User Reviews

Sumptuous-looking, beautifully photographed, meticulously produced....this movie seems to do everything right visually. But its story, very engaging in the first half, runs out of steam in the second. Story points and character motivations are often muddled, and I never got a complete and clear idea of where and when exactly the passionate love affair between the two basic characters started to go wrong. And yes, it is sometimes erotic (mostly thanks to the very beautiful Karina Lombard), but it never becomes as steamy as you may have heard. (**1/2)

A young woman (Karina Lombard) marries an Englishman (Nathaniel Parker) in mid-1800s' Jamaica to save her plantation. Rachel Ward plays her mother, Michael York her stepfather and Martine Beswick her aunt, all three being small roles.

"Wide Sargasso Sea" (1993) is an adult-oriented historical drama that's a quasi-prequel to "Jane Eyre." I say "quasi" because the 1966 novel the movie was based on was written by Jean Rhys 119 years after the release of Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre" in 1847. In other words, "Wide Sargasso Sea" is Rhys' proposed prequel of that famous story, not the official one.

The movie works better if you are familiar with "Jane Eyre," but it's not absolutely necessary. Naturally, "Wide Sargasso Sea" gives you a better understanding of what's happening in "Jane Eyre," which has been made into several movies, e.g. the 1970 version with George C. Scott & Susannah York, which is the only version I've seen.

The best thing about this movie is the setting, cast and style. It successfully takes you back in time to Jamaica circa early 1850s. The two protagonists are thoroughly convincing, as are Claudia Robinson as Antoinette's nurse, an obeah (voodoo) witch, and Rowena King as Amelie, an island girl who thinks she's hotter than she is. Really, the whole cast rises to the challenge.

There's a revolt by ex-slaves in the first act that's both realistic and harrowing. The story gets brighter with Antoinette & Edward's honeymoon, but takes a dark turn in the second half. I didn't feel there was enough cause to justify Edward's metamorphosis. The filmmakers' should've made this clearer. There's a measure of ugliness with the last half being downbeat. If you can handle that, it's worth checking out. It basically mixes Brando's "Burn!" (1969) with "The Piano" (1993) and "Sirens" (1994), the latter two debuting within a year after this one.

The film runs 1 hour and 38 minutes and was shot in Jamaica with a small bit in England.

GRADE: B-

I couldn't quite bring myself to give this film a "watch" recommendation. It fell just short, in my opinion, of a good film. Oh, it had promise. There could have been a lot more done to make this film interesting. As it was, it seemed to always be missing something.

Now, I understand Jane Eyre fans know all about Edward Rochester (Nathaniel Parker) and the "mad women who lives in the attic" (Karina Lombard as Antoinette Cosway). But, not having read the books, I have to rely on the movie to tell the story. In that it fails.

There are just too many unanswered questions and the ending was most unsatisfying. Maybe I could go read Jane Eye and come back, but I doubt I will.

The following review is taken from my contribution to a thread called "Worst novel adaptations" from the Film General board: Wide Sargasso Sea was originally a beautiful, haunting novel set in mid-19th century Jamaica written by Creole-Welsh writer Jean Rhys in the 1960s. Plot-wise, it's basically the prequel to Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, the story of a young Mr Rochester traveling to the Caribbean and meeting his first wife, the "mad wife" in the attic featured in Jane Eyre (though here she is young and not yet "mad", and we are described what gradually led her to losing her sanity). It's a sensual novel, mainly because the lush Jamaican countryside and emotional spontaneity of the local people was too much for the straight-laced, English Victorian gent, Rochester. But there are no sex scenes in the novel - basically, it's NOT an erotic novel as the film "adaptation" would suggest. It's written in subtle, understated yet powerfully-evoked prose that speaks of the movements of the soul rather than those of the pelvis. There's lots of passion in Wide Sargasso Sea THE BOOK, but it's mostly emotional. It's an extremely multi-layered novel and the work of a true master. The film on the other hand is just your classic, bad 1990s film, beautiful to look at, with lots of skin, languid copulation, heaving bosoms, bodice-ripping nonsense, etc and next to no substance. It has no artistic integrity whatsoever, as its shameless makers must surely know they lifted their middle finger at the spirit of the Jean Rhys novel when choosing to make the film the way they did. None of the understanding of the deepest secrets of the soul that the novel can so miraculously evoke. None of the beauty, poetry, deep, heart-felt tragedy, pathos, haunting quality. Nothing. Just a lot of pointless, choreographed sex between beautiful people in an "exotic" setting. Why not make an erotic version of Jane Eyre while we're at it? Plus there's nothing worse than eroticism that takes itself too seriously. I'd highly recommend the novel by the way: a book you don't forget in a hurry. Needless to say I think you should give this insulting (to the memory of Jean Rhys) film a miss, especially if you've read the novel: it'll just frustrate you, no matter how keen on a bit of easy titillation you may be feeling at the time.

