leethomas-11621 Dour production. Having recently read the book I was really disappointed in this. Drains the life out of the book. Only managed half an hour before realising it couldn't improve. Have been a fan of Wasikovska since Tracks but maybe she wasn't suited for this role. But more likely it's the direction. I hope this adaptation doesn't stop people from reading one of the greatest books ever written!

dbdumonteil "Madame Bovary" was already transferred twice to the screen in its native country :Jean Renoir's version (1934) is generally considered the best ;the more recent version by Claude Chabrol who claimed he "made the movie Flaubert would have done" ;there's also Vincente Minnelli's film, starring the most beautiful romantic Emma ever in the shape of Jennifer Jones .Mrs Barthes took more liberties with the novel than any of her colleagues,sometimes not for the best: it's really a bad idea to replace the Marquis' ball by a hunting with hounds : a ball is par excellence the place where a woman can shine,dazzle all the men around and outstrip all her rivals:Flaubert's depiction of the soiree ,which is the turning point of the novel ,reveals Emma's monotonous living,her longing for a socialite life ,for a romantic love story her meek oafish hubby cannot give to her;the Marquis ,becoming Emma's lover , led the screenwriters to do without Rodolphe Boulanger ,which may disappoint the readers.Gone is Emma 's daughter -she wanted a boy and she found her ugly- who landed as a working girl in a spinning mill ,ironical fate for a daughter whose mom wanted to climb the social scale.On the other hand,Lheureux,Emma's evil genius, is given a (too) prominent role ,and Monsieur Homais ,the atheist chemist hardly appears ,he 's only in it to urge Charles to operate on Hippolyte,the person with club- foot ;the scene in the church with the vicar is much weaker than its equivalent in Renoir's movie;the agricultural meeting fete is botched ,and passes over in silence the way Flaubert showed "the poverty of the century " ,in the shape of a very old lady who is awarded a medal after a life of hard labor.(Renoir did not forget that either)The movie is not completely wretched though.Mia Wasikowska is a very credible Emma ,and even if her suicide may surprise Flaubert's readers,the final scene with these torches in the night is cinematographically dazzling(but the prologue which makes the movie a flashback is pointless);Charles Bovary(Henry Loyd-Hughes) is exactly how Flaubert depicted him,an unambitious good man with a small mind, whose main pleasure in life is to sit down at table and enjoy his meal;the wedding night -not shown in precedent versions- is revealing .To get a semblance of a luxury life,she's seized by a compulsive desire to buy mountain of things ,most of which are thoroughly useless.She lives in a world of illusion,even Leon (Ezra Miller)holds a second-rate position he may easily loose if he continues with his romance with a married woman.This new version will probably not go down in cinema history.But ,even though the screenplay is eminently debatable,the cinematography is splendid indeed.

jparsons-106-257792 The Emma Bovary of this movie was not charming, not attractive, not spirited, not well intentioned, not seemingly disturbed by her own conduct, and displayed no real depth of character, and she thereby offered me no reason to somehow bond emotionally with her as she stumbled into a tragic life of her own making; I never became invested in the outcome beyond increasingly wanting the story to end. The other characters in this movie were almost all as equally unmoving and dull. When the movie was over, it was not over soon enough. Maybe it was the fault of the director that this thing was a stinker. Whatever the problem with this movie, don't subject yourself to it.

