Spoonixel
Amateur movie with Big budget
Stoutor
It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.
Cissy Évelyne
It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.
Phillida
Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.
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.
AaronCapenBanner
Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons play dual roles as Sarah, an outcast woman in 19th century England, and respected biologist Charles, already engaged to the daughter of a powerful man, who finds himself attracted to the melancholy, mysterious, and beautiful Sarah.This is contrasted with their "real life" counterparts Anna and Mike, who are actors portraying their romance in a film. Their lives mirror the fictional ones closely, as their affair has similar consequences to that of Sarah and Charles, only with a different outcome...Though the juxtaposition between the 19th and 20th centuries is at first jarring, it does eventually work, since the performances and direction are so good. A compelling romantic drama that does effectively illustrate the difference between Hollywood and Reality, and how the viewer will inevitably prefer one over the other...
Red_Identity
I don't really think this is all that good a film. I mean, it's not exactly bad in any way, and it still left me interested n it throughout to continue it, but it was mostly out of respect to Streep and me wanting to finish her filmography. It does drag quite a bit throughout. But one reason to seek it out is Streep, who is marvelous playing the American and the American herself playing a character. She's definitely worth it, and I mean, it's Streep. That's why I kept with the film, because I do want to end up seeing al of her nominated performances, but if you're expecting a Sophie's Choice performance, you won't get it here at all. As it is I give it a C
speedo58
Spoilers! The film is very disappointing. The lack of chemistry between the two stars, the insertion of the modern story with the lack of chemistry between the players within the modern story, the overacting by all the actors (or is it poor directing?) the length of the film, the assumption that we would believe Sarah a virgin when Charles finds her at the hotel, that we would believe Jeremy's character would be so gullible and go against very inflexible norms of Victorian behavior, the fact that the heroine should have been an English actress, the attempt to too literally adapt the novel to film, and then the overlay of Darwin, Freud, and the Pre-Raphealite Brotherhood just made a totally unengaging, wearing film.
