Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Izzy Adkins The movie is surprisingly subdued in its pacing, its characterizations, and its go-for-broke sensibilities.

Benas Mcloughlin Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

lukechong There are good things in Jane Campion's 1996 film "The Portrait of a Lady", and moments of cinematic magic, but somehow the movie becomes more conventional as the running time went on and the film ends up as an unabashedly feminist but also romanticized adaptation of Henry James's great classic novel.James is probably the most difficult of novelists to get right on screen, and this movie doesn't do him complete justice. Even so, I would have appreciated an individual slant on the novel, a cinematic take if it all but illuminates just one single aspect of the book. Unfortunately, the movie turns out to be not for the book purists/junkies, mainly because the casting has gone so horribly wrong.Nicole Kidman is an odd choice for Isabel Archer, more vulnerable and uncertain, less fresh and adventurous than in the book, full of latent sexual desires, which isn't inherently a bad thing to emphasize in the script, but Kidman is too hesitant and generally uninspired in the role. British thespian Sir John Gielgud has a very small part, really too small to make a deep impression, while John Malkovich -- what can I say -- is completely miscast, playing the villain with an irritating, bored, self-conscious effeteness that is totally wrong in the Europeanized American Gilbert Osmond. Neither does Martin Donovan seem at home as the consumptive Ralph, and Barbara Hershey is probably the best of the lot but has too little material to work on. The actors often seem lost owing to a lack of clear direction in acting, and the great revelation scenes don't work well, mainly because screenwriter has revealed everything even before the midway juncture of the film.What, otherwise, does one watch this movie for? The cinematography is stellar, with chiaroscuro effects at times reminiscent of Old Masters paintings, and the interplay of light and shade reminds us that Campion has a background in visual arts. Stuart Dryburgh deserves a Oscar nomination at least for this movie. Some of his lensing takes one's breath away. The art direction too is exemplary. Campion isn't a director to be dismissed easily, and there are scenes which work exceptionally well, particularly in the earlier parts, although the film becomes progressively more conventional and seems to have lost interest in itself as its runtime goes on. In the last resort this is a movie which is deeply flawed, mainly due to the miscasting, but still worth catching, maybe but once, for its exceptional cinematography and at times brilliant imagery. But be warned about the adaptation - it's not really for serious lovers of the novel but more for cinephiles who don't demand a script- and cast-perfect take on the silver screen.

lreynaert Jane Campion transposed one of Henry James' best novels into a formidable masterpiece. She captured luminously the author's main themes: money and love, Puritanism, innocence and survival.A gift of a fortune by an uncle to a young lady turns into a nightmare: money doesn't buy happiness. She becomes the target of those who need the money for their own 'standing' and the survival of their offspring (daughter). Another main theme of Henry James is Puritanism: the rejection of the 'physical' body. The innocent lady is captured through the discovery of physical contact, here, a tongue kiss. It overwhelms her completely and she gets entangled in a web of lies, hard plays of domination and subtle intrigues in order to keep her former admirers at bay. She stays blind for the 'real' world of true affections until she is confronted with naked and shattering facts. The performance of the cast (Nicole Kidman, John Malkovich, Barbara Hershey and others) is simply sublime. Rarely have difficult expressions in harsh and deeply pure or malignant emotional confrontations so intensely been interpreted. A must see.

moonspinner55 23-year-old American in 1872 England, orphaned and now residing with wealthy relatives, is preyed upon by a fortune hunter who--despite coming up against a determinedly independent lass with a cynical overview of marriage--breaks down the girl's defenses and takes her as his wife; years later, their marriage on the rocks, the woman upsets her husband's plans by interfering in the love-life of her stepdaughter who is being unsuccessfully wooed by a Lord. Director Jane Campion opens this adaptation of Henry James' novel with a collage of modern women's faces, free and forthright and fulfilled, but then hands us a heroine who is duped, abused, and reduced easily to tears. This is not Nicole Kidman's fault, her performance as Isabel Archer is as good as can be expected. Campion fails to reveal any dimensions of this girl, and Isabel's circling conversations with men have a one-note, droning quality which matches Campion's chilly visual style: colorless. Campion's artistic attributes certainly give select sequences a stunning, eerie romantic flavor, but she doesn't do much with the actors (some of whom, Mary Louise Parker and Shelley Duvall in particular, seem woefully out of place). Kidman is under-lit and posed like a porcelain doll (at one point, her grayish pallor perfectly matches that of a pillar just behind her); yet, while these shots are thoughtfully composed, they call attention to themselves in a negative way for an audience very likely to get fed up with such pretensions (especially in a film which is already methodically paced). Ironically, "The Portrait of a Lady" comes mostly to life when dealing with John Malkovich's cunning hubby; the actor has played roles similar to this in the past, but his relish in bringing out the dark side of this tale can clearly be felt. The picture is literate, but almost in an exasperating way; the tastefulness of it as 'art', and the tactfulness of Laura Jones' screenplay, nearly kills off our interest. ** from ****

maggietom After Isabel knew that Pansy is Serena's daughter, she was shocked at the very beginning and scared consequently 'cause she finally came to understand that she was used by her merciless husband and his lover. After this brief encounter with Serena, she realized that her cousin deeply fell for her since the very beginning,he did all he could to make her lead a happy and rich life but to propose to her himself, which is partly due to his consideration( he didn't want to widow her since he knew that he couldn't live long due to his consumption), and also might because that he was unconfident ( his wealthy friend Lord Warburton was refused when he proposed to Isabel, he might believe that he is out of the question too).Anyway, Isabel realized the real love she held is to her cousin- Ralph, but all is too late. She was angry with herself, she was angry with her fate, in other words, she hates herself so much that she wants to torture herself as sort of revenge.. But one thing is clear that she has changed again after the visit of England, after the dying of Ralph, after knowing that her husband is merely using her for her money, she wouldn't make his life easy as before, she might want to revenge him by returning to him. One thing is clear, she is becoming stronger and more cruel, maybe no less cruel than her husband. She is like this because she lost the only one who loves her and whom she loves. Isabel is dead.