Obsession comes in many flavors, and exists for a variety of reasons; for some it may be nothing more than a compulsive disorder, but for others it may be an avenue of survival. Lack of nurturing, combined with an inability to negotiate even the simplest necessities of daily life or the basic social requirements, may compel even a genius to enthusiastically embrace that which provides a personal comfort zone. And in extreme cases, the object of that satisfaction may become a manifested obsession, driving that individual on until what began as a means of survival becomes the very impetus of his undoing, and as we discover in `The Luzhin Defence,' directed by Marleen Gorris, a high level of intelligence will not insure a satisfactory resolution to the problem, and in fact, may actually exacerbate the situation. Obsession, it seems, has no prejudice or preference; moreover, it gives no quarter.

At an Italian resort in the 1920's, Alexander Luzhin (John Turturro) is one of many who have gathered there for a chess tournament, the winner of which will be the World Champion. Luzhin is a Master of the game, but he is vulnerable in that chess has long since ceased to be a game to him; rather, it is his obsession, that one thing discovered in childhood that saw him though his total ineptness in seemingly all areas of life, and enabled him to cope with the subtle disenfranchisements of his immediate family. So Luzhin is a genius with an Achilles heel, a flaw which perhaps only one other person knows about and understands, and furthermore realizes can be exploited for his own personal gain at this very tournament. That man is Valentinov (Stuart Wilson), Luzhin's former mentor, who after an absence of some years has suddenly reappeared and made himself known to Luzhin.

Valentinov is an unwelcomed, disconcerting presence to Luzhin, and once again life threatens to overwhelm him. Not only is he about to face a formidable opponent in the tournament, Turati (Fabio Sartor), against whom in a previous match he emerged with a draw after fourteen hours, but he is also attempting to resolve a new element in his life-- his feelings for a young woman he's just met at the resort, Natalia (Emily Watson). And, genius though he may be, dark clouds are gathering above him that just may push Luzhin even deeper into the obsession that has been the saving grace, as well the curse, of his entire life.

To tell Luzhin's story, Gorris effectively uses flashbacks to gradually reveal the elements of his childhood that very quickly led to his obsession with chess. And as his background is established, it affords the insights that allow the audience to more fully understand who Luzhin is and how he got to this point in his life. For the scenes of his childhood, Gorris textures them with an appropriately dark atmosphere and a subtle sense of foreboding that carries on into, and underlies, the present, more pastoral setting of the resort. The transitions through which she weaves the past together with the present are nicely handled, and with the pace Gorris sets it makes for a riveting, yet unrushed presentation that works extremely well. She also underplays the menace produced by the presence of Valentinov, concentrating on the drama rather than the suspense, which ultimately serves to heighten the overall impact of the film, making Luzhin's tragedy all the more believable and unsettling.

The single element that makes this film so memorable, however, is the affecting performance of John Turturro. For this film to work, Luzhin must be absolutely believable; one false or feigned moment would be disastrous, as it would take the viewer out of the story immediately. It doesn't happen, however, and the film does work, because the Luzhin Turturro creates is impeccably honest and true-to-life. He captures Luzhin's genius, as well as his inadequacies, and presents his character in terms that are exceptionally telling and very real. It's a performance equal to, if not surpassing, Geoffrey Rush's portrayal of David Helfgott in `Shine.' And when you compare his work here with other characters he's created, from Sid Lidz in `Unstrung Heroes' to Pete in `O Brother Where Art Thou?' to Al Fountain in `Box of Moonlight,' you realize what an incredible range Turturro has as an actor, and what a remarkable artist he truly is.

As Natalia, Emily Watson is excellent, as well, turning in a fairly reserved performance through which she develops and presents her character quite nicely. Though she has to be somewhat outgoing to relate to Luzhin, Watson manages to do it in an introspective way that is entirely effective. Most importantly, because of the detail she brings to her performance, it makes her accelerated relationship with Luzhin believable and lends total credibility to the story. You have but to look into Watson's eyes to know that the feelings she's conveying are real. It's a terrific bit of work from a talented and gifted actor.

