Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Arianna Moses 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.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Robert J. Maxwell If you like Jane Austen, Gustave Flaubert, Henry James, and novelists of that ilk, you ought to get a bang out of this story of Jeremy Irons sacrificing his self esteem for love of a woman whom he loses for the flimsiest of reasons.The story in the main has Irons and Meryl Streep back in Victorian England. She is "the French lieutenant's woman" and is shunned by the village for having had an affair with the married man. She now moons over her absent lover and waits for the return that will never be realized.Irons is an independently wealthy naturalist who visits the village in search of fossils and finds love for the darkly mysterious Streep, although Irons himself has just married into a family of some repute. He divorces his wife -- shocking! -- and gives up his status as an "honorable gentleman." He gives Streep money, and later follows her to London, loses her, finds her three years later, and she rejects him because she has now become a liberated woman.There is a parallel story that doesn't get much time. It takes place today. Irons and Streep, both married, are having a fling during the shooting of a film. Again, Irons falls in love, but for Streep the encounter was far more casual and despite his efforts, she takes off happily with her French husband.The only Fowles novel I've read is "The Magus", which follows a similar trajectory -- man is coerced into a woman's thrall and is then deliberately and openly betrayed by her. The traditional Madia Gond, a tribe in India, had a custom called the ghotul in which adolescent boys and girls lived in the same house and played musical beds each night, whether they wanted to or not. The elders of the tribe claimed that this practice was intended to "cure them of love." I begin to wonder if Fowles isn't on the same trip. You know, "Most friendship is feigning; most loving mere folly"? Jeremy Irons as the uptight Victorian naturalist manqué never steps wrong. He ALWAYS never steps wrong. Meryl Streep. If you've seen her in later character roles like "The Iron Lady", you may not remember how lovely, pale, and fragile she could be in her earlier films. She's a splendid actress, even though make up has given her a mop of dark reddish hair so massive that it may have its own time zones. And both of the actors are perfectly capable of overcoming the sometimes stilted dialog: "I have taken unpardonable advantage of your condition. Forgive me." There are some allusions to Darwin but I don't think they amount to very much.It was directed by Karel Reisz. He directed the colossal art house flop called "Weeds," which was saved from complete obscurity only by my own stellar performance as an extra. Boy, did I establish atmosphere, or what? A prisoner smoking with a cigarette holder, a masterful touch! Here, whatever else we may say about the film, Reisz and his photographer, Freddie Francis, have paid such close attention to composition, values, rich colors, and camera placement that every shot is almost a painting in itself.I'm compelled to recommend it, although I wish the endings had been different and at least ONE of the Ironses finally wound up with one of the Streeps, but no dice. It's a story of lost loves, along the lines of "Wuthering Heights", but I wasn't bored for a moment.

Armand More than a movie , it is an answer to a special novel. More than a love story with two levels is stage for great actors. More than a show it is a impressive event. So, it is difficult to define or pledge. Beautiful, delicate and smart, adaptation and window, refined game and piece of autumn evening, castle of sand and nostalgic veil, play and song, exercise of beauty and honesty, challenge and proof of talent, a movie about love in a different alphabet, The French Lieutenant's Woman is collection of pages from Victorian books and shadows of present. It is not a surprise but not even rule. It is only a form to discover old fragments of any existence. That is all !

Rodrigo Amaro Beautiful, original and intelligent of using a certain source (a book written by John Fowles), changing the perspective presented in it and turning it into a fresh cinematic experience that is as much satisfying than the original source, the film version of "The French Lieutenant's Woman" escapes the sometimes overused routine of following the literature step by step by creating a nice way to compare life with reality, mixing two stories into basically the same context. Harold Pinter's screenplay takes the story from the book, told in the Victorian England, and adds the element of the movie within a movie, dividing it into two segments: the actors playing in a romantic film and the actors life in a current period. Let me organize the situation: in the modern times, two actors (played by Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep, are shooting a movie whose story takes place in 1800's, with Irons playing an respected biologist engaged to a rich woman who ends up falling in love by the mysterious French Liutenant's woman (Streep), who awaits for his lover to return. During those times where moral was above anything else their romance seems to be faded to failure, almost impossible to exist since she isn't seen with good looks by society constantly called as crazy or as the French Lieutenant's whore. This is practically an unhappy story at first glance. Later, we'll notice the actors life following the same path as the characters they play except the times are other, things are a lot easier for them; they're in love with each other but they're married with other people. And this story seems a happier story than the other, also at first glance. The intersection of both stories serves to show us not only which couple (the real one or the fictional one) might last together but also the period contrasts (there's a scene in which the actors are reading a paper with informations of how things were during the Victorian Era and they are surprised by the facts they learn) The examination one must have of both stories is the relationship between the characters played by Streep and Irons, and the way both have similarities even one being a work of fiction and the other being the reality. The only problem with the film directed by Karel Reisz is the fact we spend more time following the movie within the movie instead of following more of the actors life and their romance, which only had a notable importance when the other story was concluding as well. I'm not saying that the other story wasn't interesting but we should spend an equally balanced time with both segments so that we could see things more fairly, properly presented. Even so, the screenplay is brilliantly written and very original in terms of developing a story that goes to show the distinction between fiction and reality without playing tricks or use of excessive surprises to impress the viewers. But a film is not only its script. "The French Lieutenant's Woman" has an fascinating and careful art direction and sceneries, beautifully made, recreating England of the 19th Century is great details; costumes and clothes are also great; the cinematography is impeccable and one of the most wonderful works I've ever seen. At last, the most interesting aspect of the film is the acting delivered by Meryl Streep (Oscar nominated for this roles, after all she plays two roles) and Jeremy Irons (he deserved a nomination that year, playing one of his first leading roles showing a great talent in carrying the whole film). I've seen them playing another couple in the underrated "The House of the Spirits" and I loved them in that film just as much as in this film. They make acting seem easy whether playing complicated characters like the ones played here or in blockbuster films as well. And their characters go through everything here, love, hate, insanity, possession, kindness, a high range of emotions that very few actors can be natural and have a certain simplicity in playing it. Sparks fly high when they're together! Where do we have the chance to be really happy? In fiction or in reality? True love is that same kind of love we see in pictures or it's different in life? See it for yourself and think of some conclusions by watching this absolutely great film. 10/10

preppy-3 Charles Henry Smithson (Jeremy Irons) falls in love with outcast Sarah (Meryl Streep) in 1800s England. In the present day Mike (Irons again) and Anna (Streep again) are doing a movie about their tragic love affair and the movie jumps back and forth between the stories.Incredibly dull movie. Streep and Irons are fantastic in all their roles but the script is dull, the movie drags on forever and the parallels between the two stories are pointless and groaningly obvious. I have nothing against slowly paced movies (I love "Howard's End" and "Room With a View") as long as they're interesting. This isn't. You don't care one bit for any of these characters or their situations. I caught this snoozer in a theatre and had trouble staying awake! This is one of those "prestige" movies that critics fall all over themselves praising but audiences stay away from. This was a bomb at the box office and has (rightfully) been forgotten. This gets a 2 just for Streep and Irons.