Rating: 
Summary: If you did not understand it....
Review: ...then you are definately, 'le American'. Okay so that's being a bit general. This movie was more an entertaining look at two different cultures--including food, wine, shopping, sex, and how they clash, then a meat-and-potatoes romance or drama. It didn't have a huge sopping love sory/action/and for that I was grateful. I have to say, most of the classic, well-loved novels and movies surround this similar premise: a young naive girl in a strange country, grows to love it, and finds herself. This movie is what it is, and it is utterly delightful, and alhtough cliched, most truthful, in fact, I should know, I'm an American who lived in Paris for years. As far as movies of 2003 goes, this is the creme de' le creme! Excellent!
Rating: 
Summary: Dull, dumb, and dumber
Review: If you have a choice between doing some tedious household chores, having minor surgery, and watching this film, I would go for the chores, or even the surgery - this film is much the most painful option.
*
Emotionally it is downright repulsive. No character is likeable, and the majority are completely repugnant. If, as is touted, this is meant to be a 'study' of the differences in attitude between the French and Americans in matters of the heart, then it a cynical, superficial, and wholly uninteresting 'study' - there are no worthwhile insights into human relationships, only tired, simplistic, and ultimately false cliches and stereotypes. It seems that the writer thinks that he has deeply analysed the French, that is all the French people and their entire culture, in terms of their purported readiness to say, 'But, of course', to any event, however disturbing. It is hard to think of a less intelligent analysis.
*
As a narrative, or as straight entertainment, it also fails dismally. The focus on money, as embodied by a painting by an old master, is incredibly dull. The characters are cardboard, with not even a hint of what lies behind their surface personas, and the latter are hardly engaging in themselves. Naomi Watts struggles to give some spine to her role, but the script defeats her at every turn. Kate Hudson doesn't even bother to struggle, figuring that simpering smiles and bafflement will suffice for her to pick up her pay check. The French actors sleepwalk their way through the nightmare.
*
This film is also far too long. So if you're looking for two hours of witless misanthropy, see 'Le Divorce'. I still can't quite believe that Merchant Ivory had anything to do with a film this bad.
Rating: 
Summary: Le Not Quite What I was Expecting
Review: Saw the previews a few times,and thought, "Oh, that looks like a harmless piece of fluff!" Actually, it strikes me as a movie very insulting to the French. They are depicted as adulterous, two-faced, and out to steal your inheritance if possible. How different things would be if only they would have supported the invasion of Iraq! There are a lot of good performances, that's true, and that's what does make the picture work as far as it does. The woman playing Kate Hudson's sister is absolutely beautiful, too. One scene that did make me burst out laughing (but not the moviemakers' design) was when Kate visited a lingerie shop to outfit herself for an assignation. This totally flat-chested actress told the shopkeeper she needed a 34B! Oh, sacre bleu! There's just no way she could have that cup size! It got a little too serious and then dipped into melodrama at the end; rather like an eclair that turns out to have a heavy crust. See it if you must, but I was vaguely disappointed.
Rating: 
Summary: As Misunderstood as the French
Review: It is difficult for an unusual movie to catch a break these days, especially when it's brand of peculiarity does not capture the hearts of the "artistic" film community. We have become so used to somewhat crisp storylines and a combination of characters and situations that fit into a neat Americanized package that it's no wonder a movie like this suffers from mixed reviews. I think you have to love the French to love this movie, and I am quite fond of both. Most Americans don't like the French because they consider them to be rude, but what they perceive to be "rudeness" is, in my experience, a difference in communication style. There are several voice intonations in French that are completely normal in that language, but in English they are perceived as negative. In much the same way, this movie's tone creates similar misunderstandings. But let's talk about the movie in more specifics. The storyline was admittedly somewhat weak and incongruous in some respects, and it does vary from the book on which it is based, but none of that really matters. The acting was delightful, especially from Kate Hudson, whose charm I never tire of (much like her delightful mother, Goldie Hawn). The characters were fascinating and added great interest to the picture. The setting was enriching for a fan of Paris, such as I am. And the generous amount of dialogue in French (with sub-titles) really helps to create the experience of being in France. Indeed, it is a unique experience that can only be appreciated by a unique group. Count me in. Le Divorce is definitely on my buy list for when it hits DVD.
Rating:
Summary: But of course!!
Review: I saw this movie last night and I loved it! I have not read the book, but from the movie trailer it seemed that this movie would be one of those cutesy, light hearted movies. In fact, this story had a serious side to it, but still had its comical sides. I loved the Paris scenery, especially the scene in the Eiffel Tower (seemed like you were there!). The emphasis this movie puts on the difference between French and American cultures was done superbly! Kate Hudson outshined all of the other cast members. Stockard Channing looks as good as ever! I can't wait to buy this on DVD.
