User reviews

First, the short summary at the top of the IMDb page COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTS the plot of the movie and novel. Madame Bovary is not simply cheating on her husband to advance her social status.

Her affairs are part of a much more profound struggle for transcendence from the ordinary life in which she feels trapped. That's why the novel is a classic of modern literature. The way IMDb puts it makes it sound like a cheap Lifetime movie.

Second, Mia Wasikowska is a fine actress but I've always imagined Madame Bovary as a much more sensual woman.

Third, I think Ezra Miller was terribly miscast as Leon Dupuis. Not to disparage his acting, but he's far too young and effeminate to be an object of desire for Emma Bovary.

While the film was beautifully shot, it otherwise doesn't quite do justice to Flaubert. Perhaps my expectations were too high.

The crunch of the story is forgotten in this diluted adaptation. Anyone not familiar with the story prior to watching this film would be left with the impression that Madame Bovary was a fragile victim who simply fell into circumstances over her head. But this is not who the classic Madame Bovary character was or why she inspired writers and directors to retell her story throughout the years. The classic Madame Bovary is an ambitious, strong-willed woman who connived to continuously improve her status in society, even before she married. She had passion and vision. The character in this film has no redeeming qualities and stumbles through the story as an ungrateful opportunist who becomes less likable as the story progresses. The ethereal atmosphere, cinematography and set design were all remarkable, but combined with the weak storytelling makes this an average film with a forgettable Madame Bovary character.

Mia Wasikowska as Emma Bovary is one of the worst casting decisions I've ever seen. I read the book quite a while ago but I remember picturing her as pretty, delicate, vivacious, fun-loving, lively, romantic, naive and gullible. Wasikowska projects none of these qualities. Emma is supposed to transform into a depressed, frustrated, shadow of her former self, dulled by her uneventful country life with a dull husband she doesn't love before turning to other men and recklessly spending money she doesn't have to bring some excitement into her life.

In the movie she seems to meet her first male distraction the day after her wedding and then falls in love with the marquis simply by looking at him, demanding he rescue her from her disappointing life and sweep her off to a high society life almost immediately. Incidentally, the first time they see each other is during a stag hunt, when Emma rides astride her horse - surely not in rural France during the mid-18th century?

Emma seems to attract men like flies, although I can't see anything in Wasikowska's Emma that would attract any man.

And what's going on with the accent mash up?! Most of the characters, including Emma, sound American, but her father has a French accent, others sound English and Rhys Ifans... I don't know what is going on there but sometimes he sounds slightly French, sometimes purely French and at other times completely English.

The most frustrating thing about this film is that there is no sense of time passing. Everything seems to happen within a couple of weeks.

Visually though, it is beautiful and there are some excellent moments and scenes. Watch it for the gorgeous costumes and setting if not the actors or the plot!

I loved the novel and was looking forward to the movie. Stopped watching when I first saw Leon. This actor is too young for that role. The color of his voice, his laughter, the look on his face, the overall expression - he looks 18. That ruined the movie for me. What on Earth were they thinking?! Emma would never fall for a guy like that.

Oh, talking about Emma... Seriously? Mia Wasikowska? The same way I think they made a mistake with choosing Keira Knightley for Anna Karenina, I think she would have been much better choice for Emma, in this case.

OK, enough of bad criticism now. This movie looks expensive and very endearing for the eyes. Both, the costumes and the scenery look realistic. I would imagine XIX century France like this.

"She wanted to die, but she also wanted to live in Paris." ― Gustave Flaubert

Walking 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

Casting is totally off. Charles Bovary is supposed to be a large, good-natured, undemanding drudge of a man, hard-working and country bumpkin-ish without any slim, well-tailored glamour. Instead we get this svelte, firm, and resolute executive type with patent-leather hair. (Don't know if he ever did it, but the young Gerard Depardieu is the perfect physical type.) This is important because her spouse's rustic dullness as she perceives it has to be seen in the actor chosen. The Emma character has no obvious allure in this adaptation. Why are these men so attracted to her beyond an impression that she'd be "easy"?

The whole plot involving Leon's legitimate reasons for visiting the house is mangled, as is the genesis of the attempt by Charles to correct Hippolyte's medical issue and the surgery's outcome. Boneheaded decisions abound, such as the decision to change the sumptuous, romantic ball that quickened Emma's economic and sensual envy into a grubby, sweaty stag hunt. Worst of all its many bad decisions, this film totally eliminates the Bovarys' baby daughter Berthe, whose existence is essential to our understanding of how huge the final tragedy really is and its domino effects far beyond Emma and Charles.