The supporting cast includes Geraldine James (Vera), Christopher Thompson (Stassard), Peter Blythe (Ilya), Orla Brady (Anna), Mark Tandy (Luzhin's Father), Kelly Hunter (Luzhin's Mother), Alexander Hunting (Young Luzhin) and Luigi Petrucci (Santucci). Well crafted and delivered, `The Luzhin Defence' is an emotionally involving film, presented with a restrained compassion that evokes a sense of sorrow and perhaps a reflection upon man's inhumanity to man. We don't need a movie, of course, to tell us that there is cruelty in the world; but we are well served by the medium of the cinema when it reminds us of something we should never forget, inasmuch as we all have the ability to effect positive change, and to make a difference in the lives of those around us. I rate this one 9/10.

This movie is absolutely beautiful to watch, with its magnificent old-world settings through which Luzhin, the obsessed chess grandmaster, moves in oblivious cerebration. Emily Watson is excellent as the beautiful young woman who tries to stay Luzhin's descent into insanity, and John Turturro does his best with Luzhin himself.

But I don't think Vladimir Nabokov would've liked this movie much. For one thing, the pop-psychologizing the screenplay inflicts on Luzhin blurs and ultimately ruins the purity of his madness. And there is the matter of Luzhin's name. Throughout the novel, for reasons that become clear as you read it, he is known only as "Luzhin," even to his wife, until, on the very last page, we learn his name and patronymic, "Aleksandr Ivanovich." But in the movie, everyone calls him Aleksandr Ivanovich; his wife even calls him "Sascha." Huge mistake.

Worst of all, the happy/sappy ending, with its preposterous posthumous victory for Luzhin, is so far removed from the tragedy of Nabokov's novel that it's actually offensive. I assume Nabokov's ending was deemed too stark and horrifying.

The brilliant, deep psychological novel was reduced to a melodrama. What exactly the film writers were thinking? That the audience is mentally and emotionally handicapped? Or they themselves didn't understand anything from the novel? Or was it just easier to take the novel's title and characters names, add a bunch of cliches and put together a "Shine"-like "intellectual" melodrama? Judging by the number of positive responses here they succeeded. There is only one problem: the film has nothing to do with the novel. Indeed, how would they make a commercially successful movie about a fat unattractive man who marries a dull woman who doesn't understand him? Yeah, let's turn the loser into a winner, even after the death, substitute the dull wife for an understanding fiancée, throw in an antagonist, add costumes, remove thoughts and we have an "amazing, definitely worth seeing" movie. Who cares about being faithful to Nabokov -- he's dead.

Either the film writers are brain-dead or they think that the audience is. Yes, people seem to like pseudo-intellectual films based on the novels they never read. But exploiting this weakness is a shame!

John Turturro, Emily Watson, Geraldine James, Stuart Wilson; directed by Marleen Gorris, loosely based on the novel by Vladimir Nabokov The Luzhin Defence is set in nineteen-twenties Italy's lake district where the world championships of Chess are being staged. Our hero Luzhin (Turturro) is a main contender for the title and recognized as one of the greatest chess minds of the era. He is utterly consumed by game, and has utterly devoted his life to the contest since a young age. It has been both obsession and addiction for the man, as it is both all he knows and what gives his life meaning. While competing in the championships, he meets Natalia (Watson), a wealthy socialite. Showing his peculiarity, he immediately asks her to marry him, sight unseen. Intrigued by his straight forward manner, she does not immediately dismiss him.

This is due to the fact that she is here for her mother to choose a suitor for her, and Luzhin's eccentricity is seen by her as a welcome change. Her mother (James) is completely taken aback by such an idea, and wants her daughter to marry someone of similar prestige and means. All of this transpires while his old chess teacher (Wilson) tutors his chief rival, wanting nothing more than to see Luzhin humiliated.

Being a chess movie, it could immediately be set aside as dull and unwatchable, being as Chess is not exactly a spectator sport.

However, this movie is much less about chess and much more about the people surrounding the game; making it a piece about the interactions of personalities and not pieces. The movie does find a parallel however, as it is shown like a chess match between two sides, the present and the past (shown through flashbacks), with one side prevailing at the end. This storytelling choice works surprisingly well, as we gain much insight as to why Luzhin is the way he is, and how he views the world.

The movie begins with a telling piece of cinematography, as the audience is given the perspective of a train conductor emerging from a tunnel. This is especially significant when viewed in the sense of Luzhin's later mental breakdown, and can be seen as meaning the same thing. This scene is then segued into the first flashback, giving us a pattern that can be seen in the rest of the film. Other notable scenes include the meeting of Natlalia and Alexander at a tennis court, and later when he is thinking to himself in their bedroom, "There is a pattern emerging!" cries the eccentric chess genius Alexander Luzhin. "I must keep track--every second!" To which Natalia, whom he loves can only reply, "It sounds like such a lonely battle.' This all encompassing effect of chess on him can also be seen earlier in the film, as he is being driven by one of his old chess teachers chauffeurs into the middle of the countryside, is dropped off there, and does not notice. The end adds character to the film without being overly dramatic, but is a departure from the finish of the novel, however it is believable and adds to the sense that Luzhin does not really control himself, or know how.