Anyone who has ever read Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte's brooding masterpiece, knows the adult, world-weary Edward Rochester. They also know about the secret locked in the tower room of Thornfield Hall. What Charlotte never fully explains is how Mr. Rochester came to be the aloof, stony man he is and how is wife came to be mad.

Well, The Wide Sargasso Sea attempts to answer those questions. In my opinion The Wide Sargasso Sea does an excellent job.

This is a vivid and sensual film, and depending on the version you see, VERY explicit. But in this case I think the nudity and sexual activity is justified and not gratuitous.

Nathaniel Parker gives a stunning performance as Rochester. I recommend this one.

I like to watch The Wide Sargasso Sea first and then put on my VHS of the splendid A&E production of Jane Eyre with Ciarn Hinds as Rochester. The two follow each other beautifully and seen together, the puzzle of Edward Rochester is solved, at least to my satisfaction.

The Wide Sargasso Sea is one of the most beautiful books ever written. Following a string of only mildly successful novels and short stories, Rhys disappeared off the radar, and many believed her dead. She was discovered years later living in seclusion on the south of England. Throughout her house were numerous manuscripts forming what became The Wide Sargasso Sea. The novel was a labour of love for Rhys in a sense, but despite the critical acclaim it received she described the success as (I paraphrase) too little too late.

Rhys' novel details the relationship between the Rochester of Jane Eyre and Antoinette, his first wife. The novel, however, is not truly about this. The true importance of the story is the oppression of Antoinette by her husband and society as a whole. She is a Creole: inherently hot blooded and passionate. Rochester cannot handle this aspect of her nature, and attempts to remove it from her but cannot; it is inherent.

The film suggests that Anotinette descends into madness. This is not what Rhys wished to demonstrate. Antoinette never went insane, but rather the anger if her treatment at the hands of Rochester drove her to an act of rashness, but not madness. In her actions at the end of the film, Antoinette is not losing control, but rather regaining it.

This is lost in the film. The beautiful story is diminished considerably. The first two sections of the novel are reduced to 10 minutes, making the whole plot seem rushed. This was, it would appear, to make was for as much gratuitous nudity as possible.

All that redeems the film (and the only reason I rated it a 3 and not a 1) is the beautiful depiction of the scenery. I suggest people who have read the book avoid the film, and those interested in both stick to the novel and stay well away from this.

"Wide Sargasso Sea" is a 1993 film starring Karina Lombard and Nathaniel Parker. Based on the novel by Jean Rhys, it's Rhys' imagining of the first marriage of Edward Rochester's, before the book Jane Eyre begins. It takes place in 1840s Jamaica.

Mr. Rochester (Nathaniel Parker) arrives by arrangement to marry Antoinette (Karina Lombard) so that she may keep her property. At first, there is a great deal of passion between them, but Rochester feels betrayed when he learns that she has not been honest with him about her mother (Rachel Ward).

After a fire in which her brother died, Antoinette's mother went mad, though Antoinette told Rochester that she was dead. The voodoo and the presence of Antoinette's servant Christophene (Claudia Robinson) is threatening to Rochester. So are the letters he continues to get from a man (Ben Causway) who claims to be Antoinette's brother, claiming that her father slept with the female slaves, and he is one result. The marriage begins to disintegrate.

As I didn't read the novel and I am a huge fan of Nathaniel Parker, I didn't have the problems with this film that others did. Apparently the subtleties of the novel have been lost here. Though there is no sex in the book, the film is sexually charged.

Nathaniel Parker is about 31 here, very young, and a newlywed. If his new wife put up with him doing this film, you can bet they'll continue to stay married. Karina Lombard and Parker were nude quite a few times and in the throes of passion. They exhibited a lot of heat, and I thought the acting was quite good.

The scenery is gorgeous and the leads attractive. The film ends incorrectly -- the happenings shown did not take place until much later in the book Jane Eyre. Not sure how the novel ends.