I rarely write reviews but, when such violence is done to one of the great works of world literature, I do get annoyed. Apart from a bit of recognition for production values including cinematography, sets, location detail, costumes, I have to give this sloppy, bloodless and point-missing attempt the welcome it deserves.

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.

For the first 15 minutes of this latest film version of Gustave Flaubert's "Madame Bovary", I thought it was a misfire. But that slow start leads to a beautiful and affecting movie.

Anyone who knows Vincente Minnelli's version with Jennifer Jones will be surprised at how different this one feels.

Emma Bovary (Mia Wasikowska) goes from a convent school into a marriage arranged by her father. She marries novice doctor Charles Bovary (Henry Lloyd-Hughes) who takes up a practice in a French provincial town. However Emma has a romantic imagination inspired by novels; she aspires to beautiful things and a life of elegance and style. She is encouraged in this by unscrupulous merchants who extend her credit. She is also seduced into a number of affairs in a vain search for true romance.

Now this is tricky stuff to build a movie around and still retain sympathy for Emma whose actions otherwise seem self indulgent and hedonistic.

Minnelli's version used narration based on Flaubert's text and we learn from the beginning that Emma was driven by an unattainable romantic vision. In this version, directed by Sophie Barthes, there is no narration, we must catch the story as it unfolds. For anyone who knows nothing of the story, it may seem at first to be an exposé of predatory credit practices in 1850's France.

But as Emma is drawn into extramarital affairs, we sense the looming tragedy; she is naive and seduced by notions of romance that cannot be fulfilled and all the men in her life take advantage of her.

This film is beautifully made. It has a more authentic look than the B/W Minnelli version, which was shot on the MGM backlot. However that version's detachment from reality added to its charm. Even the scores for the two films mark the differences; a lush, powerful work for Minnelli; a subtle one for Barthes.

The character of Charles is also treated more sympathetically in the earlier version; here he seems a bit of a jerk.

However the success of "Madame Bovary" comes down to Emma. Mia Wasikowska is a quieter beauty than Jennifer Jones who had a sensuousness that leapt from the screen. Wasikowska's Emma slips under your guard, she has a fragile quality and the problems of debt and infidelity develop at a slower pace. Eventually she seems more a victim of other people's shortcomings than her own.

The two versions are so different that they can be enjoyed on their own terms. However some of the criticism of this version seems harsh. It unfolds at a measured pace, but I think it will become more appreciated over time.

by Helen O'Hara - Empire Magazine

Sophia Barthes' Madame Bovary is a beautiful period adaptation of Gustav Flaubert's novel that deals with its complicated heroine in a way that is both understanding and honest. The cinematography truly stands out as the star, making this film into a visual delight.

The story follows the new wife of village doctor, Emma Bovary (Mia Wasikowska), who finds herself bored of the limited entertainments of a 19th century French provincial town. Her disappointment in her situation soon drives her to live outside the appropriate rules of society. Wasikowska is allowed in this film to stretch her trademark understated performance, and she embraces both the initial quiet resignation and the later defiant fury that defines the character. Madame Bovary is not an easy character to empathise with, especially in comparison to her caring and well-meaning husband, but Barthes chooses to take away much of the original emphasis on Monsieur Bovary in the novel. Instead she gives most of the time to the heroine, allowing the audience to greater understand her perspective and motives.

Wasikowska isn't the only one making an impression, however. Rhys Ifans is clearly having fun as the villainous merchant Monsieur Lheureux, tricking characters into self-destruction with some serious smooth-talking, whilst the great Paul Giamatti makes an appearance, albeit in an unfortunately small role as Monsieur Homais.

The greatest asset to the film lies in its visual appearance. From an exhilarating hunt scene to the stunning French setting, Barthes and cinematographer Andrij Parekh manage to capture an ethereal impression of their surroundings. It fits well with Emma's disassociation from the life that she is prescribed, with the dreamlike world around her not quite part of reality either. The costumes are sumptuously designed too; a period drama requirement for success of course, but still no less enriching.

