Wordiezett So much average

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

adrian-43767 According to French documentaries on the subject, Director Claude Chabrol did his utmost to stay true to Gustave Flaubert's novel. He saw Isabelle Hupert as the perfect fit for Madame B, and everything else apparently fell in place after that. Therein lies my first qualm: Hupert is not as plain as Madame B is supposed to be. Balmer is suitable as the shy, insecure rural doctor she marries. The rest of the cast is good enough, with Madame B's first lover particularly convincing.A voiceover is introduced to link different times in the story, a trick which, I think, did not come off very well. Still, Chabrol's direction is sound, by and large, and photography is a big plus, as are the costumes and period recreation. He manages to convey the disappointment Madame B feels when she realizes that all her loves run for cover when she needs them, and only the husband she despises stays with her to the end.It is a powerful novel and a great psychological study, but, as much as CC tries to remain faithful to Flaubert's literary masterpiece, he allows narrative to run adrift at times, making for an uneven film -- but one which is worth watching at least once.

Armand not great, not bad but interesting. a correct film without the emotions of novel. a film in which lead actor is atmosphere. but it is not always credible. sure, after reading the book, it is easy to criticize. but the problem is the difficulty to create desire to discover Flaubert masterpiece. it is a sad story but it has so many sparkles of emotions, joy and hope. or the impression is to admire a funeral mask. Chabrol good intentions are obvious but it is not enough. Huppert does a wry role and the film seems be only a theater play. Madame Bovary is a cold shadow, ice statue, hologram. it is a beautiful, yet. but its beauty is more result of memories about novel. an adaptation. not great, not bad, correct but not convincing.

jeremy-giroux This movie was really deceptive to me. First, I wanted to watch it as I know that Isabelle Huppert and Claude Chabrol have amazing talents. After watching it, I thought that they both failed. I explain myself : Huppert is too pragmatic and cold to play this role. It seems like she plays every single scene as if she knew what kind of effect she will have on the people around. It's quite borrying. Emma Bovary is not Nana (from Zola's novel), she is someone who is not so interested in success, she is far more interested by passions. She is a woman living in dreams and thinking than life can be passionate as novels. I read the novel just a week before and I think that Flaubert describes well the fact that Emma Bovary is only interested in herself, in her feelings and in a "romanesque" conception of love. Huppert is far too pragmatic and not really romantic. Some scenes look "grotesque" as the one when after dancing with the Baron, she almost faints. It looks like Huppert uses a trick, which makes the scene look false. Moreover, she was probably too old to play the part of Emma Bovary (in the novel, Emma Bovary is twenty or thirty, surely not forty years old). Huppert got the part when she was almost forty and she looks too self-assured to play it well. For example, when she says to Rodolphe that she could have given her life for him, she bugles like mad woman though Emma is a passionate and really weak person. By never showing her weakness, Huppert don't find the good way to play this character.An actress like Anne Brochet or, Irène Jacob would have suited for the part perfectly (these two actresses look young enough). Isabelle Adjani would have probably been too passionate and not enough dreamy to play that part. Jeanne Balibar would have been great too. The other problem is in the way the movie is directed. The beginning of the story is all summed-up by Chabrol who doesn't show the fact that Emma Bovary and her husband Charles are far far different. The voice-over is not a great idea to explain that situation... and the fact that these scenes are so short make probably the actors play their part in a kind of caricature of themselves (which is the main problem of Huppert's interpretation). I think that Huppert and Chabrol were probably too confident to make that movie and that's probably why it can be so deceptive. The cinematography is not so intense and it looks like a movie made for TV. It could have been a quite good adaptation for a movie made for TV and released on a week evening but it's really not enough for a Cinema movie, made by two masters of Cinema.

Sleepy-17 Isabelle Huppert plays the part very coldly, which makes the story more distant. She seems to view romantic sexual pleasure as something to be acquired instead of experienced. The medical scenes, however, are very well done and almost shocking in the staid context of the film's sensationless depiction of marital infidelity. Other Bovarys (Jennifer Jones and Frances O'Connor) have been much more sensual, whereas Isabel is pretty but it never seems that having sexual intercourse with her would be fun. Sorry to put it so crudely, but I always thought that sexual attraction was the point of the story, and also the source of its tragedy.