I will echo what others said, if you read the novel, don't watch this. If you're a fan of Nathaniel Parker's or Karina Lombard's, run, don't walk, and rent it. Very sexy.

'Wide Sargasso Sea' is a film that combines a very loose film adaptation of Rhys's novel with sex scenes that are alternately hokey and hilarious (they never get it on nearly as prodigiously in the novel). That said, I *will* readily concede that the primary actors in the film did a good job. However, their abilities are wasted on a film that suffers from amateurish pacing (with the story advancing in disorienting fits and starts), inconsistent cinematographic style (occasionally stunning, sometimes questionable, such as the event early on with the parrot).

Anyone looking for a faithful adaptation of the novel is frankly out of luck and anyone wanting a true background on "Jane Eyre" would do well to read the far-superior book of the same name.

Cheers and good luck.

If you're looking for an entertaining story in your free time, then this is NOT the film for you. If you're looking for a cure for the blues, you have REALLY come to the wrong place!

It's not a bad movie, the atmosphere will draw you into another time, and you get a chance to see things from the perspective of the madwoman in "Jane Eyre", the first Mrs. Rochester. Things weren't as one-sided as Edward made them out to be.

For a time, you wonder which one is really going mad, the young Mr. Rochester or his Jamaican-born bride. Both are from two different worlds, and this is a case of never-the-twain-shall-meet. Had they never met, each would have had a different fate. (And perhaps Jane might have married that clergyman, after all.)

Not bad, but not for everyone.

I've heard so many great things about the novel Wide Sargasso Sea and I expected this movie to at least live halfway up to its literary counterpart. Within the first ten minutes of the movie, however, the ludicrousness of the storyline reared its proverbial ugly head.

First of all, the movie's treatment of Black Jamaicans reads like something out of a Jim Crow era film. They almost function like prop sets in the background and often have a sinister aura about them. Actually, they are the agents of evil in the film. It also doesn't help that the one "good" Black character engages in clichéd voodoo practices. This aspect of the film is downright nauseating.

Secondly, Mr. Rochester's character is diametrically different from the Rochester of the Jane Eyre novel. Of course, the film depicts his earlier years before he develops into who he is in the novel, but give me a break! I refuse to believe that Mr. Rochester is really so stupid and bumbling at any point in his life.

Thirdly, the sex scenes are positively eyeroll worthy. Deep breaths, sweat drenched skin, and tightly shut eye lids do not make a sex scene better. Geez, it was so amateur. It didn't even make me clutch my pearls.

Overall, the film is terrible. From the manner in which it develops, to its treatment of the Black characters and Mr. Rochester, it's all just bad. I'm upset that I wasted my time watching it. And now I think I'm going to feel offended for the rest of the night.

I think that there seem to be some confusion expressed in a number of the reviews of this and a subsequent version of Jean Rhys' most famous novel. Just for information:

1. Creole does not necessarily imply mixed race. Bertha (to use Rochester's name for her) was clearly white enough to appear white and indeed, like Jean Rhys herself, may have been entirely of European ancestry. The mixed race brother, Daniel, was black on his mother's side which has nothing to do with Bertha's mother being mostly/entirely French. He was angry and destructive because his father preferred the white daughter to him.

2. The Wide Sargosso Sea is a sort of prequel but it is also a re-imagining of the back story for Jane Eyre that is intended to take Bertha's character and expand on it with Rhys inability to ever fully reconcile herself to the differences between her origins and life in Europe.

3. While we think of the Caribbean as a dominantly black environment, the origins were Carib Indian and whites colonized the area before the introduction of African slaves. The racial undertone is a more modern view than Bronte likely had. She was trying to deal with the whole idea of foreignness/strangeness and the ultimate solution to the plight of Jane's situation, poor but of "gentle" birth.

4. Of the two filmed versions, the first makes the characters too physically attractive and really misses the novel's stress on the protagonists never meshing rather than loving and losing love.

5. One problem with the casting of Rochester in the first version is that the actor portraying Rochester is distractingly gorgeous and not sufficiently British (apart from his accent). In fact he looks like he rather fits in, in contrast to Bertha's uncle and the other European planters. Of course, the actress who portrays Bertha, even at the end, is so enticing that Rochester's loss of interest is inexplicable.

