographical Bell Jar (her only adult novel) perhaps slighly disapointingly for the ease of that option, & couldn't quite say who came off best or worst out of the film version. Can it be doubted the acting pedigree of the two protaginists?, Paltrow is surprisingly well cast & Daniel Craig is now finally getting more attention (Layer Cake/Bond). The conveyance of the mental state of Sylvia at various key moments of her life, both requesting sympathy, concern & an element of anger - & Ted's rolein creation (real or imagined) or endurance of it make it very emotive. It alludes more disturbingly than it demonstrates if you can look into it - how many films do that nowadays, we are trained to receive images without thought at all.
Films inspire you to want to learn more about a subject or person & to leave you after a journey of emotions & discovery wanting to still know more. So ok it has the lighting, the names & the budget, but how can anyone really experience that of those two peoplein truth other than taking this as part of the evidence & working out how that fitsin somehow. Not a feminist filmin any way it shows flawed characters who perhaps ultimately brought about very real, combined & manifested love & pain, issues familiar to most people. If we find fault with the film we do so with Plaths own work ultimately. If you want history, scenery, imagery, a human element - a relatable picture then this is it.
Emotional - By: A. Pitts, 24 Aug 2005 I've read a lot about Sylvia Plath & I was really looking forward to watching this film. In the end I was almost disappointed. Plath seemed to be portrayed as a spoilt, jealous wife & I found it annoying that Ted seemed to come off much better than she did.
It's definitly worth watching though, although very emotional, so probably best not to watch it if you're having a bad day.
