Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

tieman64 "We'd have a good time, if only we'd stop trying to be happy." - Edith Wharton Jane Campion directs "The Portrait of a Lady", a film based on a Henry James novel of the same name. The plot? Nicole Kidman plays Isabel Archer, a young expatriate living in nineteenth century London. Though expected to be "sensible" and "marry a wealthy man", Isabel opts instead to be "free"; she travels around the world, turning down various marriage proposals along the way.Eventually Isabel meets the devious Gilbert Osmond (John Malkovich), whom she "freely" chooses to marry. This backfires; Gilbert's simply using Isabel to get at her impressive financial assets. The film's final act finds Isabel attempting to fight for the independence of Gilbert's daughter. If Isabel cannot be "free", then she will ensure that others can be.Anyone familiar with the proto-feminist novels of Edith Wharton, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf etc will find very few surprises in "The Portrait of a Lady". This is ultimately a by-the-numbers account of 19th century upper-middle-class social circles, a sexist and classist milieu which cinema often delves into. The film's themes of "female independence" are given a subversive twist – Isabel would have been happier had she not enslaved herself to vague notions of "freedom", and had she succumbed instead to the very notions of romantic love which she cynically deems old-fashioned – but pale in comparison's to Campion's best films. Consider Campion's "Bright Star", also set in the 19th century, and "Holy Smoke", also about an adventurous expatriate, both of which handle this material in fresh and exciting ways.Unlike the vast majority of Campion's pictures, "Portrait's" screenplay wasn't written by its director. Because of this, "Portrait" lacks that distinct personal stamp which makes Campion's other films so special. "Portrait's" aesthetic is also routine, though Campion's able to conjure up a number of wonderful moments. The film's New Age prologue, in which Campion's camera captures the awakenings of 20th century women whose sexual revolution the film's 19th century characters will later be denied, is particularly wonderful. Several dream sequences and black-and-white interludes also hint at what Campion is capable of at her best. Nicole Kidman is excellent as the conflicted Isabel Archer.7.5/10 – See "The Remains of the Day", "The Story of Qiu Ju", "Red Sorghum" and "Raise the Red Lantern".

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.

TheScholarGypsy This film is well-made, but there is a severity or coldness about it which is false to the temperament of the novel by Henry James on which it is based. Not so much in the portrayal of Gilbert Osmund by John Malkovich (although he brings to it his trademark air of sick malevolence, it seems excessive, not quite in key, even for the evil Gilbert Osmund), but very much so in the manner in which the heroine, Isabel Archer, is represented. In the novel she is a creature of passion; in the film, she is quite rightly adrift (true to the original) but altogether too much in the manner of an iceberg off the English coast rather than as an American "jeune fille" in sunny Italy. What passion she is given has a tortuous, fantastic character, represented by skewed hallucinations rather than by the robust erotic musings of innocent naiveté.Consequently, the movie ambles along, technically perfect but ultimately boring. Characters who appear to be bored and indifferent to their own lives not surprisingly fail to rouse in the audience any compensating interest. Ironically, it is given to the veteran actor John Gielgud (albeit perhaps unwittingly) to pronounce judgment upon this film in his character's dying scene: as Isabel fixes upon him an intent gaze, rapt with the serious business of grasping to her bosom a pearl of wisdom from this aged man poised on the brink of his ultimate odyssey, Gielgud emits as his final word-to-the-wise an elaborate yawn. In this curious version of James's energetic novel even death is a bore.

Michael May (Joffi) I have always enjoyed period pieces, good adaptations even more so. This film, however, is really only worth a 5 - an average film - if not for the strong performances of the supporting cast. The work of Barbara Hershey and Martin Donovan in particular is stellar, raising my rating to 6 on their merit alone.Aside from those two, this film is an exercise in 'almosts' and 'not quites'. It is almost engaging enough, yet just short of drawing me completely in. It not quite makes me believe Nicole Kidman's Isabel is worthy of the love of so many. The love shown by the suitors is believable enough (again, a well acted supporting cast), I simply do not quite believe the object of that love would elicit it.Still, the film is good. It is a pity, though. It could have been great.