Russ Matthews (russellingreviews) "She wanted to die, but she also wanted to live in Paris." ― Gustave FlaubertWalking into the cinema... A classic novel by Gustave Flaubert that might be familiar to many by name only, but still sets the standard for realism. Emma Bovary has been portrayed by a multitude of actresses, but how will the perennial period actress, Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) handle the disenchanted wife of Charles Bovary? Art-house rating: 2.5 stars* Cinematic rating: 2.5 stars Big question opportunities: 3 stars Review It is the name that might sound familiar, but this may be the first time this generation has engaged the story of Madame Bovary. Set in provincial 19th century northern France, Emma Bovary is a misunderstood soul who desires more than the small country town life style. She is beautiful and loved, but an enigma to most of the people who come into her life. Her father, the boarding school nuns and her husband, Dr. Charles Bovary (Henry Lloyd-Hughes) have an adoration for her, but do not know what to do with her wandering spirit. Her arranged marriage to the community physician, Charles, affords her a certain position within this small community's societal life. Soon she finds that this life as a doctor's wife, is not as glamorous as she thought and seeks satisfaction from her boredom. Emma finds solace in decorating her home, wearing the latest fashion and living out the romance she desires in the arms of other men. Eventually, overspending and the extra- marital relationships are all brought to light and Emma must come to terms with the repercussions of these revelations. Before dismissing this structure as a run of the mill romance novel, stop to consider that this classic tale provides something unexpected in literature. Gustave Flaubert's tragic tale explores the multiple layers of the feminine heart and what happens to someone when they painstakingly seek after the life that was not meant to be. A story chapter rich and laden with emotion. The key to a good film is a rich story. Madame Bovary provides just such a tale, but the implementation does not match the richness of the Flaubert novel. Sophie Barthes delivers a realistic view of 19th century France by depicting the look and feel of Emma Bovary's life as a societal lady in a small town. The landscapes and French countryside provide a canvas for Barthes to paint an emotional backdrop for her acting talent. Her direction delivers a masters class in effective visual delivery, but stumbles in with her casting choices. Leaving the comments about the multiplicity of accents to a minimum and focusing on the actors themselves. (Couldn't they have at least attempted a French lilt to their delivery?) The casting missteps came in the lead characters of Mia Wasikowska and Ezra Miller (The Perks of Being a Wallflower). Wasikowska has proved her skills in portraying women of this era in Jane Eyre, but she does not have the commanding presence to play the emotional layers and sensuality of Emma Bovary. She continues to prove herself as an actress, but does not rise to the challenge of this iconic literary figure. Similarly, Ezra Miller is a striking young man, but was woefully miscast. He does not have a commanding presence on the screen and comes off like a love-sick school boy throughout the film. These central characters let Barthes' direction down and ultimately fail to provide a satisfactory experience. Paul Giamatti and Henry Lloyd-Hughes should get a nod as under- utilised talent, but the support characters cannot make up for the leads. If Barthes does redeem herself in choosing talent it was with the casting of Rhys Ifans (Sherlock) as the devious Monsieur Lheureux. He has the ability to sweep into each scene and convince Madame Bovary and the audience that he is an ally, but proves to be the unassuming villain. Barthes provides a beautiful backdrop for her portrait of Madame Bovary, but neglected to find the right individuals to complement the cinematic canvas.Flaubert was known to be artistic with his words and even in this less than effect interpretation of his novel, the tragedy that is Madame Bovary draws the audience into this captivating, fictitious world. How this man was able to deliver a story that seems to capture the heart of the dissatisfied woman is amazing to consider. His story shows us how easy it is to miss out on what is important in this life. Flaubert provides a multitude of entry points into the considerations for envy, satisfaction and contentedness. Showing that when striving to find satisfaction in mere things or people, they will ultimately fail to provide the answers that exist beyond this life. It is unfortunate that the cinematic experience could not match the richness of the original story, but even in this weak delivery, the story of Madame Bovary does allow for engagement and contemplation of the bigger ideas of life.Leaving the cinema... How do you take on a classic like Madame Bovary? Sophie Barthes has the skills as a director, but does not seem up to the challenge of taking on Flaubert's novel. It was a credible attempt, but ultimately forgettable. Reel Dialogue: What are the bigger questions to consider from this film? 1. Why is love essential to life? (Matthew 22:26-40, 1 Corinthians 13) 2. Can we find redemption for our lives? (Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14) 3. What should we do with the boring parts of life? (Ecclesiastes 2:24-26, Proverbs 19:15)Written by Russell Matthews based on a five star rating system @ Russelling Reviews #russellingreviews #madamebovary