fredtee When will this melancholy and overly-dramatic movie end, already? It goes on and on and on....about nearly nothing. What is the moral of this story? A lonely and penniless nanny takes advantage of a generous rich man, then disappears from the hotel room he has arranged for her in another town after they have passionate sex and she admits to being a virgin, placing a lie to her elaborately contrived French Lieutenant lover story.After 3 years of constant searching he finds her, and following the brief exchange of a few "poor me" words, they paddle off into a lake, presumably to live happily ever after. (In contrast to the contrived by-story of the same actors set in modern times). Meryl's excuse for disappearing for 3 years, "I was mad, bitter and angry and had to find myself."This is a "feminist" movie? Is cheating a man a feminist principle? Is "finding myself" a feminist objective?This movie should be called, "The French Lieutenants Whore," which is what Meryl Street actually calls herself in an early scene.I suspect the original title for the movie, and Faulkner's "masterpiece" on which it is based, was most likely called "The French Lieutenant's Whore," but I suspect some feminists talked Faulkner and the movie producers out of it.

gavin6942 A film is being made of a story, set in 19th century England, about Charles (Jeremy Irons), a biologist who is engaged to be married, but who falls in love with outcast Sarah (Meryl Streep), whose melancholy makes her leave him after a short, but passionate affair.I did not think this would be my kind of movie. A period piece romance with Meryl Streep? Sounds pretty boring. But instead, we get this really interesting movie-in-movie, where the action we see as real can be cut away from at any time. And then this also allows us two stories in one, which have more than a few parallels.Streep is obviously a gifted actress and the best of her generation. Irons is great, as well, though not nearly as recognized. He makes all that he touches turn to gold.

Vicky Christidou So... I finally read the book and -at last- I saw the movie!! Well,even though, as usual I preferred the book, I did like the film as well. Very much. Meryl Streep was unbelievable, I just loved every quote that she said. She managed to show the peculiar Sarah's character and to create a very interesting character for Anna, as well. Jeremy Irons was great also. Generally, all the cast played good. However, I didn't like Lynsey Baxter as Ernestina. I think she didn't appear as young as it was supposed too, and that she was saying the lines sooo slowly that it get annoyed after some time. I also didn't like the idea of adding Anna's and Mike's world in the story. I'd rather prefer just to be in Sarah's and Charles' reality. It's true that John Fowles often interrupt the narration to comment something or to compare the two centuries. However, Anna's and Mike's existence didn't touch his comments at all. In the first half of the film their scenes last too little so they are not useful. In the second half their story becomes more interesting but at the end it seemed to me that it was a small and fast-made movie, violently put into J.F's story. In other words, I'd like to see Anna's and Mike's story in a different movie! Additionally, It wasn't justified -to my opinion- Anna's behavior at the end that reminds us Sarah! Yet, I have to admit that I was impressed because Meryl and Jeremy could easily "play themselves" as Anna and Mike. But, I was not seeing Meryl and Iron on the screen, even they were playing two characters so common to their reality, they find their own character's personality -a personality different than theirs. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. In conclusion, I believe that if I hadn't read the book and haven't seen the movie on the laptop (I couldn't find it in a DVD) I'd like it much more! It is a story that you have to learn either from the film, either from the book, they both have their own magic!

oscar-35 *Spoiler/plot- The French Lieutenant's Woman, 1981. As Mike and Anna, two film actors involved in a tumultuous affair, and Charles and Sarah the star crossed Victorian couple whom the actors portray. Charles reputation is ruined by the enigmatic Sarah, Mike finds he cannot accept the affections of the wily temperamental Anna. The weaving of these two love stories---One Victorian and one contemporary give an insight into human passion and emotion.*Special Stars- Meryl Streep, Jeremy Irons, David Warner, Leo McKern.*Theme- Love is fickle.*Trivia/location/goofs- Filmed entirely in England. Oscar winner for Best Actress, Meryl Streep. This film is not very true to the intricacies of the book plot. Vanessa Redgrave was supposed to play the Sarah role, but a satisfactory script was never achieved.*Emotion- A script that is decidedly a 'chick flick' with all of the drama and emotions of two small people in their respective lives. The jump editing between present day and Victorian times is jarring and adds confusion. There is little on screen 'heat' between the male and female lead actors, bad casting. While the cinematography and locations was visually inspiring, the plot was uninteresting and slow with little pacing to keep the viewer engaged. Not for the viewer that is looking for some adventure, drama or human insights into interpersonal relationships.