Rating: 
Summary: Portrait of Lady via John Malkovich
Review: The problem with this movie, besides the need for Nicole Kidman to have better motivation and understanding of her role, is Mr. John playing the same OLD CHARACTER he's played over and over and over. After the film,"Dangerous Liasions," his skills as an actors have not changed. His voice inflections are the same, his condesending snarl is the same and his boring cruelty is the same. Bottom line, his acting is predictable and tired. However, the film captures the story pretty well and it is visually wonderful. As this is one of her earlier roles, Nicole K. would have benefitted with some personal tutoring and inspiration, but playing against John M. doing the same role he always plays makes it a bit difficult to rise above. I love the visual use of the "flutter" of Nicole Kidman's skirt as an analogy to her "caged" life. The other actors are simply wonderful, especially Shelley Duvall and Barbara Hershey, whose works seem to transcend any type of catorgorizing. She is a jewel. Despite its flaws, I loved the film. I just try and pretend Malkovich isn't in it. I wish he would get over his preening, self-absorbed vocal inflections.
Rating: 
Summary: I found this is greater than the novel
Review: This adaptation of Henry James' technically innovative but infamously dense novel is interesting primarily because director Jane Campion seems to have entirely missed the point. She's mistaken Isabel Archer for a "romance addict" rather than the naive idealist James created. Perhaps aiming for wider appeal, she tries to turn this from the portrait of a unique female personality into a more general exploration of "women in love". Such universalizing might have worked if she and screenwriter Laura Jones had also had the wherewithal to change the story to suit their modified heroine. But having ditched the most critical aspect of the novel, they then remain reasonably faithful to its flow of events, with Isabel choosing an ugly, "sterile dilettante" (Malkovich) over a handsome lover and a rich English lord (Mortensen and Grant respectively) both of whom are infatuated with her. For Isabel the "naive idealist", such a choice is perfectly understandable. For Isabel the "romance addict", and women in general, such a choice beggars belief. So this not only fails as an adaptation, it fails as a convincing narrative in its own right. Screenwriting devotees might be drawn to it wondering just how Jones will convey Isabel's famous interiority without resorting to voiceover. The answer is simple: she ignores it in the writing (with the exception of one inspired fantasy sequence) and leaves most of it to performance. The result is that Kidman spends more than half the film in incomprehensible tears. The novel's Isabel cries once in 600 pages. For all that, this film is still not without reward: the performances from the near-ensemble cast are universally marvellous, the settings and costumes exquisite, and the music and cinematography are a perfect match for it all. There's no doubting Campion's skill as a director; I just doubt her interpretation of the source material.
Rating: 
Summary: More appropriation than adaptation
Review: This adaptation of Henry James' technically innovative but infamously dense novel is interesting primarily because director Jane Campion seems to have entirely missed the point. She's mistaken Isabel Archer for a "romance addict" rather than the naive idealist James created. Perhaps aiming for wider appeal, she tries to turn this from the portrait of a unique female personality into a more general exploration of "women in love". Such universalizing might have worked if she and screenwriter Laura Jones had also had the wherewithal to change the story to suit their modified heroine. But having ditched the most critical aspect of the novel, they then remain reasonably faithful to its flow of events, with Isabel choosing an ugly, "sterile dilettante" (Malkovich) over a handsome lover and a rich English lord (Mortensen and Grant respectively) both of whom are infatuated with her. For Isabel the "naive idealist", such a choice is perfectly understandable. For Isabel the "romance addict", and women in general, such a choice beggars belief. So this not only fails as an adaptation, it fails as a convincing narrative in its own right. Screenwriting devotees might be drawn to it wondering just how Jones will convey Isabel's famous interiority without resorting to voiceover. The answer is simple: she ignores it in the writing (with the exception of one inspired fantasy sequence) and leaves most of it to performance. The result is that Kidman spends more than half the film in incomprehensible tears. The novel's Isabel cries once in 600 pages. For all that, this film is still not without reward: the performances from the near-ensemble cast are universally marvellous, the settings and costumes exquisite, and the music and cinematography are a perfect match for it all. There's no doubting Campion's skill as a director; I just doubt her interpretation of the source material.
Rating:
Summary: Not really great.