Overall an enjoying piece of film, more about camera angles and people then chess. After the first half, the films pace drastically speeds up, and the plot becomes much more intriguing. Can best be compared to other independent films of its ilk, yet also suffices quite well as a period piece. Probably not a buy, but a worthy rental for an evening at home.

Part of the enjoyment that I took from this film stemmed from the fact that I knew nothing more about it than that it starred John Turturro and Emily Watson (2 reasons enough to watch), was a period piece and involved chess. Everything that evolved before me was completely unexpected. I shan't, therefore, give away much more. Suffice to say that Turturro is magnificent as an eccentric, obsessive and deeply vulnerable chess genius and Em matches him step for step as the strong-minded woman who is drawn to him. It's about love and obsession, rather than the venerated board game and after drawing me in gradually over the first half hour, became totally compelling. And I defy anyone to second-guess the ending.

Walking home after the film, I was humming the familiar waltz music that Natalia and Alexandre were dancing to. I've heard that before - where? Ah, from Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" (track 2), 'got it just as I arrived at the door. It's "Waltz No. 2 from Jazz Suite No. 2" composed by Dimitri Shostakovich, performed here by The City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra. Yes, I went and picked up the soundtrack from Tower's. What a treat! The film score by Alexandre Desplat was fulfilling - there are fifteen tracks besides two tracks of the delightful waltz. It's not often these days we get a soundtrack entirely dedicated to a comprehensive film score. Reminds me of favorite scores by Maurice Jarre, Ennio Morricone (beginning notes of track 6 have traces of "Nuovo cinema Paradiso"), Georges Delerue, and John Barry. There are subtle nuances of strains and notes from the strings, celeste, piano, and harp.

Emily Watson and John Turturro delivered a credibly consuming paired performance. The love story, their intimate connection, is very much between Alexandre and Natalia - his childlike yet tormenting inner world, and her generous and bold understanding of him - a relationship alone to them both. Director Marleen Gorris of "Antonia's Line" (1996 Academy Award's Best Foreign Language Film from the Netherlands) gave us a quietly sensitive film - not without its unsettling human conflicts, intrigues, obsessions, family strives, lovingness and respect. The front-end subject is the mind-game and mathematical logic of chess. Beneath it can be a mild tearjerker of a drama set in the late 1920's. Cinematography captures the serene beauty of Lake Como in northern Italy near the Swiss border.

I highly recommend the soundtrack if you don't feel like going to the movies. Alexandre Desplat's lyrical film score of "The Luzhin Defence" is complete.

Turturro is great as chess savant Alexander Luzhin. Emily Watson is cute, and does a fine job, but I cannot see the "greatness" in her acting that some claim.

SPOILERS - This is fiction, but done as a biography. Luzhin from an early age is unusual, and when he finds chess (in a series of flashbacks) he becomes a progidy very quickly. The film is set in Northern Italy, Lake Como area, for a world championship chess tournament. Luzhin meets Watson there, proposes to her the second day without even knowing her name. Intrigued, and bored with the "normal" types, she considers his offer and eventually says "yes."

Luzhin's old mentor is jealous and out to sabotague his quest for the title. He works on his mind. Meanwhile, the first of the title games ends on the 43rd move, Luzhin playing black, all night in his mind he works on a suitable "defense." He gets it, writes it down, but becomes ill from fatigue. After hospitalization, better, he promises Watson he will never play chess again, for his health. But he sees a vision and tries to fly out of his upper story room, falling to his death.

Watson finds the paper with the "Luzhin defence" written on it, resumes the match, plays it out and defeats the opponent, after Luzhin had died.

This is fiction. In real life, after the adjournment with few pieces left on the board, any number of experts would have analyzed the positions and potential moves, and Watson, a non-chess person, could not have won the game in 3 or 4 moves. Still, it is a well-done story. I highly recommend it for serious film fans.