6. The first film seems to run out of time and rushes the end. Not enough is made of Rochester's anger at being manipulated, whether by voodoo, drugs or circumstances. Once he becomes his father's heir, the return to England should have led to something other than the conclusion. There is definitely insufficient deterioration in Bertha. Their stories are mirror images. He deteriorates and is miserable where she is able to live and she deteriorates where he is able to live.

7. The novels (both Jane Eyre and The Wide Sargosso Sea) have a great deal of narration which is lost in the earlier film and perhaps insufficient in the second. None of the films are substitutes for the books but all are interesting reimaginings.

8. In order to appreciate the Rhys novel, one should read about the author. The same is true of Jane Eyre and its author. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Finally, while not great, the films both aspire to be literary, which means a lot in an age when filmmakers think there is a need for horror/splatter movies and lots of people apparently agree so I for one say thank you for both versions of the Wide Sargosso Sea and all of the versions of Jane Eyre that offer relief from the current tripe.

Back when this movie came out, I read reviews which said how powerful and erotic it was. I finally found the video in a bargain bin and bought it. I found the movie to be a real mismash, with many elements that weren't fully explained. The scenery was wonderful, and one or two of the characters put in good performances, but the two leads were wooden throughout. I was unable to feel empathy for either character. The much touted erotic scenes were not developed, and lacked much enthusiasm. I haven't read Jane Eyre, and maybe this movie tries to explain a few things which happen in that book, but on the whole it seemed contrived, and lacked any real passion. I was disappointed, and certainly won't be keeping my copy of the video. It's going into the trash.

This disc contains both the R and NC-17 rated versions and checking the running times, that latter is only about 15 seconds longer, hardly a justification for putting both on the same disc, especially since it's all fairly tame nowadays as a sex film. Anyway, this movie is a filming of a novel that sought rather ambitiously to serve as a prequel to Jane Eyre, telling its story from the viewpoint of Mr. Rochester's mad first wife and filling in how she wound up as she did. A large part of the blame falls to Rochester himself, who is revealed as the story plays out, to be arrogant, cold and philandering, a poor match for the sensual, emotionally needy wife. She is not helped by England's laws of inheritance and property ownership, which put all of her inherited wealth into his name after marriage. He marries her for her wealth and yet she becomes first his economic then literal prisoner as her latent emotional instability manifests. The cinematography is pretty decent, accurately evoking the dangers Europeans faced in tropical climates a few centuries back, and contrasting that with the bleakness of life in drafty old English houses on the snowy moors of the Brontes. However, the film works best as an autopsy of a doomed relationship; as a tropical hothouse erotic thriller it barely works and then only on a level with Red Shoe Diaries or something like that.

No one sets out to make a bad movie, but I think this film had to have fallen short of what the filmmakers intended. One sign that they felt the script wasn't delivering the punch needed was the number of times the stars shed their clothes.

It's a pretty complex plot, and is the prelude to the story of "Jane Eyre". Set in the 1830's, it involves two generations of women living on a plantation in Jamaica. Antoinette Cosway (Karina Lombard), like her mother before her, marries an English gentleman; in her case this is Edward Rochester (Nathaniel Parker). She has been given the estate on the proviso that she marry an Englishman to manage it. For a while, Edward and Antoinette are happy, and can't leave each other alone, having many a sweaty encounter in the candlelit bedroom.

Then everything starts to unravel; the madness that runs in Antoinette's family begins to overwhelm her, and there is trouble with the servants. Edward has another hot and sweaty encounter in the bedroom, but this time it's with one of the servant girls. Edward heads off to England and it all ends in tears, flames and madness.

The over-the-top quality of the whole thing does give the film a certain energy, and there is frisson in naked trysting to the beat of voodoo drums, but there is a lot in the film that just doesn't gel.

Narration can be a lazy way to tell a story in movies. Although it has worked beautifully in some films, it seems laboured and overly literate in this one. The script problems are not helped by the awkwardness of the lead actors.

The film includes real locations in England and Jamaica but are shot in a very straightforward and unimaginative way. The actors and extras look as though they are simply dressed up - they don't inhabit the era at all.

Even the real sailing ships sit statically in calm waters, giving little sense of having crossed vast distances. This is a film that needed a touch of art directorial inspiration.

In fact, old studio films such as "Green Dolphin Street" or "Son of Fury", shot for the most part on the sound stage, with their sets teaming with extras and ships under full sail, caught the romance of exotic locales far better.

