This movie is based around the life of a classics professor (Coleman), who is currently living in a small New England town. He has harboured a dark secret for 50 years which slowly starts coming out and causes his life to unravel painfully. When he loses his job after being wrongfully charged of racism, his wife dies leaving this man who is near retirement, with nothing. He embarks on an affair with a young cleaning lady from the college which quickly turns into a relationship as they reveal intimate secrets to each other and finally find the release and trust they've each been searching for. I quite enjoyed this movie – there was some excellent acting from some top actors, and the sense of intrigue and suspense was maintained throughout. The characters were well-written and the complexities which lingered within their personalities original yet believable. There were moments where I held my breath waiting for the tension to subside and others where I found myself wishing that everything could work out nicely for the people in this story, and remove the arguments and misunderstandings which threatened to ruin what good things they had. It is a truly great movie which can inspire this level of emotion in its audience. The main downside was the fact that it did not seem to flow very well between flashback sequences and the present. Of course I could clearly make out which scenes were of a younger Coleman and memories of the past, however at times failed to recognise their significance at that particular point. It may have been a better idea to insert several shorter flashback clips instead of the lengthy scenes used so that the connection with the present was not lost. There were also sections where the story lagged slightly and I questioned the need for these scenes. In some parts the use of visual without dialogue was extremely effective, but in other parts I felt that the scenes existed solely for the sake of art. In particular, scenes such as the lingering shot of Coleman cradling his wife as she died, froze time and really made me feel the incredible and very sudden loss he suffered. But in comparison, a sequence where the professor's young lady is dancing erotically for him seemed clumsily done as I felt it existed purely for the sake of displaying a sex scene. It did not have the effect of deepening our understanding of the emotions the two main characters felt, which I think it should have done. I was amazed at the end when the terrible secret was revealed through the investigations of a writer who the professor had befriended. To me it would seem wrong to live such a deception your entire life but the movie helped me to understand the character's motives and how he felt that he had no other choice. I was left feeling saddened that someone would have to deny their heritage to such an extent in order to achieve their goals. While it takes a bit of patience to get through the movie (which could have been 20mins shorter), I would highly recommend this movie to anyone. With any luck the more people who watch this movie, the more open-minded society will become and hopefully this type of prejudice will disappear.

Anthony Hopkins, Nicole Kidman, and Fred Harris are three of my favorite actors, so I believed that this film couldn't miss. I was wrong. Despite the heroic efforts of the cast, the film ultimately fails to convince.

First of all, despite his outstanding talents, Hopkins is miscast. He convinces me that he is African American about as much as he convinces me he is Jewish-not very much. The fact that he is playing an African American pretending not to be African American doesn't help. I just couldn't get around his character and see him as anything but-Anthony Hopkins.

The idea that a person like Nicole Kidman would throw herself at a stranger more than twice her age also stretches credibility. I could see nothing in either of their characters that could convince me that that they would give each other a second thought. It is not just that Kidman is extremely beautiful and that Hopkins is old, but they play people of such completely different classes that it would take more than a chance encounter for them to develop a relationship. The movie simply doesn't create the moments needed for them to be plausible.

Fred Harris is the most convincing of the three, but he exists as little more than an ominous presence. He could have been done away with completely and the movie could still have had the same outcome.

If you want to see great actors, they are here. Their performances are worth seeing for that reason alone if you are a fan. However, when it all boils down, even they can't make this movie work.

Based on the superior book by Philip Roth, Anthony Hopkins gives an emotionally strong and convincing performance as the professor accused of a racist comment. The overwhelming consequence of this results in the death of his wife. Alone and embittered, he meets dowdy and troubled Nicole Kidman many years his junior and an unlikely unity is forged. What is grossly underwritten by this adaptation is Kidman's ex played by Ed Harris. Here he appears as nothing more than a sub-plot, when by the end he is anything but and therefore dissolves all tension and drama. Good performances throughout and the direction effortlessly combines the all-revealing flashbacks of the past to reveal the futility of the future.

The Human Stain is about the denial of identity and self destruction. The writer who isn't able to write and retreats himself in the woods. The by her stepfather sexual abused woman who repeats history and falls for elder man and wants sex without affection. The white professor who denies the fact that his mother is a negro and looses his black family and his job paradoxically being charged of racism. Despite all the personal drama, it is hard to get emotionally involved. The fact that the movie is non chronological doesn't make it clear what exactly happened to everyone. The personal history has to be reconstructed rationally thus creating emotional distance. In movies like Momento and Eternal Sunshine of the Spottless Mind the reversal of time is not only a formal technique but essentially related to the story itself, opposed to The Humain Stain. Unfortunately the movie is more an intellectual challenge than a moving image.

I'm terrifically surprised at all the middling reviewing of this film, to the point where I feel I have to echo the last few reviews that stand in opposition.

This is a film that just does it right. Unlike so many other dramas with heavyweight casts, this really feels like it's about the story, not the work. Kidman, aside from slipping into her native accent on a handful of words, is fantastic -- perhaps her very best. Harris, like Streep and maybe two or three other actors, brings a real humanity to a role that any other actor would just fill out.

