SmugKitZine Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

victoriavaradi-47267 I think the film shows us how difficult it is for people to achieve true love, regardless of the age they live in. Although it might seem that today there is less direct pressure from society, but there are other different reasons to make people stay in the status quo, convenience can be very powerful too. In the very beginning of the film Anne watches herself (Sarah) in the mirror, which in one hand is the beginning of Ana's, the actress's transformation into Sarah, and in my eyes it is also a nice allegory of how the two parallel stories in the film reflect on each other. They are in fact more or less the same, except from the ending. In the film Ana and Mike are acting in, Sarah and Charles end up together, but Ana and Mike don't stay together. For me the overall message of the film was, that romantic love only triumphs in tales, in a romanticized world, but not in reality. I liked the contrasting cinematic styles of the two story lines, the acting was great, and also liked the different endings. For me the main flaw was that the "present" story-line felt very much overpowered by the Victorian story-line, it felt it was less important, and we also didn't get to know too much about Ana and Charles. Even if portraying the two relationships in an equally significant way would have been very very difficult in two hours, but I think it would have served the theme of the film better. Plus because I don't believe in love at first sight, it's always hard for me to believe that two characters can fall deeply in love with each other as fast as Sarah and Charles did.

Kirpianuscus it is a beautiful film. for the story and for the grace of adaptation. for the graceful performances of Meryl Streep and James Irons. for the spirit of novel who has the right frame. for atmosphere. and for something else, who escapes to any definition. a film about love and the art of acting. a drama. or just a poem. like the novel. an impressive success of entire team to give the perfect adaptation to a not real comfortable novel for a director. the flavor, the states, the beauty of details, the stories like an impressive ladder. and the bitter air of a search of happiness. it is not easy to define it. only to see. maybe, twice. and, after the final credits, to look for the book. and this is all.

smatysia I saw this movie in the early Eighties, and loved it. I was struck by the beauty of Meryl Streep. I read the book a few years later, and from what I remember, Sarah Woodruff whipsawed Charles Smithson at least one more full cycle of falling for her and being abandoned by her. The framing device of the movie being made is OK. It annoyed me back in the day, but I can see its effectiveness now. It is a way to make commentary on the Victorian times (and their hypocrisy), plus I suppose that it substitutes for that additional cycle of hurt. Great settings and photography of 1860's England. Excellent acting all around, and a good script, once you get past the modern-day scenes. Highly recommended.

[email protected] Thirty years after seeing it for the first time, I revisited this film last night on PBS. I had remembered only two things from it: The quality of Meryl Streep's acting and the famous scene of her standing on the very edge of a stone wave breaker while the sea burst around her. I had forgotten that it was a film within a film. I had forgotten all but the vaguest outlines of the plot. I had entirely forgotten Jeremy Irons. If retention in memory is the hallmark of a good work of art, I'd have to give "The French Lieutenant's Woman" a low mark.And yet the second viewing of the film was a revelation. I hadn't previously been struck by how beautiful Meryl Streep was when she was young. Nor did I remember how controlled her acting was in this overwrought movie. "The French Lieutenant's Woman" was nominated for five Academy Awards and deservedly lost all five, including Ms. Streep's nomination as best actress. Nevertheless, this was one of the record number of nominations she has compiled and it should be seen if only for that reason. It adds a different dimension to her incomparable portfolio of challenging roles. Jeremy Irons fares less well in my estimation. Like Ms. Streep, he plays two parts, one as her co-star in the film being made and the other as the lover ruined by his all-consuming love for her film character. Not that Irons does a bad job of acting. He simply fails to be convincing in the second of his two roles. That may be because the story (or the part) is inherently unconvincing, sort of Wuthering Heights without the emotional tide which causes that heavy- breathing romance to seem plausible to many women if not to their menfolk.It's still not a great movie. Maybe not even a good movie. But if all we ever cared to watch were good/great films, Hollywood would soon be out of business.