Alexandr "Sascha" Luzhin (John Turturro) is a former leading chess player attempting a comeback at an Italy-hosted tournament. His brilliance is unquestioned but his obsession with chess has stunted his growth in all other aspects of his life. Natalia (Emily Watson) is a beautiful heiress who has come to the same resort with her mother, Vera (Geraldine James) to scope out possible marriage partners. Vera leans toward a handsome count but, astonishingly, Natalia is more fascinated by Sascha, whom she met on a walk. Sascha, too, is taken with Natalia and proposes marriage at their second meeting. But, with the concentration that Sascha must give to the chess matches and, with other happenings in his past still causing problems, will he win the heart of Natalia? Oh, and can he become the chess champion, also? This is a lovely film, based on a novel by Nabokov. The acting is amazing, with Watson very fine as the beautiful little rich girl and Turturro utter perfection as the shy, awkward chess enthusiast. James gives quite a nice turn as the overbearing mother and the other cast members are wonderful as well. As for the look of the film, it could not be better. The scenery is of the put-your-eye-out variety, the vintage costumes are gorgeous and the cinematography is deserving of much applause. Yes, the story is unusual and told with the use of flashbacks, at times, making it a film not everyone will appreciate. Then, too, the ending is bittersweet. However, if you love romance, period pieces, great acting, knockout scenery, or the fine art of motion picture creation, don't miss this one. You will be defenseless in resisting its multitude of charms.

'The Luzhin Defence' is a movie worthy of anyone's time. it is a brooding, intense film, and kept my attention the entire time. John Turturro is absolutely stunning in his portrayal of a tender, eccentric chess Grandmaster, and Emily Watson is spell-binding as the gentle but rebellious daughter of a highly respected Russian family. The chemistry between Watson and Turturro on screen is obvious from the moment their characters meet in the story. All in all, this movie is one of the best in-depth looks at the life of a chess Grandmaster, and Turturro and Watson add a whole non-mainstream, non-cliche feel to the film. Most people will come out of the theater thinking, and feeling somewhat touched by this brilliant look at the most unlikely of love stories.

'The Luzhin Defence' is a good film with fine central performances, but too much of the novel and not enough of the filmmaker's craft shines through. It felt through most of the film that the characters just helped to push the narrative along. Marlene Gorris could perhaps have examined the psyche of Luzhin, rather than depicting him as a tortured innocent victim torn apart by the cruel motives of others.

Adapting literature for the screen is clearly a difficult task, especially a novel written in the early 20th century. This film does not go deeply enough into the relationship between Luzhin and Natalia. Natalia's rift with her mother comes across a churlish disagreement by the mother rather than a dramatic flashpoint in the film. I felt that I was put through Luzhin's torment and eventual tragic end, without being given the pleasure of having his unusual and complex personality unravelled. However, this was a moving and enjoyable film but certainly not a great one.

Emily Watson's Natalia is absolutely the most loving and romantic lead character I have ever seen on a screen. She is the queen of this film beyond all doubt. Or, is she transmuted to the king? The internecine weaving of the chess games and the families' struggles for control, power, and victory is stunning. Just as the chess masters in the film do, the director is playing many simultaneous games with our mind at once, but all weave into either major or minor patterns. The period, the costumes, and imagery of early 20th century Italy's lake district is captured magnificently. Not a single square of space is wasted.

So many brilliant scenes abound, I cannot recount them all. I recommend budgeting enough time to watch this movie twice, possibly a week apart, because you can't possibly capture all the poetry within a 64-square yet multi-dimensional framework in one setting.

I did not read Nabakov's book, but to try an analogy of my own, what I am reading reminds of me of another romantically triumphant poetry-as-game movie, Barry Levinson's The Natural. It totally jettisoned the downbeat ending of Bernard Malamud's fatalistic book in favor of a romantic impressionism that was uniquely American. Well, the director did that one better by seamlessly meshing Russian and Italian morals and mores as a backdrop to enlightenment. The true story here is that games are zero-sum; there is a winner and a loser, unless both contestants draw. But, in life, and especially in the context of our immortal souls, we are only limited by those constraints and life's conventions to the extent we let others break our spirit.

Pure love, as personified by Emily Watson's Natalia, can transcend and allow all of us to be enhanced by its gifts simultaneously. Only the barriers erected by our fears can cut us off from it.

This is a magnificent movie (10/10).

A movie of outstanding brilliance and a poignant and unusual love story, the Luzhin Defence charts the intense attraction between an eccentric genius and a woman of beauty, depth and character.

