The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988) User Reviews

what a threesome

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 11 November 2015]

It's 1968 Prague. Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a womanizing doctor. His often-lover Sabina (Lena Olin) is a liberated sophisticated woman. At a country spa, Tomas is taken with local girl Tereza (Juliette Binoche). He sets free the mousy Tereza and they have a passionate affair along with Sabina. Tomas and Tereza get married but jealousy overwhelms her. Then the Prague Spring erupts.

There has been many threesomes in cinematic history. The acting power in these three is one of best. Daniel is able to make the charismatic cad likable. Lena is sexual dynamite. Juliette is pure magic in this one. It is a great threesome against the backdrop of compelling political turmoil.

Too uneven and too long - but with great performances

[BeneCumb · 7/10 · 13 March 2013]

Although the screenplay is based on the great and world-famous book by Milan Kundera, it was written by others (Jean-Claude Carrière and the director Philip Kaufman) and thus lost its original touch and approach - as was pointed out by Kundera himself who withdrew from the outcome. On the other hand, fragile feelings, ponderings and internal doubts are very difficult to express on the screen - without losing the pace and uniformity of the plot. It is also pity that Prague was not / could not been used, as it is a beautiful city and gives more realism than the French places used. Depicion of the socialist/communist oppression is, however, rather perfunctory, seeming not so serious as it really was in the 1970ies within the Warsaw block when hopes of intellectuals for the so-called human-faced socialism vanished as liberal steps were diminished or repealed.

The cast is, of course, brilliant, in particular the bohemian ménage à trois members: Daniel Day-Lewis as Tomas, Juliette Binoche as Tereza and Lena Olin as Sabina - all later multiple Academy Award winners and/or nominees, and from different European countries (the movie itself is still the US one). They and some other fine European actors have provided the movie a real European atmosphere, without a Hollywood studio feeling as sometimes perceived in "older" movies.

Nevertheless, The Unbearable Lightness of Being is still a movie high above average, enhancing historical facts as well. But it is hard to say whether is is recommendable to read the book before or after...

Kubrickian Kundera from Kaufman

[christian94 · 8/10 · 17 September 2008]

Milan Kundera's masterwork is one of the most profound, powerful and perspicacious work of literary fiction of all-time. However, as one either already knows or soon discovers: a novel and a film are completely different media.

Kaufman's vision is elegant, eloquent and enigmatic. This is necessary to translate the directness and deepness of Kundera's prose. The film unable to delve into the innermost feelings and proclivities of its characters tries to say more by saying less. The movie takes the essence and uses powerful, calculated imagery as its driving motor. This is how this strongly resembles the late Stanley Kubrick's work: meticulous, hard on the actors and often also demanding on the viewers.

Kundera is heard throughout by having some of its most essential prose and ideas integrated into the dialog now and then, but as you've probably guessed, the film cannot capture the sublime subtleties and evocative expansions of the novel. Franz's and Sabina's "dictionary of incomprehension" is only hinted at, while Tomas' son is nonexistent and Tereza's turning moment at the mountain foregone. The focus is highly on the sensuality and, primate, playful to intimate, infidelity. This was a good choice as this dichotomy requires little words to be heard. However, when the characters do speak, the dialog dashes across the screen and dances in your head to be sure. The political overtone is also present with the departure and return to Prague being treated as almost opposite end of a colour spectrum. Kundera hypothesizes on how politics and nudity are one and the same, but Kaufman shows it with vivid imagery on both sides and emblematic parallelism.

The acting and editing make it all work together although there are a few low points in both instances. The two female leads are pretty much incredible. The classic music is charming and appropriate. The writing and directing are on point and the philosophy and melancholy of Kundera finds an appropriate echo in this visceral art medium.

With a slow beginning, the movie quickly builds momentum and the viewer hardly realizes its long running time. The character interactions and tensions, the stunning cinematography and succession of memorable scenes and dialog inspired greatly by the original work, make the viewer actually wish the movie would go on a little longer, whisper something more to its ear. Tomas sums it up by stating his general happiness despite his unforeseen and unwanted condition. After all life is light, you cannot take it too seriously.

special

[Vincentiu · 9 December 2013]

for the courage to adapt the Kundera novel. and for science to not be only an adaptation. for superb acting and for care to details - the black umbrellas is only an example. for delicate poetry of images and for inspired use of politic frame for reflect the nuances of lead characters. and for the message who, for a viewer from East Europe , has a fundamental sound. because is more than a story about choices, forms of love, fragility and need of the other, roots of freedom and pure joy in a dark universe. it is a perfect reflection to remember the web of past as embroidery of life crumbs. and admire the admirable manner of actors to give life to the characters shadows and lights.

