Reviews & Ratings for
The Portrait of a Lady More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Index

60 reviews in total

---

23 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
The Portrait of a Lady (1996), 16 March 2004
Author: ManhattanBeatnik from Waynesville, OH

Watching Jane Campion's The Portrait of a Lady is kind of like watching a David Lynch movie: it may not always work, but it never ceases to be interesting. After winning an Oscar for writing The Piano and becoming only the second woman to ever be nominated for the Best Director Academy Award, hopes were high for what Campion had in store for us next, and perhaps some were disappointed by this flawed -- but good, nevertheless -- entry in her resume. But I wasn't (at least, not for the most part). Okay: so maybe this isn't a masterpiece in the vein of The Piano, but since when was everything supposed to be? What's important is that Campion tried something different and made a rather good movie in the process. The Portrait of a Lady marks another screen adaptation for the popular period novelist Henry James, and though it may not be as great an adaptation as, say, The Wings of the Dove, it is certainly one of the most peculiar. Peculiar in how it is treated, that is, not in the subject matter (which boils down to the typical money-hungry snobs searching for romance); rather than taking the Merchant Ivory route, Campion delivers a much looser interpretation of the material, starting with an opening sequence that features a multitude of modern women staring blankly at the screen, one of them dancing to the music of her walkman. While I'm still unsure as to whether or not her liberal vision works, I'm pleased that Campion had the nerve to try it. The Portrait of a Lady tells the story of a young American woman (played, oddly enough, by Aussie actress Nicole Kidman) who inherits a fortune and is seduced by a manipulative artist (John Malkovich) while a mysterious woman (Barbara Hershey) pulls the strings; ultimately, Kidman has to decide the spouse for her stepdaughter, and choose which life she wants to lead herself. The cast of Portrait of a Lady is something to salivate over: aside from the aforementioned stars, Shelley Winters, Christian Bale, Shelley Duvall, and John Gielgud are just a few of the A-list actors that make an appearance (also, keep your eye open for Viggo Mortensen, now famous for playing Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings trilogy). Kidman is appropriately melodramatic, and Malkovich is phenomenal (as always), but the Academy did right in recognizing the most outstanding performance of the picture, Barbara Hershey's (who earned a nomination for Best Supporting Actress): she is both cold and wildly emotional, mystical and open, and she does it all with the grace and confidence of a true star. The script features some terrific dialogue, but at two-and-a-half hours, it runs a little long at times; Campion keeps the pace moving with her innovative direction (which features tilted camera angles, a throwback to silent black-and-white films, and a stunning romantic fantasy sequence), but one wonders if she doesn't try a little too hard at times. Yet as with any good period piece, when the story slacks, the costumes and art direction act as a worthy distraction (as they often do here). It is also worth noting the lush original score by Wojciech Kilar, which makes everything seem far more fascinating than it truly is. The Portrait of a Lady never reaches any true emotional or artistic depth, but I wasn't expecting it to: I was simply expecting something that was good to look at with just enough plot to keep me interested throughout, and that's what I got.

Grade: A-

---

19 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
A woman is torn between independence and love in this feminist adaptation of Henry James' novel., 14 March 2001

Author: hommedeplume from New York, NY

Many people could not warm up to this remarkable adaptation of Henry James' novel, A Portrait of a Lady. The dark, abusive themes and open ending are not part of typical costume drama fare, but both are true to Henry James' novel and to Jane Campion's vision.

Henry James originally wrote the novel in the 1880s. Intended as an exploration of what a woman might do if she were given independent means, James' book indicts women as being trapped by a weaker nature. Exploring the same material Campion's movie comes to a different conclusion.

The adaptation and direction are superb. The movie maintains the steady rhythm of doom that makes James' novel an enduring classic. There is no place where this is more evident in the film than in its lingering images. The camera holds on to the subject a moment longer than expected, making the viewer a little uncomfortable, and anticipating sudden disaster that never quite arrives. Ms. Campion directs this film like a horror film, which is exactly what it is.

The acting in this film is also convincing, from Nicole Kidman's paralyzed Isabel, to John Malkovich as a hypnotically terrifying pursuer. They are backed by a solid cast of major actors in minor roles, all adding to Isabel's complex societal tragedy.

Portrait of a Lady, particularly this film adaptation, is a remarkable example of how stories may stay the same, but their meanings change over time.

Related films include: Washington Square (1997), The House of Mirth (2000), The Buccaneers (1995)(mini).