It gives John Turturro what is probably his finest role to date (thank goodness they didn't give it to Ralph Fiennes, who would have murdered it.) Similarly, Emily Watson shows the wealth of her experience (from her outstanding background on the stage). To reach the tortured chess master (Turturro) her character has to display intelligence as well as a woman's love. Watson does not portray beauty-pageant sexuality, but she brings to her parts a self-awareness that is alluring.

In a chance meeting between Natalia (Watson) and Luzhin, she casually stops him from losing a chess piece that has fallen through a hole in his clothing - a specially crafted piece that, we realize later in the film, has come to symbolize his hopes and aspirations. Later, as their love affair develops, she subtly likens dancing to chess (Luzhin has learnt to dance but never with a partner); she encourages him to lead her with "bold, brilliant moves" and in doing so enables him to relax sufficiently to later play at his best (and also realize himself as her lover).

This is a story of a woman who inspires a man to his greatest achievement and, in so doing finds her own deepest fulfillment, emotionally and intellectually (Or so we are led to believe - certainly, within the time frame, Natalia is something of a liberated woman rather than someone who grooms herself to be a stereotypical wife and mother).

The Italian sets are stunning. The complexity of the characters and the skill with which the dialogue unfolds them is a delight to the intelligent movie-goer, yet the film is accessible enough to make it a popular mainstream hit, and most deservedly so. Chess is merely the photogenic backdrop for developing an emotional and emotive movie, although the game is treated with enough respect to almost convince a chess-player that the characters existed. Although a tragedy of remarkable heights by a classic author, the final denouement is nevertheless surprisingly uplifting.

Spoilers herein.

Nabokov is one of the three masters of self-referential narrative. Some of his books are life-altering. This is one of his more accessible ventures into the domain of mad narrative reflected in random reality. He uses the Carroll-esque notion of order from chess as the deistic attractor. The story captures the madness of mathematical inspiration that eludes so many stories of this type (like the cartoonish `Will Hunting').

Greenaway could have worked with this: the obsessive notes, the `prayerful' sense of order and counting, the constant projection into the future, the solitary dancing, the love by indirection (and the mirrored puppeteering of the rejected surrogate father), the soft moves.

Someone else (Kubric?) could have worked with the notions of Russians in fascist Como and the reflection of those forces in the competing styles in the games of the champions. The game for the soul of the world (and the win by forfeit of the forces of suave repression).

Turturro is capable of handling this. His career is already remarkable and he is near the top of my list of actors worth collaborating with as a viewer. He _could_ have handled this if there were a shred of Nabokov in this film. Alas, a Merchant-Ivory ordinariness dominates as a chaotic attractor for weak filmmakers.

Watson has already overplayed the power of her raw commitment to her characters and now has to exercise simple craft. She may be up to it in the Nabokov vision, since the lover is an accidental artifact of random life. But in this redaction, she is a fairly complex creature, motivated by more than human drivers of the story. But no one involved seems to know who she was, so she just draws on her Waves, Ashes and Cradle characters: victims, not goddesses.

spoilers







This is a film that had the opportunity to be great - at least in a minor way- but someone forgot to bring nerve and tension to the script-meetings.

Luzhin is a boy with an uncanny ability to kick anyones keister whenever there is a chessboard handy. For this he isnt loved, but used instead as a tool by people who has, lets say, an ambiguous relationship towards his talent. Cold loneliness arrives as soon as Failure turns its head toward the high-strung chessplayer. Dropped off into the street like a defenseless kitten by his mentor, Luzhin is left to his own devices. He certainly is good but not winner-material, the cruel, jealous mentor have determined. Turturro is always interesting to watch, as he usually gives life and depth to the character- but alas, he does not bring his magic to the party this time. Everything about this movie seems rushed, and his portrayal of the great lonely genius does not ring true. Instead of subtlety, there is mannerisms, and instead of the chores of a chessmaster, we are given an incredulous love-story. And as Turturro acts out his bumbling fool routine: enter love interest Watson - a rich gal on holiday with Mother, for whom the world is filled with up and coming young fellas, perfect matches all for her daughters hand in marriage. The two, of course, fall in love - and we are left wondering "Why?"