Personal meaning in love, in expression, and between ordinary people

[secondtake · 7/10 · 20 October 2010]

The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988)

I liked this book a lot, and I like director Philip Kaufman's approach to movies. The best of this movie is terrific, as well: the wild culture of personal and cultural freedom at the start, the chilling invasion of Soviet tanks in the center, and the last half hour of idealized romance and happiness in the country.

That kind of gives away the movie, it would seem. But in a way, the movie is about how all these things happen. This is where it gets to be about taste and patience. It's a long movie, and much of the events are not really a development of plot, but a steady continuation of a variety of relationships (mainly between the lead man and the two main women). There is a plot behind all this, especially around their leaving Czechoslovakia and then finding a return to bliss in the Czech countryside, but this doesn't drive the movie overall.

For me, it wasn't enough to see these people enjoying sex and discovering conflicts between the three legs of the love triangle. Scenes were often leisurely in a way that implies we were glad to just be there and watch things happen within a pocket of frozen time, rather than through time. By that I mean, it wasn't where you were going with the emotional aspects, but it was where you were, the now of the interactions. The might actually be where the book was so successful--it created moods and scenes where you were, actually, glad to just be absorbed. For me, that wasn't always the case in the film version.

Part of the problem might just be Daniel Day Lewis, who is a bit too self-satisfied, not as a character (that is certain) but as an actor. He lacks the magnetism that might sustain the unlikely and ongoing love the two women have for him, even as they know about each other. On the other hand, it's a huge, epic tale about true freedom, and a very real pursuit of happiness. And when the energy gets going, and the mood is fully expanded, there is magic. Especially, again, at the end, including the famous fade to white in the last frames, it is about a kind of heaven on earth. Who can object to that?

One of the finest works of the '80s.

[dead47548 · 10/10 · 4 November 2007]

Using the Prague Spring of 1968 as a backdrop, The Unbearable Lightness of Being weaves a story of three very real artists and their journey through love, sex and revolution. The film begins by introducing us to Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) a very charming womanizer and very intelligent, political doctor. Through all of his one night stands and emotionless sexual encounters, he only has one real lover; Sabina (Lena Olin) is a seductive, carefree artist. When Tomas gets a call to perform an operation in a spa town, he meets the woman of his dreams; Tereza (Juliette Binoche) the shy waitress who dreams of leaving her dull, unchallenging life and heading to a place with intellectuals. When Tomas heads back to Prague, she shows up at his door and they quickly move in together.

This move changes his life completely. He no longer has numerous flings and one night stands, but instead only makes time for Tereza at home and Sabina on the side. When Tomas begs Sabina to provide Tereza with a job, the three embark on a journey of sexual tension, intellectual discussion and artistic wonder. However this love triangle is cut short as Soviet tanks come roaring through Czechoslovakia endangering the freedom of all three characters, who then decide to flee to Switzerland. By this time Tomas and Tereza have been long married, and Sabina meets a new man in the form of Franz (Derek de Lint) a married man who eventually leaves his wife and family for her. The danger of commitment drives Sabina away and she moves to the United States, disappearing for the entire third act of the film.

It's this act that is the most interesting, as it truly examines Tomas and Tereza's tumultuous relationship. Tereza realizes that she is too dependant on him, while he could leave her at any time so she moves back to the now Soviet-controlled Prague and Tomas' love for her drives him to return there. Of course Tomas' political values, including an article he wrote criticizing the Soviet Union and 'implying' that they should all pluck their eyes out doesn't shine too well with the Soviets and they ask him to sign a letter to repudiate his article. Tomas is too proud and declines this offer, which leads to him losing his license and he has to settle to becoming a lowly window washer. But he can't hide his womanizing desires, and his infidelity drives Tereza to the same crime. Eventually her shame and the potential of her awkward lover being a Soviet who will blackmail the couple leads to the two of them moving to a rural village and living their life their together.