Review: This film bothered me in a couple of ways that kept me from giving it a higher rating. The main reason is the character that J. Malkovich plays. This character(I forget his name) has so little going for him that when Isabel is attracted she looks very stupid and naive(a quality for some reason some people admire and Henry James seems to be one but I equate with stupidity). Anyways I'm not sure if the film is stylistically any good because I'm ignorant in that area. But some good points of the film are the lovely Nicole Kidman's performance and Martin Donovan's(Ralph Touchett).
Rating:
Summary: Beautifully elegant, thought provoking and maddening.
Review: This is a beautiful film that will not be appreciated by all audiances. It is not a movie easlily understood, but moves as life does, along a twisted path. Wonderful perfomances from all leading characters as well as Martin Donovan as Isabel Archer's (Nicole Kidman) ailing and long suffering cousin. This is a film for any fans of 19th century romance and fiction. Jane Campion has again astounded film viewers with her sharp skill and mastery as a film maker.
Rating:
Summary: Not for Low-Brows
Review: This is one of my all-time favorite movies for various reasons but the top three reasons are Jane Campion, Nicole Kidman and Barbara Hershey. Jane Campion has taken this amazing book and found a way to convey an array emotions in a stunning visual manner. I scoffed at Nicole Kidman until I saw her in To Die For and then I saw this film and became a loyal follower. I don't care how bad the movie is, she is always worth watching. And anyone who isn't completely moved by Barbara Hershey trying to maintain composure while speaking to the back of someone who obviously is trying shun her should check their pulse. It is one of the most heartbreaking moments in acting I have ever seen. The cinematography is seductive and the music is trance inducing. Gorgeous costumes and amazing performances from everyone involved. Quite frankly a perfect film. If we're lucky there will be a Criterion version of this film with director's commentary someday.
Rating:
Summary: Jane Campion's underated masterpiece
Review: This movie was completely slagged off by US audiences, which just further illustrates the disaster that is American cinema. The Portrait of A Lady is brilliant film-making. It is a movie full of complex characters, divided emotions and intense drama. Most American's just don't get it. Campion's decision to begin the film in modern day with a series of women talking about love proves that not much has changed since Henry James wrote the classic novel on which the film is based. The film follows closely to James' story: Isabel Archer (Kidman in her finest role) comes to England to visit relatives and winds up inheriting a fortune. She falls under the spell of Madame Merle (Barbara Hershey deserved an Oscar)who introduces her to the sinister Gilbert Osmand (Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons mode)who simply wants her money and another beauty to add to his art collection. Isabel rejects a number of suitors in her quest to be an independent woman. She claims to her smitten cousin that she will never marry, but falls under the spell of Osmond. There are scenes of horror and heartbreak here, imaginative moments such as Isabel's "travelogue" through Europe as she begins to obsess over Osmond's entreaty that "I find myself absolutely in love with you." The supporting cast lead by Martin Donovan, Christian Bale, Shelly Winters, Shelly Duval and the priceless Mary-Louise Parker are superb. The much discussed final scene (which for some reason people don't understand) is a fabulous coda to this film. It mirrors an earlier scene when Isabel refused the proposal of Lord Warburton, and now finds herself in the same situation with her American suitor. Isabel runs toward the house, but rather than going inside, she turns back and the image freezes. Isabel is reconsidering the proposal of a man who truly loves her. What people don't like, obviously, is that we don't see her run back to his arms and tearfully say yes as the screen fades to black. We see Isabel caught in a moment of change and decision. This haunting final image is superb. Get a clue, people.
Rating:
Summary: Masterpiece.