The scenes themselves seem to be sadly detached from one another. Its as if director Gorris uses every angle in the book to show off her ability, which is uncalled for most of the times. Sadly, its downright bad in some scenes, as being prominently displayed in the scene in which Luzhin plays the Game of A Lifetime, with the camera shooting him from a distorted, nervous angle, invariably bringing an alien, overly dramatic feeling to the story which distracts the viewer, as well as when Gorris cuts between the two lovers doing it, and the chessplayers downstairs in their head to head-battle for glory. Or when Luzhins cigarette-intake increases dramatically as soon as he believes himself to be a Winner. These things seem to merely be tricks, pulled from the sleeves. The subtleties are left to their own devices here, letting a strange combination of being both rushed and over-ambitious replace any true feeling that could have come out of this interesting story. There is not one bad actor among them, and yet the story fails miserably. Nabokovs books usually works on many different levels, and that might be what gives this movie its limp. For chessplayers, it is fun to recognize Capablanca in Luzhins nr 1 opponent, as well as Alekhine, Rubinstein and Morphy in Luzhin himself. As for the end, well....Who didnt see that one coming ? Its apparently not the ending of the book, and one might see why. The true weakness is revealed in the final chessbattle, when Luzhins genius are supposed to shine through. I dare anyone with some knowledge of the game to pause the movie and figure out the outcome when the chessboard is in the shot. It should take a few seconds to see whats to come, or at least no more than a minute, for sure. If you are into chess, this is not for you. If you like tv-movies, with nice sceneries, and old-fashioned clothes and values, then by all means see it.

The primary aspect of this film which most people miss is that Luhzin lives his life as a chess game. So many people have seen this film and just don't get it, and I don't understand why. While watching this film I was taken on a private journey which floored me. I will try to explain this without any spoilers, but be forewarned, I do talk about things that happen in the movie.

**** Possible Spoilers **** Be Forewarned!****

His is a life of "large moves" versus "small moves". He chooses Natalia to be his Queen, and he and she behave as his Aunt first described the King and Queen and their moves when she introduced him to chess as a boy. Listen closely to that description.

When someone asks him a question, he flashbacks to the past as if reviewing past moves. (The flashbacks are beautifully lit, by the way.) The flashbacks are quite interesting as well, for they give not only his point of view as a child, but the point of view of the other character as well. It's stunning.

Various characters become either his helpers or his enemies, pawns, bishops and knights, their actions enlightening you as to who's side they are on. Even their placement in a scene is pivotal to understanding what is going on. Beautifully done.

I will not comment more on what happens to the character of Luhzin, but I hope that this will illuminate what is actually happening at the end.

This film is constantly working on many levels, which is why I endorse it. It was a treat and a joy to watch.

If you like this film I would recommend a film called Fresh. The only way that these films are similar is the use of chess and the characters being treated as pieces.

It was riveting the first time and equally so the second time. I couldn't stand to miss one word. I guess I was hooked on it. It dwarfs A Beautiful Mind; I don't know how you rated that one. The movie leaves you excited about being obsessed with anything you really love. I think it was the story that grabbed me, not whatever failings someone is guessing the film has. The beauty of loving Sasha, someone who is NOT off the yuppie assembly line. However, the good-heartedness of the yuppie (the mother's choice). The good-heartedness of Sash's opponent. The evil of only one bad apple. Its a beautiful world that must exist outside of reality. Certainly outside the borders of my country. It is what movies do...make us dream and wish it could be true.

The movie is beautifully photographed, costumed, acted and directed--so why was this such a let down to see?

Granted, Nabakov's book is very cerebral and driven by the inner turmoil of Luzhin's mind. Translating such mental dynamism to a movie would be very difficult. Alternately, the approach taken by the film seems like it could have worked on its own level, and one has to wonder why it was allowed to fail. My guess is that there was pressure to cut this movie down to a shorter length, perhaps figuring that audiences could only take so much of the tortured main character's wailings. There are numerous instances of poorly done cuts (not in keeping with the rest of the film) where scenes look as if they were chopped short in mid-stride, as if to get to the end faster. I don't mean to be flip here either, but there are such significant gaps in character development that one has to imagine that the released film is not what the directors and writers had in mind. As a result, we never appreciate fully either the nature of Luzhin's inner torment, or the motivations of the villainous Valentinov (who is just so cruel that his motivations demand some fleshing out).

The sentimental ending (which predictably is not based on anything in Nabakov's novel) fits in awkwardly with the rest of the film, though it does at least fit. Considering the movie's terse treatment of its characters, the more pointed ending supplied by Nabakov would have come off as unsatisfying and hollow.

This is clearly a movie made by intelligent people with a sense for setting and costume, music and the right cast for the parts, interesting camera work and a fine ability to move back and forth in time and place without confusing us.

