Sadly Over-hyped

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

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

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

There are good things in Jane Campion's 1996 film "The Portrait of a Lady", and moments of cinematic magic, but somehow the movie becomes more conventional as the running time went on and the film ends up as an unabashedly feminist but also romanticized adaptation of Henry James's great classic novel.James is probably the most difficult of novelists to get right on screen, and this movie doesn't do him complete justice. Even so, I would have appreciated an individual slant on the novel, a cinematic take if it all but illuminates just one single aspect of the book. Unfortunately, the movie turns out to be not for the book purists/junkies, mainly because the casting has gone so horribly wrong.Nicole Kidman is an odd choice for Isabel Archer, more vulnerable and uncertain, less fresh and adventurous than in the book, full of latent sexual desires, which isn't inherently a bad thing to emphasize in the script, but Kidman is too hesitant and generally uninspired in the role. British thespian Sir John Gielgud has a very small part, really too small to make a deep impression, while John Malkovich -- what can I say -- is completely miscast, playing the villain with an irritating, bored, self-conscious effeteness that is totally wrong in the Europeanized American Gilbert Osmond. Neither does Martin Donovan seem at home as the consumptive Ralph, and Barbara Hershey is probably the best of the lot but has too little material to work on. The actors often seem lost owing to a lack of clear direction in acting, and the great revelation scenes don't work well, mainly because screenwriter has revealed everything even before the midway juncture of the film.What, otherwise, does one watch this movie for? The cinematography is stellar, with chiaroscuro effects at times reminiscent of Old Masters paintings, and the interplay of light and shade reminds us that Campion has a background in visual arts. Stuart Dryburgh deserves a Oscar nomination at least for this movie. Some of his lensing takes one's breath away. The art direction too is exemplary. Campion isn't a director to be dismissed easily, and there are scenes which work exceptionally well, particularly in the earlier parts, although the film becomes progressively more conventional and seems to have lost interest in itself as its runtime goes on. In the last resort this is a movie which is deeply flawed, mainly due to the miscasting, but still worth catching, maybe but once, for its exceptional cinematography and at times brilliant imagery. But be warned about the adaptation - it's not really for serious lovers of the novel but more for cinephiles who don't demand a script- and cast-perfect take on the silver screen.

Henry James has never struck me as being the most cinematic of authors; his novels generally involve detailed explorations of the psychology of his characters and are marked by a highly elaborate prose style, characterised by lengthy, complex sentences and Latinate vocabulary. Yet a number of films have been based on his works, some of them very successful, dating back to "The Lost Moment" (based on "The Aspern Papers") and "The Heiress" (based on "Washington Square") in the late forties. The Merchant-Ivory team made three film adaptations of his novels, "The Europeans", "The Bostonians" and "The Golden Bowl". Like many of James's novels, "The Portrait of a Lady" is set among American expatriates in Europe. The central character, Isabel Archer, is a young American woman who becomes financially independent after she inherits a large amount of money from her English uncle Mr Touchett. While travelling on the Continent she meets another American expatriate, Gilbert Osmond, in Florence. The two marry, but the marriage is not a happy one, and Isabel comes to suspect that Osmond is a fortune-hunter whose only interest in her is financial. The film is made in the "heritage cinema" style, popular in the eighties and nineties, and is reminiscent of the work of Merchant-Ivory and of certain other films of the period, such as Martin Scorsese's "The Age of Innocence" and Terence Davies's "The House of Mirth". Films in this style are generally set in the nineteenth or early twentieth century among the well-to-do classes, are generally based upon a literary source and are characterised by a detailed recreation of the look of the period and by an emphasis on dialogue and character development rather than physical action. Nicole Kidman's acting career got off to a promising start with films like "Dead Calm" and "Flirting", but over the next ten years or so she seemed to get stuck in something of a rut, appearing in far too many dull or second-rate films like "Far and Away", "Batman Forever", "Practical Magic" and the dreadful "Moulin Rouge". "The Portrait of a Lady" is considerably better than any of those films, but Kidman's performance is not her best, and her accent is not always reliable. It has become commonplace to describe American actors unsuccessfully attempting a British accent (or vice-versa) as being stuck in mid- Atlantic. Kidman's Aussie-tinged American accent is probably the first example of a major stat being linguistically stuck in mid-Pacific. John Malkovich is a lot better; like his Valmont in another period drama, "Dangerous Liaisons" his Osmond is the sort of character he excels at playing, able to combine an icy reptilian coldness with a certain smooth and plausible charm. There are also good contributions from Barbara Hershey as Osmond's friend and co-conspirator Madame Merle and from John Gielgud in a cameo as the elderly Touchett. (Gielgud was 92 at the time, and this was far from being his last film; he was to continue working up until his death in 2000 at the age of 96). Although Henry James was a dramatist as well as a novelist, and adapted several of his books for the stage, he considered "The Portrait of a Lady" to be unsuitable for dramatic presentation and dissuaded a friend who wanted to turn it into a play. That, however, did not dissuade Jane Campion from attempting to film the novel. Having recently watched the film for the first time since seeing it in the cinema in 1996, I can say that, in my view, James was probably right. It is, like many examples of "heritage cinema", visually attractive, but it is also rather emotionally cold and too slow-moving. There is nothing much about it which remains in the mind for long afterwards. It does not really compare with the greatest heritage movies like "The Age of Innocence", "The House of Mirth" or the best examples of Merchant-Ivory's work such as "Howard's End". Or, for that matter, with Jane Campion's own earlier, more dramatic and passionate period drama, "The Piano". 6/10

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.

I found this to be one of the BEST films I've ever been privileged to watch. Nicole Kidman is 'superb' in this film, as is John Malcovich, Barbara Hershey & Viggo Mortensen (others too, but these stand out). As I was watching the film, I couldn't help but think that Malcovich played the part of a Narcissist. I read the review and didn't see this mentioned, but I am wondering if others have also felt the same about the part he plays. I myself have experience being married (now separated) from a Narcissist....I recognize Kidman being treat as an 'object' not a human being with feelings & needs of her own. He was very cruel to her. This film is has amazing brilliance, and shows truly how a woman can fall prey to a manipulative, selfish man, and what it takes to get out from under one. Very deep!!