Madame Bovary breathes life into a classic story, with a delicate hand and a careful eye. Not only is it a must for lovers of period drama and stunning visuals, but many viewers will find some empathy in a character who is willing to take into her own hands a change from a mundane existence.

Madame Bovary

The hardest part of cheating in the Victorian Era was removing all of your petticoats before you could screw.

Fortunately, the unfaithful wife in this drama has plenty of time thanks to her husband's schedule.

Married off to a small-town doctor Charles Bovary (Henry Lloyd-Hughes), adolescent Emma (Mia Wasikowska) is unsatisfied with her rural surroundings and her husband's absence.

These doldrums quickly culminate in excessive spending and extramarital affairs with two separate lovers (Logan Marshall-Green, Ezra Miller).

But when her affairs and increasing debt are exposed to her husband, Emma has no one but her past conquests to turn to for help.

An acceptable adaptation of the controversial classic, this abridged version doesn't sacrifice the novel's numerous themes, or dumbs them down. Instead it cuts through the unnecessary exposition to create a concise account of this complicated character.

Incidentally, Madame Bovary paved they way for future adulterers like Ashley Madison.

Yellow Light

vidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

Emma (Mia Wasikowska) leaves the convent to marry boring country doctor Charles Bovary (Henry Lloyd-Hughes). Life is dull. She flirts with awkward law clerk Léon Dupuis (Ezra Miller) and has an affair with the dashing Marquis d'Andervilliers (Logan Marshall-Green). She spends outrageously beyond her means and lecherous Monsieur Lheureux (Rhys Ifans) is too willing to give her credit. Monsieur Homais (Paul Giamatti) is the pharmacist friend.

Everybody speaks softly especially Mia. Her dull life is filmed in long scenes which only accentuates the dullness and infects the movie with its dullness. At least, the dullness is quite convincing. Mia needs to pierce that dullness with more powerful passionate acting but she is going for callous and wanting. She is still the heroine. It's all very subdue. I'm no literary person and maybe she is supposed to be this way. I can't comment on the accuracy of the depiction. It would be more compelling for her to embrace the darkness. It is beautiful in a moody sunset period piece way but it doesn't have the exuberance. It's kinda dull.

There's no sexual appealing at all for this actress to play the Bovary role. There's no character development at all from a housewife then becoming a adulterer. We couldn't feel anything from her inside; always with the similar facial expressions, it never changed a bit. She made Madame Bovary a very boring woman. A terrible wrong cast, maybe the worst one ever!

I thought this was not that bad, slow and moody, beautiful, a gothic tragedy- but then I haven't read the book. I would have given it a 7 if not for the frickin' shaky camerawork

Yet again we have an incarnation of Flaubert's novel of infidelity and this time the transformation of the book to screen (by Felipe Marino and director Sophie Barthes) is, at best, weak. The pacing of the film is adagio and the cast is adequate if unremarkable. The only standout in the film is the costumer and the strange but adequately atmospheric music by Evgueni and Sacha Galperine.

For those who have forgotten the story, 'In mid-1800s Normandy, France, farmer's daughter Emma (Mia Wasikowska) leaves the convent where she was educated and marries a young doctor, Charles Bovary (Henry Lloyd-Hughes). With high hopes for a fulfilling and romantic future like the ones she reads about in novels, Emma leaves her childhood home and loving father, moving to the small town of Yonville where Charles has based his practice. While Charles loves his new wife, he is consumed by his work and is out of the house all day visiting patients. During their brief daily time together, Emma is bored and repulsed by his talk of ailments and dull business affairs, and Charles is all but oblivious to her ennui. With no regular company besides their maid, Henriette (Laura Carmichael), Emma becomes a vulnerable client to the crafty local merchant Lheureux (Rhys Ifans), who entices her with luxury goods available for purchase on credit. Emma soon befriends a young clerk, Leon Dupuis (Ezra Miller), who shares her romantic frame of mind and disdain for provincial Yonville. Emma longs to go to Paris and immerse herself in the culture, and has quickly tired of her dull existence as a country doctor's wife. Leon secretly confesses his love to Emma, who, despite the mutual attraction, dismisses his advances. Leon departs for law studies in Paris. Charles and Emma are invited to a hunting party by the Marquis d'Andervilliers (Logan Marshall- Green), who had dropped by Doctor Bovary's house to have one of his servants treated. The Marquis was immediately attracted to Emma, who becomes so excited about the excursion into high society that she orders expensive clothes from Lheureux for the occasion. At the party, she is entranced by the luxury of the upper-class and by the subtle advances of the Marquis, whom she meets once more at an agricultural show. Emma's thirst for extravagance only grows, and she begins to spend liberally to beautify the house and her wardrobe, all on credit from Lheureux. She also takes the advice of local pharmacist Homais (Paul Giamatti) and convinces her husband to operate on the club-foot of Homais' servant Hippolyte (Luke Tittensor) and become a celebrated surgeon. The surgery fails. Ashamed of her husband's incompetence and feeling all the more stifled, Emma visits the Marquis at his home and confesses her misery. They begin an affair, with Emma making regular trips on foot through the woods to visit him. Charles has no inkling of his wife's unhappiness in the marriage or of her affair. Emma eventually begs the Marquis to run away with her, and though he initially refuses, he calms her by promising to make arrangements to elope.' And to tell the rest would be consider spoilers.