---

24 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
Misses the mark, but shouldn't be entirely dismissed, 14 September 1999
Author: Sean Gallagher (seankgallagher@yahoo.com) from Brooklyn, NY

When I read DAISY MILLER in high school and was completely unengaged, that set me off the wrong foot with Henry James. I also dislike his over-attentiveness to detail, and I must confess a prejudice against any writer who says in 10 pages what they could just have easily said in 2. Yet THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY, once you get into it, turns out to be quite a powerful novel, and given how much I loved THE PIANO, I was really looking forward to what Jane Campion could bring to it. Rarely have I seen a movie version, though, which is so far off the mark but still has worthy parts to it.

Let's start with the mistakes. Campion claimed she was re-imagining the story of Isabel Archer, an American woman of character but not of means, who eventually marries unhappily, instead of just giving a straight filmed version. That's all well and good, but what she and writer Laura Jones do is all but gut the motivations behind the story; we don't see Archer's vitality early on, so we have nowhere to go when she falls, and we don't see what draws people to her. And when Madame Merle and Osmond appear, they are so obviously snakes in the grass that we think Archer is a fool for trusting them, instead of feeling empathy for her. It doesn't help that Malkovich is so obviously bored here he does nothing to exude any charm. Hershey comes off better, but what's done with her character is a little strange as well.

Nevertheless, this movie can't be easily dismissed. First of all, Campion's gift for imagery still comes through; she visually expresses the passions lying hidden in the novel, which few directors do when adapting period pieces. Also, Kidman grows more confident as the movie wears on, so we do get a sense of Isabel. But as someone already commented, the most worthy element here is Martin Donovan as Ralph, Isabel's sickly cousin in love with her, and whose advice sets the whole story in motion. He doesn't play for sentiment, but earns it instead. The ending also keeps its power. Still, this is quite a missed opportunity for Campion.

---

23 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
Refined, elegant, exquisite, sublime: a poetic rhapsody, 19 September 2001

Author: Keith F. Hatcher from La Rioja, Spain

Just three years after `The Piano', itself a well thought out and carefully prepared film, Jane Campion comes up with an adaptation of a Henry James novel that deserves just about the highest possible accolade. `The Portrait of a Lady' not only showed exquisite care in preparing the scenes of fragments of late 19th Century England and Italy and an accurate eye for the costumes, as well as some first class performances from the actors, but also a refined adaptation of this splendid novel.

Henry James, North American, but lived most of his fruitful life in Great Britain, was himself an elegant literary figure whose writing easily overcame the frequently insipid hypocrasy of many Victorian era writers. He was able to hold an elegant story-line whilst obeying the formulas of the times, whereas many other novelists of the times could not, or changed literary formulas – for example Dickens, and of course later Joseph Conrad (who was not British, anyway). However, his novels would seem to defy easy adaptation to celluloid: Jane Campion and Laura Jones have pulled off one of the greatest feats ever in the cinematographic world. Very few literary delights are lost as the dialogues are scintillating, witty, or just simply elegant. Added to that, our old friend Sir John Gielgud plays his small part with that extreme tenderness which only old age and experience can lend; John Malkovich in this film shows that in many others he has been miscast: under Jane Campion's orders he offers here a tremendous reading and understanding of the characteriology of Gilbert Osmond which James himself would have enjoyed seeing. Simply superb. Which I imagine is exactly what Jane Campion sought. Barbara Hershey was evidently inspired by this perhaps somewhat feminist interpretation of the novel, though by no means can we say that this was not what James intended; she was magnificent in her secondary rôle and well deserved her Oscar (though if you push me I suppose this film should have won all of the Oscars on offer in 1996……….but it is not important, anyway).

And……hm: Nicole Kidman? Forsooth, young man – this creature can actually act; Ms Kidman is not limited to simply being the lovely young lady accompanying the leading actor, whoever he may be, as she has so often been doing in other films: she also needed Jane Campion's inspiration to produce what surely must be her best performance to date.

Wojciech Kilar's music is superb, beautifully synchronised with the film, offering rich orchestral tones, and the pieces of Schubert on the piano were well chosen, in line with everything else in this film. There were certain other fragments of music which I was not able to identify and may have been by Kilar himself. The music offered that final touch that elevated some moments to the heights of a poetic rhapsody. Stuart Drybergh's photography joined these sonorous accompaniments, soaring to supreme and wondrous revelations, visual aspects reaching state of the art perfection. Never have I seen so clearly in a film, to give but one example, the real difference in light on a sunny day in England and a sunny day in Italy………..