The cast is just right - Turturro is playing a part quite similar to others he's played - the wildly eccentric intellectual misfit. (Think of "The $64,000 Question").

The lovely Geraldine James (most famous for the series, Jewel in the Crown - though I later saw her on stage as a wonderful Portia with Dustin Hoffman in The Merchant of Venice) virtually switches parts with her mother's character in Jewel in the Crown - archly conventional, upset at her daughter's unconventionality. (James had played that unconventional sweet hearted daughter in Jewel).

Watson again (as in Breaking the Waves) plays a woman willing to sacrifice herself to the love she believes she has found.

The problem I have is that the love story seems implausible. I suppose we need to see some flashbacks to Watson's character's past (not merely the reference by her father to her past) to understand why she would fall for this unprepossessing man. E.g., she seems to greatly enjoy the company of the charming handsome Frenchman who seems a far more likely candidate for her affection.

Clearly we are not meant to think this love is merely rebellion against her parents - but there just isn't anything else to hang your hat on - to see WHY she is drawn to this man.

Watson is a wonderful actress - the features of her face are extraordinarily facile - but her looks are so every-day English/Irish that it's hard to think of her as an aristocratic emigree.

She has always struck me as looking like any young woman in the queue for the bus after a visit to the market, or arriving at the dance with her friends. She merges so readily into any crowd. (Cf.: most famous English actresses - from Julie Christie to Diana Rigg, from Margaret Lockwood to Vivien Leigh, Vanessa Redgrave or Madeleine Carroll, Catherine Zeta-Jones or Jacqueline Bisset, Claire Bloom or Catherine Zeta-Jones, from Greer Garson to Jean Simmons to Deborah Kerr or Elizabeth Hurley, Julia Ormond or Kate Winlet or Polly Walker, Natasha or Joely Richardson - they are all memorable looking, stunningly beautiful, generally tall, distinctive - none of this is true of Watson -- who is one of the finest actresses of the lot).

I suppose that's to say that she has a VERY common look - though I don't mean coarse looking. There's simply nothing aristocratic looking about Miss Watson. In that sense, she has more of the appearance of the adult Hayley Mills or Rita Tushingham or Toni Collette. She fits more easily into the world of the shopgirl than the aristocrat emigree.

So visually, I never DID think of her as a wealthy aristocratic young woman - despite the beauty of her and her family's clothes or the opulence of her surroundings. (Perhaps this is simply more realistic - in real life, I don't find the well-born any more aristocratic looking than the low-born, but in movie convention, they certainly are, and as a viewer, it's what I have come to expect).

At any rate, I just don't believe the love story - Turturro does nothing to make me believe that this woman would fall in love with him.

**** SPOILERS ****

And the moral of the tale is an odd one - the parents strongly urge her against this marriage - they believe he's a terrible match. They believe he's mad and will bring terrible heartache. And bingo! They're RIGHT! He fails to show up at their wedding and commits suicide that very day.

The movie makes it seem as if there will be no terrible psychological consequences to Watson's character from all this - yet we all know that there would be. So this is an odd romance - one where the ogre mother is proved right!! A daughter's refusal to listen to her parents has now brought on a terrible (self-inflicted) wound - and aside from the rather silly ending, has ended VERY badly indeed.

Moreover, does the movie understand what it's saying with the tacked-on ending? Is it not vindicating the sickness of Luzhin by creating this silly ending? The fiancee unable to help her lover because she's unable to rid him of his obsessions - then shows he was right to have such obsessions? That seems confused.

**** SPOILERS END ****

I also had trouble believing that the villain would really spend the time and effort and energy and money to go to any length to stop the protagonist -- when they had not even seen each other for over a decade - and the protagonist had never inflicted any injury upon the villain. Like the love story, this remorseless villain just seemed - implausible.

The motivation seemed lacking for both the love story and the villainy.

All that said, this is a beautiful movie, with fine production values, good acting.

Those who loved A Dangerous Mind, Hillary and Jackie, or Rush, or the sort of atmosphere of A Month by the Lake, Enchanted April, Up at the Villa, or Tea with Mussolini -- will probably quite like this movie.

This is again a movie about a very gifted person who has an obsessive relationship to his profession. Though he's admired by many for his great talent he's mainly driven by his own expectations about himself. Not even his love to a woman that is not only fascinated by his talent but also about his personality were able to save him from being eaten up and finally destroyed by his possession.