But most of all, everything is in the background and hence subservient to the story. The gorgeous lighting, scenery, dialog -- the whole craft of the film is done the way it's supposed to be done, in the damn background. That all said, I think the real reason this film is slighted is because it's a little too good for the average viewer. It doesn't live up to their idea of what a lit-cum-drama is supposed to feel like. I just have a feeling that in several years this will be revisited and appreciated much more. Now, I'm going to go watch it again!

I hope the book wasn't this bad. A film written, directed and edited seemingly by focus group. Passably acted by all (Ed Harris being a bright spot). So much kicking of furniture, throwing of things! My, what emotion. Miramax should've focussed any one of the endless plots they tried to tie together here. And, yes, Jacinda and Nicole get nude, but it's so rife with dirty old man leering that I found myself looking away out of sympathy for the actors. If this current version is the one they're sending out as oscar bait, prepare, Miramax, to laughed out of the screenings.

I honestly can not think of a single thing wrong with this movie. The actors are top rate actors that consistently turn in exceptional performances. This movie is no exception.

The plot is intriguing. The pasts of the main protagonists unfold, making their characters exceptionally deep. We get to see these characters evolve in interesting and compelling ways. There are shades-of-grey in these characters. We don't have the perfect hero. We have gentle people with kind hearts who make mistakes.

The direction is perfectly understated. There is a lot of nuance in the way the scenes are filmed and the way in which the actors are framed. Instead of the love scenes being the all-to-familiar humping and groaning, these scenes are filmed without graphic nudity. Note the way in which Anthony Hopkins places his hands on Nicole Kidman's back. It is so loving and tender and intimate.

Even the editing is right on. The length of the film, at 106 minutes, is the perfect length. There are no wasted scenes.

Some of the material is hard to watch. Note the posture and the facial expression on Anthony Hopkins in the kitchen scene in which Nicole Kidman is giving him a hard time. It is subtle and painful to watch.

If you are into light-hearted escapist film, this isn't for you. The subject matter is deep and difficult. I like these kinds of movies and this one is one of the best in class.

Kudos to all involved with this film.

while watching I had a bad day and did not like the film at first sight. next day, however, I was thinking about the film a lot.

the main hero is lucky and unlucky at the same time: he is white although his parents were black. the whitness however is the reason of his inability to identify himself neither with blacks nor with whites. he chooses to be white but in this very way rejects his roots - parents, family, home.

he meets a woman who cannot come to terms with her past and because of this - cannot accept the presence. they both lost everything they had. their relationship - seemingly as shallow as a puddle - is a kind of therapy for them both

I like when a film makes me think. this one certainly does!

Remarkable film on the relation between two independent but lonely persons: a young female who rejected her wealthy family and an old professor who rejected his roots to make it on his own. Although someone has seen this film mainly as an illustration of what can go wrong if you reject your family and roots and lose your identity, I see it mainly as a tribute to people strong enough to reject privilegies (either coming from a higher-class family or from affirmative action legislation) and live their life based on what they can do rather than what their label is. Most significant moment: a young afroamerican student who feels he's valuable as a man, and refuses to enroll on a black-reserved university program.

To the people that loved this movie, you must like watching paint dry. That is all!

This just opened in Lawrence, KS, a university town, at the theater that shows indies and foreign films. Maybe Miramax is hoping for a "Big Fat Greek Wedding" type of reaction?

I've not read the book but, to me, this was a very satisfying film, with some examination of a number of issues: the costs to a black person of crossing over and becoming white -- and/or the price to anyone of becoming disconnected from their families. Although disconnection may give greater freedom in some ways, in others it forms an uncomfortable prison. Another issue might be described as a variant on, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And yet another is that the "stain" that all of us carry also stains others with whom we come in contact. And maybe there's a dear price (and reward?) that may be paid for following heart too much rather than head?

Really solid performances by some great actors -- Hopkins, Kidman, Harris -- and the others.

Some gratuitous nudity was injected, maybe to help ticket sales?, but it was not too far-fetched from the story line.

All the backgrounds fit (I grew up in Vermont and lived in academia many years elsewhere); the landscape and the Volvos plus the professor's house had a very authentic feel.

I caught this movie on TV as I was surfing the movie channels and missed the first 20 minutes. But it was engrossing enough in the opening portions I caught (when Sir Anthony picks up Nicole Kidman by her broken down car). The overall story about the public and private lives of people mingling and unraveling is always intriguing, but I, like a previous reviewer, found the movie horribly miscast. A Dustin Hoffman or James Caan are much better candidates for Coleman Silk. And Nicole Kidman as the cleaning woman.... well, that was a stretch. Much better to have had Ellen Barkin (too middle age?) or Cate Blanchett. The young Coleman Silk character was a lot of stiffer than the older Silk.

"The Human Stain" is a failure because the Philip Roth novel on which it is based is a failure. Roth has been granted carte blanche to do whatever he wants; he is the Naked Emperor of American literature.