The New Zealand directress (sic, sorry) Jane Campion has carried out a masterpiece comparable with `Fanny och Alexander' that great film by the unique Ingmar Bergman. She accomplished with admirable precision and style exactly what Martin Scorsese failed miserably at with his `The Age of Innocence' (1993)(qv). I am expecting great things from Ms Campion: she is not yet 50, and in the world of art 50 years of age is but the threshold to maturity. But with `The Portrait of a Lady' she has already reached such heights of perfection that it is seemingly impossible to go much further. Or can she?

---

12 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
A cool, enigmatic film, but stylish..., 13 September 1998

Author: Susan Thrasher

An interesting film with an undercurrent of sexual repression similar to that in Campion's other films. Nicole Kidman is excellent, given the material, though her transition from likeable, virtuous innocent to a cold and corrupted woman doesn't ring as true as it should--the three years glossed over with a subtitle isn't adequate to show the change. I blame this on the interpretation, direction, and/or editing rather than Kidman's performance, however. Malkovich is not as strong, and one wonders what any woman could see in him as a lover.

The ending is cold and unsettling. Most filmgoers prefer to know that their hero/heroine is "safe" at the end of the story. Here, who knows ?

Production values are good, and the film is quite stylish with interesting use of camera tilt, lighting, and angles. It's quite artsy. I am glad I saw the film, but acknowledge it's not likely to be everyone's cup of tea.

---

11 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
The Best Screen Adaptation of a Henry James Novel, 17 January 2006

Author: amileoj from United States

Given the tenor of some of the other reviews posted here, I should start by making the extent of my disagreements clear.

First, this film is unquestionably Jane Campion's best work to date, and it represents, in particular, a significant advance beyond her previous work in The Piano.

Second, this film, while unapologetically feminist in point of view, in no sense attempts to shoehorn James's artistic vision into an ideological box for which it is unsuited. On the contrary, James has probably never been more sensitively interpreted on screen.

Third, purely as a film, The Portrait of a Lady belongs on a short shelf among the very best movies of the 1990's, of whatever genre.

Consider what Campion was up against: A literary adaptation, in the first place (itself almost a recipe for cinematic failure); a Henry James novel, in particular (a novelist who situated most of the "action" in his novels in the invisible social and psychological spaces between his characters, and whose works therefore constitute a kind of standing temptation to focus on picturesque/prestigious historical ambiance at the expense of narrative power); and a story, as James himself pointed out, centered on the seemingly quite confined topic of one very ordinary young woman's working out of her particular destiny.

Out of these distinctly unpromising materials, Ms. Campion created a film in which nearly every scene adds depth and color to her story, even after repeated viewings. And her Isabelle Archer (beautifully realized by Nicole Kidman, in possibly her finest performance to date) is as fully tested and tried by life's moral and epistemological ambiguities, and as fully responsive to life's promise, on film, as Henry James's heroine is, on the printed page. One could hardly ask for more.

---

14 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Incomplete Portrait, 31 May 2000
Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach

I vacillate between preferring films that do a simple thing extremely well (Muppet Movie) or those that shoot high and fail. This film is the latter.

Campion has allied her aspirations with `women's' perspectives; honorable and rich enough. And she selects material ripe with possibilities. Clearly she has a vision, presumably extracted from the author's, but she fails to get on top of it.

Part of the problem is the simplification of the book for the screenplay. We just don't get enough foundation for the travesty of person we witness. A large part of the problem is Ms Kidman. She simply doesn't have the depth to pull this off, though she wears the clothes well. We never really see her supposed extraordinary spirit, and never really see how she's trapped by that very same spirit. Malkovich doesn't help. Here, he's too one-dimensionally a schemer.

Campion knows better than to throw in so many irrelevant film-school angles as a substitute for narrative reflection. This film is worth seeing as a study in how a spirited film maker is seduced by that very spirit into the superficialities of style, so is trapped. The ambiguous ending is, I think, Campion's limbo. Let's hope she escapes for her sake as well as ours. We need that spirit.

---

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Better than expected..., 19 January 2001
Author: Xanadu-2

After the cool reception the film received I thought it would be very dull and pretentious. It´s much more interesting and does engage the viewer because of the tremendous acting. It´s wonderful with movies that give actors enough time and space to act out all the emotions in their character -very rare...