Review: To a scandalous degree, Henry James -- Dead White Male that he is -- understood female psychology better than almost everyone in the history of literature (only Shakespeare and Virginia Woolf rival his primacy in this). In fact, OVERTLY "feminist" literature really begins here, with his novel *The Portrait of Lady* and his heroine, Isabel Archer. (With the Brontes, Sand, and others, it was all subtext. Heck, they felt obliged to publish their works as male writers.) Rather than be outraged by this, director Jane Campion honors James' trailblazing. She works with his material, rather than against it: meaning, she doesn't try to CORRECT James, something which her fellow feminist directors would doubtless find very easy to do. While avoiding such artistic immaturities, Campion does make a point of bridging the century-long gap between the source material and 1996 with an audacious title-sequence that indicates how freer women are in some ways while at the same time showing how they still perceive themselves as not at all autonomous from the men in their lives. From there, we're treated to a technically masterful, psychologically acute rendition of the novel. Almost every shot is beautiful, innovative, inventive. The script is dense AND intense, no easy feat. The performances? John Malkovich's deliberate line-readings, tics, and serpentine manner, normally so irritating and distracting, for once seem totally in accord with the part he's playing. (But Campion keeps a firm clamp on Richard E. Grant, also known for an idiosyncratic style of acting.) As for Nicole Kidman and Barbara Hershey, each has never been better. One may say the same for Jane Campion as director, too. -- I must say it was disheartening to see so many lukewarm reviews from Amazon reviewers. Bad reviews from professional "critics", especially when it comes to truly challenging material, is par for the course; one expects better from thoughtful viewers . . . but then, *The Portrait of a Lady* seems to have corraled very few of those. I heartily concur with a reviewer below who admonished, "Get a clue, people." One problem people have with the movie is the nature of the relationship between Isabel and the loathsome Osmond, which strikes some as unrealistic, even masochistic . . . but then, that was James' whole point. Of COURSE Isabel would be perversely attracted to a guy who says things like, "I'm sick of my adorable taste." The biggest complaint is reserved for the ending. Why? Must you be spoonfed everything? Look: the crisis of decision IS the climax. It's the whole point. It's what the movie has been about, sequence after sequence. So, no: it's not "They lived happily ever after", or "They all died tragically. Curtain." I'm sorry to say that any shortcomings you might find with *The Portrait of a Lady* are probably a classic case of what the shrinks call "projecting" . . . in other words, the shortcomings are yours, not the movie's.
Rating:
Summary: Supurb drama above all else.
Review: Two themes characterize Henry James novels and are beautifuly rendered in this film. First, his female protagonists behave with maddening unpredictability, which fleshes out their characters in memorable ways. Second, James loves to depict wealthy guileless naive Americans in the hands of sophisticated worldly Europeans. Isabel Archer is such a creation, an American transplant to England, in the dark about her self and her future, but full of beauty and promise. At the outset she rejects Lord Warburton, the man perfect for her, so she can find her self and let light into her soul. "I am very fond of my liberty...I wish to choose my fate," she tells her cousin, Ralph Touchett, who also is in love with her. Her idea of happiness is a journey into the unknown, "A swift carriage ride, of a dark night...." She appears to be independant and full of purpose, but Isabel is an innocent with a streak of sensuality in her. In her naivete she mistakes the heartless Gilbert Osmund's sensuality for refinement while he determines to possess her for her money. The marriage is disaster for Isabel whose world becomes darker and progresseively more oppressive. At last the mortal illness of her cousin, Ralph, allows her to escape Osmund and go back to England. Now all has come full circle, she is experienced, wiser, she meets another ex-suitor, Casper Goodwood. He pleads with her to leave Osmund and make a new life for her self with him. She is back at the moment where it all began and she can start over, she has only to make the choice. It is not only this story but the way Director Campion presents it that makes this film great and utterly intriguing with every viewing. A prologue scene offers a vignette of ordinary young women. Who are they? What is their story, their future? The focus shifts to Isabel, and Nicole Kidman presents a marvelous performance of a woman victimized not only by her innocence but by forces within her that she doesn't understand. Kidman is the perfect foil for John Malkovich's supurb portrayal of Osmund, a shallow malevolent dilettante who manipulates people like objects. In Campion's settings the lighting of the opulent surroundings dims as Isabel's inner light is quenched. In the final scene she makes her choice, she chooses to remain out in the cold. She's not stupid, she's not innocent, but she rejects the light for the dark and returns to her abuser. It doesn't make sense, it makes drama! Campion's ending leaves the viewer guessing at her motives, but James makes it clear in his ending that engulfing love terrifies her.
Rating:
Summary: A LUSH AND BEAUTIFUL PERIOD PIECE...
Review: While this is a lush and beautiful period piece, the problem with it is that it is somewhat dull. Despite stellar performances by John Malkovich, Barbara Hershey, and the supporting cast, the main star, Nicole Kidman, is out of her league, though she is a luminous beauty and has some acting ability. The problem is that her performance lacks the presence or depth necessary to make this a truly interesting film. She just is not good enough an actress to be able to carry the storyline and engage the viewer. It is unfortunate, as the film is an otherwise good adaptation of Henry James' novel of the same name.
|
