Ever since director Roeg's career went into irreversible decline in the mid- 1980s, he has intermittently been attempting to recapture shades of his former glory and this is surely another effort in that vein – what with its mystical/architectural themes and emphasis on sex, down to an irrelevant cameo by Donald Sutherland (from his masterpiece DON'T LOOK NOW [1973]). However, the result is only mildly compelling and as muddled as ever; at least, leading lady Kelly Reilly is most appealing – and physically reminiscent of Candy Clark, who had featured in the director's THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH (1976). Like Julie Christie in DON'T LOOK NOW itself, he has recruited an icon of the Swinging Sixties, Rita Tushingham, to play the misguided 'witch' after the heroine (who is renovating the cottage in which the old lady's son had died in a fire years earlier). Aiding her in the 'cause' is Tushingham's middle-aged but still attractive daughter (Miranda Richardson, delivering the film's outstanding performance) and the latter's own reluctant offspring. Reilly is impregnated by her fiancé (who then summarily departs for New York) but miscarries soon after; realizing she is going to conceive once more some time later, the girl fears the father may be Richardson's younger husband (and so do Tushingham & Co.) – whom Reilly had seduced while drunk at her place! However, it turns out that she had originally conceived twins and one managed to survive the ordeal. Anyway, Tushingham's clan professes to befriend Reilly (while mixing disgusting potions ostensibly to assimilate her pregnancy onto Richardson, though the girl eventually exposes the others' scheme) – including giving a dinner at their house where the titular dish (dubbed "The Devil's Eyeball", actually this film's subtitle in the U.S.) is served; at the end of the day, in spite of Tushingham's death, the situation is happily resolved for the 'witches' as well when Richardson herself finally bears a son. For the record, among the remaining Roeg titles I have yet to catch up with, I own the following: INSIGNIFICANCE (1985), TRACK 29 (1988), SWEET BIRD OF YOUTH (1989; TV) and COLD HEAVEN (1992)

I watched this last night with my wife, and within about 45 minutes it turned into an episode of MST3K. The film was jagged, poorly edited, and had terrible camera work. There are several little minor clip scenes inserted into the film that never get explained, for example. The Lars character comes into the movie with NO explanation, you never even know who he is until 5 minutes after he's in scene. The dialogue is terrible. The conversations are unbelievable, not for their audacity but for the fact that they make no sense! Most of the acting here is terrible. The overall writing is horrid. The Puffball itself never gets tied into the movie - this film seems to assume you've read the book or have a clue what's going on, because it doesn't explain almost any of it.

I watched Puffball last night, as a huge Fay Weldon fan who read the book quite a few years ago. I was surprised to discover it was a 2007 film, as the subject matter, and the atmosphere of the pic, would have suggested something many years older.Still, I thought it was quite faithful to the intent of the book, and is, despite some comments, very much a women's film. It deals with elemental forces, and the complexity of women's nature and women's power. The men are little more than sperm donors, penile life support systems to be acted on by women's emotions and a separate women's nature, almost echoing, (or prefiguring, more likely) some of Jane Campion's observations in The Piano, among others.This has always been the heart of Fay Weldon's work, a poke in the eye of naivité, of the "Eyes Wide Shut" variety, about the nature of women. The film doesn't really add to this narrative, but it doesn't diminish it either, which is saying something for a film adaptation of a novel, made by an auteur to boot.

Loath it or love it, once you've seen Nicolas Roeg's latest offering - Puffball - you'll probably never be able to forget it. Roeg has delved into the psyche of the male animal and returned with disturbing images of life, death, religion and sex. Puffball is as haunting and memorable as the best he has done before.Kelly Reilly plays an architect who is refurbishing a derelict house in the wilds. When she arrives with her lover she is watched by an old woman who is possibly a witch and means the visitors no good. This almost familiar opening does not lead down a predictable path – Puffball takes myriad twists and turns and surprises and manages to remain original and engrossing. Supported by stunning and atmospheric photography in rural Ireland the plot twists and meanders to an exciting and satisfying conclusions. It is how Roeg waves his spell that is so fascinating and unforgettable. There is little erotic content – sex is brutal and cruel and ultimately a woman's body is the receptacle for hopes and ambitions that surpass the male lust for immediate satisfaction.The cast is excellent. Miranda Richardson is convincing as the woman who aches to give birth, Rita Tushingham is compelling as the sinister old lady who weaves her spells and incantations and the always excellent Donald Sutherland makes a brief but significant appearance.Not a film for screen slouchers, Puffball demands attention and rewards with a haunting tale of rebirth and redemption. The Screenplay is by Dan Weldon adapted from Fay Weldon's novel. Puffball is disturbing but rewarding. Nic Roeg has given us another great film and for that we should be thankful.