Mediocre at best this is a very long song that could have been so much better in so many ways.

Films and novels they're based on should always be kept separate. It's impossible to transpose even a relatively short novel to the screen without sacrificing some parts, therefore the best movies are those that manage to capture the elusive "essence' of a novel. Or even better, those we haven't read the novel they're based on... which unfortunately cannot always be the case.

Probably nobody who read the book will fully appreciate this film. The problem is that Emma Bovary is a complex character and what we get here is just a bored housewife. It's a different tragedy, even if one can sympathise with the young, disappointed wife of the dull country doctor.

The only remedy for her lack of purpose is spending money and falling for other men. Emma's fall from grace is photographed beautifully and the costumes are fantastic. Unfortunately, the novel is so well known and well written that one finds it difficult to take seriously the character of Leon and the lack of the tragic figure of Emma's child.

Emma's tragedy is even more poignant because she drags her whole family down with her, while in this movie the damage seems limited and one can even imagine Charles Bovary recovering after a decent period of mourning.

I normally LOVE period dramas, so I tend to give them a pass on many things, but this is just BORING. I can't like the actress in this role. She's painful to watch at times. There are parts of this movie that made me want to check to see if it had the least words of any movie made. Huge swathes of minutes passing with no words, just her poking at things and staring. I had to stop watching it. Great looking men though if that's all it takes for you.

It's might be a tragedy, when "pretty" and "less smart" happen on a woman at the same time. They saw too much to mistakenly believe they can have them all.

I can't understand why anyone would spend the money on a trendy actress who can't even credibly pronounce French. Did the director not even hear her saying MON sieur? And men saying "O.K."? Lead actress can't pronounce Rouen? Why not change it to another city she CAN pronounce? You've changed enough IMPORTANT things in this story! This is a casting disaster, screenplay disaster, everything but sets/scenery and costume disaster. What a disappointment! I loved this book. Why adapt it to a film if you're going to disregard nearly everything that made it a classic book? If I had paid to see this I might have asked for my money back on the basis of misrepresentation. Hated to even give it one star, but that's not an option. But reading the gushing praise from the magazine reviewers flabbergasted me.

I like the film. Finally there exists a version done by a woman showing with sensibility the few choices of life for women in the 19th century.

I thought the actors and actresses were perfect in their role. In the end, Madame Bovary finds herself without friends and solutions. She understands how naive she has been with men and has no woman friend. Her whole world has collapsed.

She can only choose nature as her ultimate friend.

I feel that in this version, Flaubert's book main message is being respected. It is mostly about a woman wanting to experience all the pleasures of life and not being able to do it. Because of herself as well as because of her environment.

Madame Bovary is a visually striking and faithful adaptation of the classic novel, capturing the essence of Flaubert's work. The pacing is deliberate, and the mood of the story is captured well, providing a deep dive into the tragic and emotional life of Emma Bovary.

Mia Wasikowska is simply captivating in the lead role. She brings an undeniable depth and complexity to Emma, portraying her inner turmoil with grace and subtlety. Mia's acting is both powerful and restrained, making her performance a standout in the film. On top of that, she exudes a natural beauty, and her presence on screen is both charming and magnetic-her portrayal is an absolute treat to watch.

While the film is an interesting watch, it does feel a bit distant at times, and it might not fully capture the emotional intensity of the source material for some viewers. Nonetheless, Mia's exceptional performance and the film's overall quality make it a worthwhile watch.

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!