Steineded How sad is this?

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Claudio Carvalho "The Misadventures of Margaret" is a film with a good cast. The names of Parker Posey, Elizabeth McGovern, Brooke Shields, Jeremy Northam and Corbin Bernsen give the expectation of an entertaining romantic comedy. Unfortunately the story and the characters are awful. Parker Posey performs an insecure and unbalanced woman and successful writer that wants to cheat her husband to write an erotic novel. Her agent (Craig Chester) is gay and her adviser. Her sister (Elizabeth McGovern) simply decides to leave her husband (Corbin Bernsen), who is a womanizer and unfaithful to her, to live with her lesbian friend (Brooke Shields). Only Jeremy Northam's character is not dysfunctional; he is a cult British professor that works hard and faithful husband still in love with his wife after a seven-year marriage. And in the corrupt universe of these characters, he seems to be wrong and guilty for the promiscuity of his wife. Gay audience will probably enjoy the free frontal nudity of men in several scenes. My vote is two.Title (Brazil): "Nem Todas as Mulheres São Iguais" ("Not Every Women Are Equal")

Gordon-11 This film is about an author who tries to write a follow up to her successful erotic novel debut. In the process of her research, she begins to question her marriage."The Misadventures of Margaret" tries to be an erotic romantic comedy, but it does not achieve either way. The production is B grade, looking more like a movie with a very tight budget. The plot is a little strange, jumping from fantasy and reality. Some of the fantasy scenes are laughable, and it's not a good thing. Most scenes are not that memorable either. I think "The Misadventures of Margaret" is a miss, despite a great cast.

tedg Spoilers herein.Rich potential: New York a la Woody; writer creating her own life; snappy dialog; sex as philosophy, set in a `perils of Pauline' context with anachronisms as a running joke. But the New York wasn't bookish and chic enough. It failed like the recent `Great Expectations.' The attempt at snappy dialog was energetic, but the cadence was all wrong, and that makes up for even the grandest stretch in the words. `An Ideal Husband,' is the recent example of perfection of this art. The problem isn't Parker. It's the director.I'm particularly attracted to films that fold reality in themselves: plots where the story involves its own creation. These abound in several forms, and some indie films have actually explored new territory recently (`eXistenZ,' `Memento,' and `Mulholland Drive' come to mind.) But this offers nothing new, so it is doomed to be compared to other examples of the same.Parker is a conundrum. I think she has a good instrument, rather flexible. I've seen her in 11 of her 37 listed film projects, which I think is comparatively high given the poor circulation of many. Never brilliant, she's been adequate and varied. I think she would have been up to this if she were directed to be less frantic and unappealing. And if the director knew how to clip the dialog like Jennifer Leigh in `Hudsucker,' or James Woods in `True Crime,' or Robert DuVall in `The Paper.'

James-66 Saw at LFF - very good indeed.Go and see for Brooke Shields; she is a riot as a lesbian femme fatale!Parker is a bit irritating, but beautiful!Good film.