John Turturrow gives us one of his most outstanding acting performances of his career and so the rest of the cast does. It's a very beautiful but also sad movie about a sensitive, eccentric, tormented character suffering from the burden of his own perfectionism.

It is a love story indeed - about the love to a woman but first of all about his love to his favorite game.

Of course also this movie can't match the original book. And again I think its for the same reasons:

• The movie would have gotten way to long.

• Since movies are a way more passive form of entertainment than reading a book (were you have to use way more of your own imagination) they are expected to be dramatic and entertaining. Too much of the book's details would have made the movie to exhausting to watch.

But all this doesn't make this a "bad movie" at all. It's a fascinating movie with an interesting story and great actors - way more delicious than today's usual movie fast food.

This is a pretty mediocre treatment of Nabokov's book, a favorite of mine. It reminds me of "A Beautiful Mind" in the sense that it is more about the personal life of a genius than his doings, and it sometimes feels mundane for that reason.

As Turati and Luzhin were portrayed, it recalls greatly Capablanca and Alekhine, respectively, and their encounters. Alekhine the unstable but brilliant, the only world champion to die with the title, and Capa the smooth talker in a trench coat, rock solid.

For all the film's shortcomings, the puzzle of the adjourned position, which doesn't occur in the book, was a really nice composition.

very few chess movies have been made over the last couple of years ,but this one is more than just a chess movie its a story about the need to be loved and the need to win it,John Toturro plays a psychologically challenged man ,nothing matters to him accept 64 squares and 32 pieces ,the game validates him as a person ,when he looses a game he looses the one thing that makes sense to him and John Torturro expresses this in a beautiful fashion,even the love of a woman was not enough to save him from his sad existence.It makes you wonder if there other Luzon's out there who obsess about the game,i am sure they are,if you are a chess enthusiast it won't hurt to watch it.Its an intelligent piece of work laid out properly and executed well,it achieves its objectives,unfortunately i doubt if there will be sequel.

Once again proving his amazing versatility, John Turturro plays the introspective Russian chess genius preparing for a comeback tournament, and forging an unlikely relationship with a gadabout fellow resident (Emily Watson) at a 1920's Italian hotel. They fall in love,to the horror of her social-mountaineering mother (Geraldine James).A wonderful love story, whose gloss of chess might make it appear cerebral.But in spite of its origins in a Nabakov story, it certainly is not .The romantic elements and the sense of time and place beat the psychological analysis hands down.John Turturro, having appeared in "Barton Fink" ,"O Brother,Where Art thou?" "The Big Lebowski" proves that he is not dependant on Coen Bros films to assert his stature.

Not having read Nabokov, and knowing nothing about chess, I could only view "The Luzhin Defence" as a movie.

It works really well as one of my favorite genres "sports romances." The chess comes alive as a tough competition much more than in, say "Searching for Bobby Fischer," in showing just how much hard mental work the game can be, requiring thought, preparation, stamina and planning. I particularly liked the special effects on the chess board as alternative plays are anticipated.

Through the feminist director Maureen Gorris (of "Antonia"), Emily Watson with her big blue eyes gradually strengthens via her transformative relationship with John Turturro's fairly one-note absent-minded intense chess genius.

The settings in Italy and Hungary are beautiful.

(originally written 5/27/2001)

This film will probably never see wide-screen release in the U.S., which is a shame. The rich cinematography and elegant costuming deserve to be seen on the big screen. The spirit of this English-language film is truly Russian, so if you're looking for another _Searching for Bobby Fischer_ you'll be disappointed. Like _Searching_, though, the action focuses on the characters' evolution rather than on the chess. John Turturro is surprisingly charming--a genius of chess strategy, a mess as an independent human being. Emily Watson's attraction to him is at first puzzling, but after watching Luzhin waltz with himself at odd moments, graceful as a heron and heedless as a four-year-old, you begin to understand.

Albeit excellent in cinematography and actors' work, the movie stunned me by its almost complete unrelatedness to the famous (and one of the best) novel by Vladimir Nabokov. All the plot lines are put topsy-turvy, the spectacular intricacy of the plot is revealed in a straight line and all the intellectual play of Nabokov with the reader (false clues, not telling the reader the main character's first and middle name until the very last page of the novel, etc) are all gone from the film. The movie's ending is hilariously hollywoodish (and, of course, has nothing to do with the novel again). In one word, one can watch it if one hates Nabokov and has a penchant for twisted originals.