Nicole Kidman is very talented. (I hadn´t expected that from someone married to a very mediocre actor as Tom Cruise but he must have other qualities...) Barbra Hershey is a revelation! What a tremendous actress, really everything she says rings true. Exceptional acting! She and Nicole should have been nominated for Oscars. It´s a treat to see the 2 Shelleys in film these days. Misses Winters and Duvall bring life to the film....which CANNOT be said of the overhyped John Malcovich. Is he a sleepwalker? With his half closed eyes and droning voice he is supposed to be one of Americas greatest actors. I can´t see it. He was good in "Being John Malcovich" which is just the point : John Malcovich can only play John Malcovich!

It is a good film to experience. Have patience with it. Not everything works, like the 90´s girls in the beginning (huh?, was it just to attract a young audience and make the subject matter "timeless"?) The special effects of seeing the 3 lovers evaporate was unnecessary. They could just have walked out of the frame, the meaning would be the same and the scene would have been spookier without the Star Trek effects.

---

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Actual line "You don't loose your temper, you find it, and that must be beautiful", 4 August 2007

Author: darrenkoneill from United Kingdom

If the Carry on Team made 'Carry On Florence' would people who wear Panama hats still watch it because it's in Florence? Well they may as well, as it would have about the same dinner party kudos as Jane Campion's 'The Portrait of a Lady', this film pins all of its hopes on appealing to the same crowd who have the directors cut of 'A room with a view', which incidentally should never sit next to this passionless nonsense on a DVD rack, it would be like putting a Chopin CD next to a Booty Gyals Rap attack CD.

Anyway to cut to the chase for some reason we the audience just like the cast are supposed to be captivated and / or in some way enchanted by Isabel Archer(Played by Nicole Kidman) who if she were a Cocktail would be a glass of Luke warm tap water, admittedly she is unforgettable as she had an Austrailian accent throughout, and sported a full head of red Pubic hair. Nevertheless the film carries on regardless (ooops wasn't that a Carry on?) assuming (insisting) that you're sold on Ms Archer and her great invisible bag of charm.

She teases three men who are all clamoring for her affection, all of whom may have had their own personalities and characters but you won't know as it didn't seem important to include such detail.

Only when she gets to Florence does she finally meet someone who can match her invisible bag of charm, he comes in the very camp average form of Gilbert Osmond played by John Malkovich, he does however speak (again slightly camply) in a consistent whispering single tone, that similar to serial killers, this seems for the most part to be just what Mssss Archer had been missing whilst plagued by all of those Testosterone touting 'oh so predictable' men. He is completely ill equipt as a seducer both physically and mentally but then again Ms Archer has about the same kit, therefore the question is, does anyone care what happens to empty boring people, in an empty boring film?

During a business trip a colleague of mine asked me to watch this, I said to her jokingly that it sounds like a Chick Flick and that I had already seen Fried Green Tomatoes (a good film), she insisted it wasn't.....Shelly Winters (Great actress) was in the opening credits.. need I say more... as De Niro would say 'Whatchagonnadoo?'

A supporting character that shouldn't go unmentioned is Henrietta Stackpole played by Mary-Louise Parker, she is completely 1990... every time she was in a scene I couldn't help trying to spot her time machine, she even had that new contrived horrible spoiled nasal Californian accent, you know instead of saying 'never ever' they say 'Navaar Avaaaar'.

I just hope no 'Ladies' try and watch this in the innocent hope it may trigger some wild passionate dreams about moody Barons fighting in moonlit Florence over their 'Porcelain beauty'.. because ladies you'll be disappointed, and if things are so bad you're not disappointed, and that this film does indeed tick your passion boxes ... then you need a divorce....or your Husband does.

---

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
If you've read the book, don't see it. If you haven't, you'll probably love it!, 10 December 2003

Author: Ben_Cheshire from Oz

I saw Portrait of a Lady after i read the book, so my experience was heavily coloured by that. The book is filled with sensitive characterisations and delicate psychodramas. Jane Campion's screenwriter decided not to sell out and just tell the audience about these with a narration (which is commendable), but i don't believe the compromise they came to (having Nicole Kidman cry endlessly!) justified the quality of their source material.

Isabel Archer is a complex, beautiful character as Henry James created her. She is assertive and a dreamer, if slightly naive. She is slightly uncomfortable in the new setting of England, having just moved there from America after her parents died, and the last thing she would do in front of her uncle is cry! She would also never let Gilbert Osmond (Malcovich's character) know he had hurt her - she kept all this inside. There is a subtle way to show these internal psychodramas, but Jane Campion could not find it.

---

---

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history