"I saw this film again last weekend. Reading the other comments here, I see the majority found it dull. Both times, I found it moving and engaging but difficult to talk about afterwards. Seeing it a second time, I did notice that there was something lacking in some of the dialogue (and wonder if some of the better lines are drawn from letters?). One puzzle for me both times was who lived where and in proximity to whom. It was unclear to me from the outset who was living in what house and when, and that muddle was a distraction.
Most people have said that it's a good looking film - though the initial CGI of smoking cottage chimneys is unconvincing. However, they variously question or condemn the performances, dialogue and pace.
It is a film that runs at a very human rate (4 miles per hour at most) but that seems to me to be a chief part of its appeal. It isn't a film about Keats but about Fanny Brawne (and her family's) feelings for him. It does seem to me to be a distinctly feminine film describing the impact of nature and convention on the lives and fates of the characters in it.
I don't know Keats' story and I may only be responding to the potent and growing emotion as Fanny and John's successive separations occur. It is a very simple and direct film and isn't a 'sophisticated' in that it's not at all intellectual but it isn't a pot boiler either; melodrama, certainly, but not false or contrived.
I continue to wonder if the fact that I struggle to find much to say may be an indication fo the film's (and my own) weaknesses. But equally, I wonder, if the capacity of a thing to provoke a clear verbal and intellectual response isn't the only measure of a success.
I'm truly surprised that many felt it thin and dull because it seemed to me full of life."