Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

SnoopyStyle Anna (Meryl Streep) and Mike (Jeremy Irons) are modern actors filming the movie "The French Lieutenant's Woman" and having a short romantic affair despite being married to others. In the Victorian movie, he plays Charles Henry Smithson engaged to Ernestina (Lynsey Baxter) in Lyme Regis. He breaks up with her after having an affair with Sarah Woodruff played by Anna. Sarah had been abandoned by a French Lieutenant. The ensuing scandal forces her to flee to London.Screenwriter Harold Pinter adapts the unfilmable novel by John Fowles. The solution is interesting but it leaves me with one big problem. The modern world becomes the real story while the film within the film becomes something fake that I don't care about. Whenever Charles and Sarah are on the screen, I can't wait for them to go away. It's an intriguing idea but it doesn't engage me.

gelman@attglobal.net Thirty years after seeing it for the first time, I revisited this film last night on PBS. I had remembered only two things from it: The quality of Meryl Streep's acting and the famous scene of her standing on the very edge of a stone wave breaker while the sea burst around her. I had forgotten that it was a film within a film. I had forgotten all but the vaguest outlines of the plot. I had entirely forgotten Jeremy Irons. If retention in memory is the hallmark of a good work of art, I'd have to give "The French Lieutenant's Woman" a low mark.And yet the second viewing of the film was a revelation. I hadn't previously been struck by how beautiful Meryl Streep was when she was young. Nor did I remember how controlled her acting was in this overwrought movie. "The French Lieutenant's Woman" was nominated for five Academy Awards and deservedly lost all five, including Ms. Streep's nomination as best actress. Nevertheless, this was one of the record number of nominations she has compiled and it should be seen if only for that reason. It adds a different dimension to her incomparable portfolio of challenging roles. Jeremy Irons fares less well in my estimation. Like Ms. Streep, he plays two parts, one as her co-star in the film being made and the other as the lover ruined by his all-consuming love for her film character. Not that Irons does a bad job of acting. He simply fails to be convincing in the second of his two roles. That may be because the story (or the part) is inherently unconvincing, sort of Wuthering Heights without the emotional tide which causes that heavy- breathing romance to seem plausible to many women if not to their menfolk.It's still not a great movie. Maybe not even a good movie. But if all we ever cared to watch were good/great films, Hollywood would soon be out of business.

kneiss1 When I got this movie, and read the title, I wasn't expecting anything that would suit my taste. I have been expecting a cheesy, unrealistic and boring women's movie. - I have been wrong. Of course it was a bit cheesy, but less cheesy than most Hollywood movies. Actually, the whole movie was quite realistic. Of course this movie is mainly for women. - It's a love story! Yet, I find it has more to offer to male viewers than other love stories. The main actor is male. An absolutely interesting character. A character that is trying hard to be good, but isn't perfect at all. A character you can actually identify with. And my god, Jeremy Irons played that character so well. This movie has a calm and melancholic atmosphere. I am sure many people will mistake it for "boredom". - Not me; the story is so interesting, that it kept me curious throughout the whole movie. I really didn't know how this story was ending. And yet, the ending satisfied me totally. An extremely unusual case for me.My pretty much only gripe about the movie is, that the story in the 20th century is suffering in length. While characters and storyline are in perfect shape when it comes to 19th century, the story and characters lack depth, when it comes to the 20th century.

random_avenger Two film actors named Anna and Mike (Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons) rehearse their roles for a Victorian period piece and have an affair with each other. Interspersed with the present day scenes are extensive clips from the finished version of the film they're working on: the love story of a gentleman named Charles and a poor woman Sarah who has lost her reputation after having been romantically linked to a French officer. Charles and Sarah, like Mike and Anna, are played by Irons and Streep.The movie-within-a-movie structure makes it possible to examine the expressions of romance in very different eras that still mirror each other in many ways. While the Victorian society is suffocating in its prim and proper moralizing, relationships are not necessarily easier in the liberal modern era either, as it is always difficult to follow one's heart without hurting someone in the process.Technically the film is well made, the historic sets and costumes look good and Streep and Irons are convincing in their double roles. Especially the eponymous Sarah character is full of tragic mystery and understandably carries the film whenever she is on. The pace is slow and peaceful, allowing the romances to develop without haste. In the end the Victorian story gets more attention and is probably what the film is best remembered for, but the present day romance is a tale worth telling too. In any case, I recommend the film for any fan of romantic cinema – it's essentially two romances in one.