It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

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

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

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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.

Anybody taking on Gustave Flaubert's Madame Bovary should get some credit for the effort, the book is a classic and one of the greatest pieces of European literature(it's also easy to see why it was so controversial at the time) but it isn't an easy one to adapt at all with some very easy traps to fall into(making the characters one-dimensional for one). Of the three adaptations of the book seen so far personally- the others being the 2000 and 1949 versions-, this one is the most faithful but also the one that resonated with me least. There is much to like still, for one it looks absolutely gorgeous with very picturesque scenery, evocative settings, make-up and costuming and photography that is elegant and alive with colour. The music is hauntingly understated and lyrical, underlying the atmosphere while letting the drama speak. Claude Chabrol directs with a deft if at times clinical hand, particularly good in showing how rigid socially and morally mid-19th century French provincial life was. The performances are also great. Isabelle Huppert can understandably be seen as cold(to be honest Emma is the main reason why the book adaptation-wise is not that accessible because it is not easy to feel genuine sympathy for her), especially compared to Frances O'Connor and Jennifer Jones, and maybe she is not youthful enough in the early scenes but her classic beauty makes her perfect for period drama and she does act with coolness and poise but there is a sense of being stifled and being a victim of her own passions. Jean-Francois Balmer is appropriately mild-mannered and sympathetic if somewhat equally appropriately clueless as her husband. While Christophe Malavoy has the suavity and enigmatic menace just right and Lucas Belvaux is gentle without being dull. Jean Yanne shows Homais' unscrupulousness very well, and Jean-Louis Maury is good also as the malefic L'Heureux. Some things didn't come across as well. That it is faithful in detail to the book is laudable(most of the dialogue word for word), but it is one of those cases like the 1974 adaptation of The Great Gatsby of being too faithful that the dialogue while astonishingly literate and poetic lacks spark and emotion, the irony that surrounds Emma's tragic plight doesn't come across very well. The voice over doesn't really serve a point to the storytelling when it could have easily been said or shown, and that it is incorporated late and sparingly further gives it that notion. The story of the book is slow to begin with so it was not a bad thing for the adaptation to match the book's pacing. The thing is though the book's love scenes were passionate and there is also a lot of irony and bite. That the love scenes here were more coy than passionate(some of the chemistry looks uncomfortable), themes like the anti-clerical statements(quite savage ones at that) used in the book being excised and the writing having the poetry but not the irony made it not so easy to engage with and it all feels rather tame. The first half is often very ponderous and there is the sense that while the details are there what made the book so meaningful and shocking was lost. Overall, looks beautiful, skilfully directed and well-acted, but as a result of being too faithful emotionally and spirit-wise it felt cold and rather tame. The 2000 and 1949 also weren't as biting as the book, and they were nowhere near as faithful, but did have what this version didn't have. 6/10 Bethany Cox

On paper Huppert plus Chabrol is an unbeatable parlay but several times it has run out of gas and this, alas, is no exception. Bizarrely Chabrol has opted to film a novel whose essence is tedium - Emma's ennui with the minutiae of day-to-day life is the key to her subsequent actions - by speeding up the pre-marriage sequences so that instead of the stately courtship that would be more apropos we get a scene with Charles Bovary asking her father for Emma's hand; an intermediate scene with Charles watching for the signal (the opening of a shutter) that will signify Emma's agreement and then (all this in less barely one minute of screen time) we cut to the wedding feast. True, Chabrol slows it down later - as well he might with two and a half hours to play with - but the contrast tends to be off-putting. In its favour are the fine sense of period, costumes, decor, etc and though woefully miscast Huppert doesn't do mediocre and remains watchable in anything but overall one is left with the impression of a fine opportunity squandered.

I agree with the consensus here that this film adaptation is largely unsatisfying. However, I question whether Flaubert's masterpiece can ever be translated graciously to the screen. I suspect that a novel famous for having every word exactly in place, and whose appeal lies as much in the relentless poetic flow of its prose as in the brutally frank psychological characterization of its heroine (and a few other characters!), may be forever out of the reach of other media, and might best be left to pursue its own life on paper.I also agree that Ms. Huppert's portrayal is cold, but I've always seen Emma as being that way. After all--she's nuts. Crazy people are seldom full of human warmth. Emma Bovary is among the select handful of fictional characters neurotic enough to have given their names to a pathological condition (in this case, bovarism).It's always possible to admire a movie for its visual beauty, and this one wins hands-down in that category. But if you want the full impact of the wretched, wrenching story--you have to go back to the book. I applaud Mr. Chabrol for trying, even if he didn't succeed, to make a perhaps impossible adaptation.