Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

noralee As a fan of Eric Rohmer's studies of the contemporary war between the sexes, I was very eager to see "The Lady and The Duke (L'Anglaise et le duc)" for how he would treat men and women during a real war, the French Revolution. The film looks beautiful, with each scene designed as a period painting, like a tableaux vivant. And I expected much talking, as that's Rohmer's style. But maybe Rohmer was restrained by basing the screenplay on a real woman's writings is why this mostly felt like a docudrama version of "The Scarlet Pimpernel."As awful as the excesses of Robespierre et al, how about some recognition that the French aristocrats were spoiled brats? I kept humming to myself: "Marat, we're poor/and the poor stay poor;" you could also pick a tune from "Les Miz."I wasn't all that sympathetic as the central figure has to go back and forth between her city home and country manor to stay ahead of the Revolution. At one point her maid claims the pantry is bare but sure manages to lay out a fine repast. I simply didn't understand her, an English sympathizer who alternately rejects and defends her former lover and patron as he and the Revolution keep shifting political focus; I think I was supposed to sympathize with her consistency more than their political machinations, like a character out of "The Scarlet Pimpernel." Hey, the only reason she didn't go back home was her disgrace after an affair and child with the Prince of Wales or somebody. Usually in a revolutionary period there's some groundswell of change going on in relations between men and women, but I saw none here. I once went to a Herbert Marcuse lecture that concluded with a lengthy Q & A; the last question, from an audience member far older than the rest of us acolytes, heck she had gray hair, was "Why are revolutionaries so grim?" She was hooted at and Marcuse didn't deign to respond to it seriously -- but it's the only thing of substance I remember from the whole evening. Rohmer demonstrates that counter-revolutionaries are also grim and didactic.(originally written 8/11/2002)

neroville I've seen a lot of films set during the French Revolution, and this odd and tiresome effort by Eric Rohmer is definitely not one of the better ones. I can't help but feel that Rohmer had some grand vision for this movie, as recreating the life and vision of some late 18th century aristocrat, and he did not entirely succeed. For starters, the film seems less 18th century and more like a late 19th century stage play- filmed in the style of an early silent film, circa 1915. One almost expects the actors to begin to gesture wildly and start rolling their eyes. Character development is non-existent, and the direction, with its paucity of camera angles, is nothing to write home about. The actors do the best they can, but there is only so much that they can do, given the clunky script and direction. I didn't find the film to be boring exactly... just odd and half-baked. The much-ballyhooed digital backgrounds add to the air of weird, never-never land detachment to the entire proceedings.All in all, this is not the worst movie I've seen, but if you really want to get into the mindframe of 18th century nobility, then I would highly recommend the 1999 Masterpiece Theater miniseries "Aristocrats," which is far more entertaining, convincing and involving than "Lady and the Duke." If you wish to see a great film about the French Revolution, then go see "La Révolution Française" with Jane Seymour and Klaus Maria Brandauer (if you can find it), or "Danton" with Gerard Depardieu. Even the 1938 "Marie Antoinette" is more interesting than the Rohmer film, and Norma Shearer's reaction to the Princesse de Lamballe's head is a great deal more powerful than Lucy Russell's.

DaveTheNovelist (WriterDave) Every so often a movie comes along that knocks me down a notch and reminds me that my taste in films I seek out to watch isn't always impeccable. I normally would stay away from stuff like this, but I was duped by some glowing reviews and the Rohmer pedigree.There's an initial and intriguing novelty to the production where Rohmer essentially superimposes the actors onto painted (digital) back-drops of revolution era France. This quickly wanes and becomes about as interesting as watching the paint dry on a paint by numbers scene. What we're left with is a boring and stuffy film about aristocrats in 18th century France. None of the characters are appealing or sympathetic. The pace is so languid, the dialogue so arduous, and suspense is clearly a foreign concept to Rohmer, that I ended up not caring whose head rolled, who was harboring who, or what the devil the revolution was supposed to be about. The movie would've greatly benefited from some semblance of emotional build-up and a music score (there's some fine classical music used at the very end). Despite being so "talky", the film plays much like a silent film, and the worst kind of film at that, a dull and uninteresting film about infinitely interesting subjects. Only the most astute French historians will find anything to take from this film, as it dose seem to paint well known events from a new angle (the Lady is English and a royalist). Otherwise, avoid this yawner at all costs unless you are suffering from insomnia (I dozed off twice).

George Parker I gave up on "The Lady and the Duke" at the halfway mark out of sheer boredom having rented the DVD based solely on the Rohmer reputation. However interesting the film's pervasive digitized backdrops, the effect was beautiful but nonetheless theatrical and fabricated. Given performances so stiff they bordered on paralysis, a viscous pace, and subtitles, the film simply didn't seem worth the while. However, those into the period or with an interest in legitimate theater on film might fare better. (C+)