Rating:
Summary: Almost like being in Paris!
Review: I enjoyed this movie, but most of all, I enjoyed the wonderful Paris scenery! It felt almost like being there... going up in the Eiffel Tower, walking down the street and window shopping, and sitting in the Café de Flore. As for the story... it was a mostly light hearted study in American and French cultural differences.
Rating:
Summary: Le Cute
Review: I liked this movie. The feel of being in Paris for an extended period of time with the freedom to do what you want was intriguing. This is my first Kate Hudson movie, v. cute actress, I'll look for more. Casting was superb.
Rating:
Summary: (3 - ) The Actors Are Better Than The Film
Review: This film fails to live up to the promise indicated by its director James Ivory and his first-rate cast. Among the members of the cast are Kate Hudson (Isabel Walker), Naomi Watts (Roxanne, her pregnant sister), Stockard Channing and Sam Waterston as their parents, Leslie Caron as the mother of Roxanne's husband Charles-Henri (Melvil Poupaud), Leslie Caron (Charles' mother), Glenn Close (an expatriate writer and friend of several of the characters), and Thierry L'Hermitte (Charles' uncle Edgar and a politician) and Matthew Modine as the outraged husband of Magda, Charles' lover. This cast obviously comprises more than enough acting talent to result in a compelling cinematic experience, yet despite the visual beauty of some of the scenes of Paris and the achievements of some of the cast members in their individual roles, I found the experience disappointing. The movie is based on the adaptation of a popular novel by Diane Johnson, and while I have not read the novel and do not intend to after viewing this film I suspect that a major problem is that the screen adaptation is in fact too true to the book. The central plot is that Isabel arrives in Paris to live with her sister as Roxanne prepares for the birth of her child. Literally, as Isabel arrives in Paris Charles is leaving Roxanne and soon announces that he wants a divorce. We are gradually introduced to Charles' family and Roxanne's family as they attempt to deal with the situation from their distinctly French and American viewpoints. Meanwhile, there is a subplot involving a painting in Roxanne's apartment that may or may not be a LaTour and the attempt to verify it's authenticity is complicated by museum politics (the Louvre vs. the Getty) and it's impact on the property settlement if there is a divorce. There is Isabel's eventual affair with Edgar and in addition increasing tension resulting from the attempt's of Magda's husband to end her relationship with Charles. And Glenn Close's role as the glue that ties a lot of these relationships together is an exercise in unrealized potential. Yes, it is as complicated as it sounds. There are just too many subplots for a film; after all, in the theater you don't have the luxury that a reader does of pausing to consider the relationships and their complexity or rereading the sections necessary to refresh your memory. It appears that the screenwiter and director were so captivated by the book that they felt that to be true to the story they had to include all of its complexity, but of course it is impossible in a one hour
fifty-five minute film to do justice to all the elements of an over three hundred page novel. At a seminar that I recently attended, a well known professor of theaterestimated that the best you could hope to do in a two hour film is capture one basic plot line and one ancillary line, a few supplementary ideas and maybe fifty pages of the book. So the key is get the essential elements right and then use the visual medium at your disposal to present the story as accurately as possible. By attempting to do too much, including an examination of the diffenences between American and French cultural attitudes about a range of subjects, this film does not come close to fulfilling its potential. However, while I was neither thrilled nor enchanted, the movie clearly had some good performances and excellent cinematography and was an interesting attempt to transport the book to the screen. Thus, I defintely feel that it deserves a weak three star rating and is neither the masterpiece that some reviewers considered it to be or totally lacking in merit as other reviewers have indicated. Tucker Andersen
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyed the book, endured the movie
Review: Having been entertained by Diane Johnson's novel, I braved the criticism and went to see the film. Admittedly, there were some delightful visual tidbits that almost made the film worth seeing. The imagery was clever. However, the film story possessed none of the wit, whimsy or intelligence of the written story. It made no sense. Some of the acting was bad; Kate Hudson failed to portray the hysterical and wise Isabel Walker. The cultural criticism was flabby and played heavily into stereotypes.
Rating:
Summary: Not-so-much-a Comedy, but an excellent heart-felt "dramady"
Review: Le Divorce is advertised as a comedy of manners, but comedy is the one thing it lacked. I did appreciate the fact that the film was very true to the book, which by the way was very comical!
The characters needed more definition, especially Kate Hudson's cute and quirky little sister role. Naomi Watts' character Roxy is weak, but she plays it out perfectly. The movie is great example of culture shock, and the plot is complex. So much MORE could have been done with this film, especially the dialog. The sisterly chemistry between Watts and Hudson is perfect. It's definitly a chick flick, but it is also worth watching! The average viewer expecting another "How to lose a guy" is destined for disappointment. However, unexpecting viewers may find a worldly film worth watching!
|