The most beautiful and romantic elements of the film are portrayed once they move to the village. Without the temptation of infidelity and the power of political intrigue, their life becomes euphoric and simple. Tomas works in the field all day, while Tereza cooks and cleans and they are never too far away from one another. During a trip to a relatively local bar, Tomas is presented with the opportunity of an affair but quickly brings his gaze back to Tereza showing that he is finally complete with her. This blissful relationship provides overwhelming satisfaction and closure to the chaotic life they had led up to this point.

Highlighting this impeccable picture are three sensational performances, a masterfully adapted screenplay full of beautiful and intriguing dialogue and quite possible the finest cinematography of the '80s. Day-Lewis perfectly encompasses the charm of Tomas with a subtle charisma that keeps my eyes glued to him every time he appears on screen. The young Juliette Binoche is adorable, shy and emotionally powerful but also plays it off very subtly. Lena Olin is overwhelmingly seductive and crafts a sense of freedom unlike any I've ever seen. These characters are all very human which means they have their fair share of flaws and the performances capture every essence of them so perfectly.

A film seemingly anticipating the vevlvet revolutions of 1989

[frankde-jong · 6/10 · 25 August 2019]

In 1988 praised as an erotic movie. In 2018 we can only see Tomas as a sex addict a la "Shame" (2011, Steve McQueen).

Noteworthy just the same is the fact that in the late '60s there were youth protests irrespective of the political system (North America: flower power and Woodstock. Western Europe: Student protests in Paris. Eastern Europe: spring of Prague.).

With respect to coping with a dictatorship the films shows three fundamentally different strategies. Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) is trying to fight back, Sabina (Lena Olin) flights while Tereza (Juliette Binoche) adapts.

The film was made just before the velvet revolutions of 1989. More than twenty five years later I was reading the book "Dancing bears" (2014, Witbold Szablowski). This book describes that not everybody knows how to cope with the freedom that was conquered. Some people feel more comfortable when they are told what to do and how to behave. Somehow I had to think about Tereza when reading this book.

Memorable and beautifully done

[FANatic-10 · 9/10 · 15 April 1999]

I've not read the book this is based on, so have no way to comment on how this movie translates it. But the film itself has stayed in my mind like few others. Yes, it's very long, but the characters are so memorable that the length didn't bother me at all - I loved the time spent in their company. In particular, Juliette Binoche and Lena Olin are each astonishing in their own way. Olin is ferociously sensual and mesmerizing, while Binoche is superlatively sympathetic and sensitive. Two of the best female performances I can remember. By the end of the film I was totally wrapped up in these people's lives. This film is deeply erotic but in an intelligent and adult way that puts most other film's treatment of sex to shame. I thought it was beautifully handled by all concerned, and if I ever want to cry, I only need watch the scenes with the dog and the final scenes, both pulled off superbly.

A lack of philosophy

[ghazzawi90 · 6/10 · 7 July 2013]

The best thing about the novel was that the events were more meaningful because along with each event came a piece of the author's philosophy which made not only the plot seem whole but the author's main philosophical argument materialize more and more as we read on.

The movie was only a documentation of the plot and because it was a movie I guess it could only "lightly" touch upon the author's philosophy. Maybe a narrator in the background could have filled us in? I watched the movie not because I enjoyed the plot but because I enjoyed reading the author's ideas about life. They weren't as evident in the movie, but I gave a 6 because the acting and cinematography were good.

Moves You in a Totally Different Way

[triangulate · 9/10 · 4 July 2005]

A few weeks ago I decided to drive from San Diego to Michigan because my cat had died and I was depressed. On the road I listened to several books on CD, one of which was "The Unbearable Lightness of Being." The book intrigued me, partly because near the end, like me, Tomas and Tereza had to deal with a dying pet, but also because it dealt with big themes like love, sex and loyalty in a very unusual way. Along the way, almost incidentally, it shows you what life and politics were like in Czechoslovakia's "spring," before and after the Soviets moved forcibly back in the tanks.

So when I got back to San Diego one of the first things I did was rent the DVD of the movie. And I wasn't disappointed. First off, I think the movie is as faithful to a book as a movie could or should be, remembering that we're dealing with two different types of media. In the commentary on the CD, for example, the screenwriter explains they decided to leave out scenes with Tereza's mother because they realized that Juliette Binoche was communicating that part of the story merely by the way she (brilliantly) portrayed the character of Tereza.

Kundera's themes of lightness, heaviness, and repetition are very deep; I don't pretend to understand them completely. For me, it's enough that they intrigue, and the movie does them justice.