"The Human Stain" is the product of Roth's ego and attention deficit disorder. Roth's ego: characters are obsessed with Jews, because Roth is obsessed with his own Jewish identity. Naked, beautiful, young women throw themselves at wizened, physically unattractive college professors, because Roth is an older man. A novelist saves the day, because Roth is a novelist. There is not a single, three dimensional, believable female character. There are four melodramatic deaths. A character who had been a coward and a traitor in one of the first scenes accuses himself – unbelievably – during a eulogy in one of the last scenes. There are two scenes where very beautiful women perform private stripteases for ogling men – porn for pseudo-intellectuals. Yawn.

Attention deficit disorder: the script attempts to address Clinton's impeachment, stereotypical "White Trash," crazed, homicidal, Vietnam veterans, the issue of passing, artistic burnout, college town hypocrisy, and political correctness. Even a gifted novelist would find it impossible to work all those themes into a coherent and effective narrative.

Roth drops the ball big time here; every theme he attempts is aborted. But, Roth is a genius, so if we aren't swept off our feet by the fruits of Roth's labor, it's because we are too small to appreciate his great genius. That, in a nutshell, is the naked emperor syndrome. Feh. Step aside. Make room for better writers.

Though "The Human Stain" is a failure, in spite of itself, it contains some worthy work. Wentworth Miller, as the young Coleman Silk, the character Antony Hopkins plays in advanced age, is stunning. Miller is supercharged with star power and it is to be hoped that he goes far. Ed Harris can do no wrong. He elevates and ignites every moment of his screen time that we are lucky enough to enjoy – even when the character Harris is playing, as here, is a two-dimensional stereotype of a homicidal, wife beating, anti-Semitic, lower class white, Vietnam veteran. This is a stereotype so shallow a tyro writer could produce it based on watching grade B movies.

Nicole Kidman never escapes the two dimensional, derivative, and divorced from real life quality of her character, a foul-mouthed, chain smoking, poor white nymphomaniac with a craving for plump old men. If Roth gets his homicidal Vietnam Vet characters from B movies, he gets his female characters from pulp fiction. And just from the paperback *covers* of pulp fiction. Not even from reading the text. It's actually kinda scary to contemplate how divorced Roth and his readers are from real poor white people, real women, real Vietnam veterans.

There is a very fine early scene where Professor Coleman Silk (Anthony Hopkins) is berated and threatened by a committee of self-righteous, politically correct, hypocritical, gasbag, (redundant, I know) college professors who falsely accuse Silk of making a racist remark. The scene is very well played. But it is never anything more than an anecdote. Journalism has outstripped fiction's ability to comment on events like this. Want to read about politically correct shenanigans on campus? Read "Until Proved Innocent" about the legal and media lynching of the Duke lacrosse players. Roth's novel can't begin to match that account. As for Roth's stripteases? Free on the internet.

I almost did not see this because of the poor reviews (only 38% on Rotten Tomatoes) but I'm glad I ignored the reviews and saw it any way. While far from perfect, it is still one of the better films of the year.

This is a film that aims high, which makes it's imperfections stand out all that much more. While the critics have documented all that is wrong with this film, it is still a powerful story with great acting and cinematography. For me, more cinematic style would have been what this film needed to take it from being a good film to being a great film.

A strong 8/10 rating.

I wanted to like this, I like the two leads and admire many of their performances, but this movie never sat easily with me - or believably.

I can take Anthony Hopkins as a black who looks remarkably white, but I could not take the slippage of his accent and how very unlike him the young Coleman Silk, played by Wentworth Miller, was. Though Wentworth Miller's performance was just about terrific.

I found the love scenes between Hopkins and Kidman contrived and was convinced more than a few times that she was using a body double, as was he. And you know you're in trouble at a movie when you are speculating on such matters. The story has failed to grip you as it should.

Several key elements in the script were abandoned - the theme of Coleman becoming Jewish, that surely deserved five minutes and the theme of his colleague on faculty discovering his affair with the janitor Faunia, played by Kidman. Which brings me to Kidman playing so called "white trash". White trash she never was, she came from a wealthy family whom I would assume were not white trash so her early grounding had a degree of culture and privilege. Running away from home at 14 would not have removed this from her.

Gary Sinise was wonderful as the constant second banana, as always.

Threaded as the narrator throughout the movie. Ed Harris has a small but significant part as the ex-husband, but again we are never shown scenes of a marriage between him and Nicole and their children.

Nicole also failed to grab me in what should have been a key scene about her children and a speech by one of Coleman's colleagues near the end of the movie spiked my credibility meter the wrong way.

6 out of 10. Nicole was woefully miscast here.

This movie did not make it for me, a key reason being a totally unbelievable spoiler I won't divulge here, revealed so late in the screenplay it is almost a "so what?" I couldn't get beyond the poor casting choices. The august Anthony Hopkins has no business in this role, on several counts, not the least of which is his mature unsuitability, with or without Viagra (mentioned and mispronounced several times in dialog), as a sex object for anyone-much less a younger and beautiful character played by Kidman. Sir Anthony, the romantic leading man days are over. And you still haven't managed to throttle the British accent after all these years. The viewer also cannot believe that the character Hopkins plays could possibly have any interest, on any level, in the tawdry, sub-vocal Nicole Kidman character, played to her usual unidimensional perfection. The chief stain here is on the professional reputations of all concerned.