The Portrait Of A Lady
From the Directors of "The Piano"
Nicole Kidman is Isabel Archer, a young women of daring independence and equally fierce desires. But her headstrong innocence is no match for the manipulations of her duplicitous friend Madame Merle and a devious Gilbert Osmond.
Please note that this title is currently out-of-print and not available for rent. Should it be re-released at a later date, we will gladly make it available for rent once again.
Member Reviews
A Vast Improvement - Sandman2
Maybe it's best to say that if you don't like Henry James, or late 19th-century novels, you probably won't like this movie. I may as well come right out with it, and say that I hated The Piano, and had pretty much decided Campion's work wasn't for me. But I enjoyed this movie more than I thought I would. Yes, it moves slowly, and there are sections in the middle that could have been tightened, but I found the movie growing in power as it went on. To say that Malkovich's character resembles his Valmont type in Dangerous Liaisons may point more to Malkovich's limits as an actor than to any failing of the script the director. Malkovich gets casts as this kind of snaky, blasé villain quite a lot - but it works better here, if only because he doesn't have to pretend not to be American. (He never should have been cast as Valmont - he just doesn't make a convincing French aristocrat.) As to the rest of the cast, there may have been a plan to stick to Big Names, mostly to well-known Americans, but beyond that, I don't think anyone embarrasses himself - though Barbara Hershey's not all that French either, it must be said. Kidman's work here seems both more thoughtful and more emotionally resonant than I usually see from her. The standout for me is Martin Donovan, who by the end of the film holds its emotional centre; he's terrific.Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz - cathyottawa
I have never read Portrait of a Lady, by Henry James, but if it's half as dull as this film, I'm glad.
Roger Ebert is a big Henry James fan, and while he took much more enjoyment from this film than I did, even he admits it veers from the novel in it's character development, and those that haven't read it might feel a little lost.
For me, this movie was trying to be like "Dangerous Liaisons", right down to the casting of John Malkovich in a Valmont type role. But it's never as wickedly intriguing as that film. I felt detached from all the characters here. I didn't care about any of them. I wasn't interested in any of them.
There was some strange casting. Mary Loise Parker looks out of place, as does Shelly Duvall. I didn't think Barbara Hershey was quite right either.
Finally, I didn't understand why Kidman's character was a feminist in the beginning of the film, only to become exactly what she swore she would never be - trapped, and under the sole power of her husband by the end. As Roger Ebert said, the movie makes her more of a victim than a heroine gone astray.
With a run time of almost 2½ hours, that feels like 4, this is better left on the shelf. WIth this, "Holy Smoke", and "In the Cut", Jane Campion has been nothing but disappointing since the wonderful "The Piano".
Member Reviews
Read All...
A Vast Improvement - Sandman2
Maybe it's best to say that if you don't like Henry James, or late 19th-century novels, you probably won't like this movie. I may as well come right out with it, and say that I hated The Piano, and had pretty much decided Campion's work wasn't for me. But ...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz - cathyottawa
I have never read Portrait of a Lady, by Henry James, but if it's half as dull as this film, I'm glad.
Roger Ebert is a big Henry James fan, and while he took much more enjoyment from this film than I did, even he admits it veers from the novel in it's ...