One element that really works is Stewart Copeland's score. I was surprised to hear motifs and themes that I was familiar with from his powerful score for "Rapa Nui", composed a year later. They are more embryonic here, but contain the same blend of exotic elements with atmospheric and thematic chords.

While not unwatchable by any means, the film has more than a few problems to overcome, not the least being an actress out of her depth, and little feeling for time and place.

It's 1844 Jamaica. Annette (Rachel Ward) is trying save her rundown family plantation after the emancipation of the slaves. Christophene is the only slave who stayed loyal. Annette has daughter Antoinette and drunkard husband Daniel Cosway. She marries Englishman Paul Mason (Michael York) who threatens to bring in coolies to replace the workers. With old hatred, the former slaves burn the mansion down. Annette goes mad and Paul Mason goes back to England. Some years later, Mason arranges Antoinette (Karina Lombard) to marry Edward Rochester (Nathaniel Parker) and they take over his island property.

Karina Lombard is undoubtedly a beautiful woman. Her flat accent can either be exotic or put me to sleep. This time, she puts me to sleep. Nathaniel Parker isn't terribly charismatic either. This is a luscious overwrought melodramatic softcore porn movie. The harder it tries, the less compelling it is. It's boring and slower than molasses.

I think reading the book helps the viewer appreciate the movie. The movie is a pretty faithful adaptation to the novel. The movie tells the story of the crazy wife in the attic in Jane Eyre. Not only does it tell her story, but it gives an entirely believable explanation for her insanity. Not only is the scenery beautiful, but the story is as well. Set in Jamaica during colonial times, we see a young woman grow up in a unique society. It is easy to sympathize with the multi-layered characters. Karina Lombard is a great choice to play Antoinette. There isn't that much to the story, at least not in the way of events. The story is deep, though. It's definitely worth a watch, and if you can spare an afternoon, read the book- it's very short.

"Wide Sargasso Sea" is a very elegant, sexy, melodrama about the meaning of love. Young Creole girl Antoinette Conway is married to Englishman Edward Rochester, and the two move to her coastal home in Jamaica. Seeds of doubt are placed in Edward's mind by servants a mysterious man sending letters about Antoinette's mother, who went insane, and Edward fears that Antoinette, like her mother, will go mad. He turns a cold shoulder towards her, and unknowingly destroys his wife. Kinda slow, but worth it, it makes you think and has the feel of a gothic potboiler.

"Wide Sargasso Sea" is Unrated for graphic sexuality and nudity.

NOTE: "Wide Sargasso Sea" is available in R-Rated and Unrated versions. The R-Rated version trims out two minutes of sex scenes, while the Unrated versions keeps them in.

Be prepared for some heat, sexual and otherwise, with "Wide Sargasso Sea." But nothing can prepare you for the pulsing, haunting, hypnotic main-theme of the soundtrack. "Mt. Underwater" is the official title of this piece, composed by Stewart Copeland, which runs while the Sargasso seaweed-fronds writhe in the waves, seen from underwater, right from the opening credits. Only the beginning; so much more follows: an incredible history. There's the ending of slavery and its aftermath on the island. Themes of loyalty, betrayal, madness, and even love, especially love, are interwoven masterfully. The majestic presence of the island of Jamaica remains in the mind's eye long after the end, too. The heart of the tale runs quite close to such films as the triple Oscar-winning "The Piano" (1993) or "Sirens" (1994). And, yes, there are many moments, even sustained ones, where characters are nude. But beautifully so! The spirit of each main character appears nude as well, by the film's end. The lovers, Edward and Antoinette -- what fiery and troubled spirits they are -- or become. Karina Lombard's beauty (as Antoinette) runs all through here, but women will get quite a few opportunities to view Edward (played by Nathaniel Parker). Ultimately, Lombard's ability to show Antoinette's abiding spirit wins out; the strength and truth of her love -- but more than that -- of her life-spirit, her connectedness to the culture she was born into -- these qualities remain unforgettable. Initially, I wanted to describe this film as the most sensuous, most passionate, I'd ever seen. Then I remembered Italian director Lina Wertmuller's "Swept Away" -- one of the greatest films ever; and most films suffer by comparison. But "Wide Sargasso Sea," in Lombard's portrayal of Antoinette, overmatches "Swept Away" for the strength of its lead female character. Without this sort of beauty, the appeal of even the most perfectly-formed naked flesh means nothing. I'm not saying "Wide Sargasso Sea" is the better film. No. Because the richness of actor Giancarlo Giannini's performance in the lead role of "Swept Away" secures its place as an international classic. Both stories originated with women writers: Jean Rhys, in the novel of the same title for "Sargasso" (many years before the film was made). "Swept Away" has the unmatched genius of Wertmuller as both director and writer. I've read Rhys' novel, by the way -- you can't blame the director or the film's scriptwriters for the passion and sensuality portrayed onscreen in "Wide Sargasso Sea." It amazed me how closely the screenplay matched the original text in terms of the dialog. Yes, the passion and nudity aren't so explicitly described in the novel -- but that doesn't mean they aren't felt and imagined all the more powerfully by the reader. It's a yin/yang thing. Women may prefer the sensuality of words to images, as a rule; men generally respond most immediately to images. Make a novel into a film and -- voila, the visual will come to the fore, in fact, must do so.

Based on Jean Rhys' 1966 novel, "Wide Sargasso Sea" is the story of Antoinette Cosway, who shows up in Charlotte Bronte's classic 1847 novel "Jane Eyre" as Rochester's first wife Bertha Mason - confused? Rhys has taken some liberties with timelines, and some names and relationships have been changed for no apparent reason. Quibbles aside, this movie stands on its own. Gorgeous Jamaican scenery, lush erotic scenes (I think I saw the uncut version) that perfectly convey Rochester and Antoinette's passion, but a sense of foreboding (for those familiar with the Bronte book, anyway). The ending is a bit abrupt, and seems rushed after the leisurely pace of the rest of the film.

Having just read Rhys' novel, I was delighted at how much of its dialogue and narrative was so faithfully adapted, and praise the screenwriters for making sense out of a rather confusing book - it jumps around in time, and is narrated by Antoinette and Rochester in turn. The movie makes the story much more clear. Excellent performances from KARINA LOMBARD(is that her real accent?) as Antoinette, NATHANIEL PARKER as Rochester, and CLAUDIA ROBINSON as Christophine (a much more sympathetic character than she appears in the book). Was also impressed with the cameos from MICHAEL YORK, RACHEL WARD and MARTINE BESWICKE.

While this film has garnered some poor user reviews, it impresses me. The lush island scenery, the rhythms of West Indies life, and the steamy and stormy personal interactions create an atmosphere both sensual and sensuous. I think all the main actors portray Rhys's characters well: Rochester as masterful yet in over his head; Antoinette as passionate but mercurial; the servant girl Amelie as wide-eyed and irresistible; and especially the spooky Christophine as intensely self-possessed and a formidable defender of those she holds dear.

On DVD, this film can be watched in its NC-17 form or one that was edited down to a softer R rating. I watched the NC-17 version and found it surprisingly tame. There is occasional female nudity (mainly by Antoinette) and a bit of male frontal nudity (by Rochester), but the sex is not strikingly graphic. Meanwhile, the only real violence affects some animals — images that will disturb some viewers but leave others unfazed.

Running just 1 hour 38 minutes, the film skips over some less important parts of the plot. Still, it captures the spirit of this intricate tale of the seismic ruptures that can occur when societies or social strata collide. I can see how it would be unpopular among viewers who are unfamiliar with, or dislike, the book; as a depiction of Rhys's vision, though, I find it gratifyingly true.

This movie takes a great, rich, wonderful novel and reduces it to the level of near soft porn. So much time is spent on silly, pointless nude scenes that the plot has to be severely condensed. Major plot points seem to happen suddenly, without context or explanation and characters are poorly developed And the nude scenes aren't even very good, they were just cheesy - after the second or third time Rochester and Antoinette stripped, I was laughing out loud.

The film has some great Jamaican locations, but that's about the only good thing I can say for it.

I enjoyed watching this film. The main actress of the movie is hot.

She is sexually attractive and gorgeous. She is one of the most beautiful women I saw.

I wish I will afford to buy a copy of this fascinating movie.

Jean Rhys has taken seven years to finish the novel, on which the movie is supposed to be based on. However, this rated film seems to be only concentrating on the sexual relationship between Rochester and Antoinette, as well as Sandi and Antoinette. The relationship with Sandi is deliberately kept as question marks for readers to ponder upon in the novel, but here in the movie it is explicitly interpreted and the sympathy created by Rhys is lost. But the movie is nevertheless a representation of colors in the Caribbeans--red, purple, blue and green--the exotic side of life that has repeled Rochester.