The acting of all the principals is astounding. I never had seen Lena Olin before, and I appreciated Juliette Binoche and Daniel Day Lewis more than ever.

And as much as I liked listening to the CD of the book, it did not make me cry at the end.

But the movie did.

The sensitive expression of Juliette Binoche in her younger days is wonderful

[MK_Movie_Reviews · 6/10 · 28 November 2021]

The first half of the movie is a love story of a young woman who is played by a playboy doctor. Juliette Binoche's sensitive acting was also the best in this movie. A young woman married to the doctor but she was tired of his womanizing. One of his mistresses is a free-spirited woman, and she get along with them. In this movie, social issues such as war and peace were also a theme. The second half of the movie was smiling as they were peacefully enjoyed their country life. The former doctor's mistress received a letter regarding the news of their death. This is a fascinating movie with very free relationships.

I'm impressed

[Michaelhosha3 · 10/10 · 22 June 2020]

One of the greatest and most beautiful films I have ever seen! It is a movie that is returned and returned, and does not tire of it. I loved every character, especially Thomas and Teresa. Intrigued by the eyes and looks of Thomas and the way he looks to people

Disappointingly straightforward

[allyjack · 6/10 · 13 July 1999]

By the time the end arrives, with its depiction of domestic harmony finally attained and tragically stolen, the movie seems little more than soppy; but even at its best, it's a disappointingly straightforward tale of narcissism and rootlessness put through an artery-hardening political and moral obstacle course. The movie is well choreographed, never more striking than in its images of the Russian occupation, but its aspiration to "classic" art-movie eroticism threatens to reduce everything else to mere gymnastics. Day Lewis is not quite real in his role - an androgynous, closed off icon of self-regard; the so-called "lightness" of his being seems less a psychological state and more a symptom of the movie's too-easy conceptions - as it goes on, the cards seem to be shuffled almost randomly, which serves neither the sex nor the politics well.

I don't understand the fuss about it

[sweenetto · 2/10 · 31 May 2006]

*** Contains Spoilers ***

I did not like this movie at all.

I found it amazingly boring and rather superficially made, irrespective of the importance and depth of the proposed themes: given that eventually we have to die, how should we approach life? In a "light" way, like Tomas; in a "heavy" way like Tereza; or should we find ways not to face that question, like Sabina? How much is fidelity important in a relationship? How much of the professional life can be mutilated for the sake of our loved ones? How much do we have to be involved in the political life and the social issues of our Country?

Unfortunately, I haven't read Kundera's novel but after having being let down by the movie I certainly will: I want to understand if the story was ruined by the movie adaptation (which is my guess) or if it was dull from the beginning.

I disagree with most of the positive comments that defined the movie as a masterpiece. I simply don't see the reasons why. What I see are many flaws, and a sample of them follows.

1) The three main characters are thrown at you and it's very hard to understand what drives them when making their choices.

2) The "secondary" characters are there just to fill the gaps but they don't add nothing to the story and you wonder if they are really necessary.

3) I did not like how Tomas was impersonated. Nothing is good for him. He is so self-centered and selfish. He is not human, in some sense. But when his self-confidence fails and he realizes that he depends on others and is emotionally linked to someone, I did not find the interpretation credible.

4) It's very unlikely that an artist like Sabina could afford her lifestyle in a communist country in 1968. On top of that, the three main characters are all very successful in their respective professions, which sounds strange to me. a) how can Tereza become effortlessly such a good photographer? b) how can they do so well in a country lacking all the economic incentives that usually motivate people to succeed?

5) The fake accents of the English spoken by the actors are laughable. And I am not even mother tongue. Moreover, the letter that Sabina receives while in the US is written in Czech, which I found very inconsistent.

6) Many comments praised the movie saying that Prague was beautifully rendered: I guess that most of the movie was shot on location, so it's not difficult to give the movie a Eastern European feeling, and given the intrinsic beauty of Prague is not even difficult to make it look good.

7) I found the ending sort of trivial. Tereza and Tomas, finally happy in the countryside, far away from the temptations of the "metropoly", distant from the social struggles their fellow citizens are living, detached from their professional lives, die in a car accident. But they die after having realized that they are happy, indeed. So what? Had they died unhappy, would the message of the movie have been different? I don't think so. I considered it sort of a cheap trick to please the audience.

8) The only thing in the movie which is unbearably light is the way the director has portrayed the characters. You see them for almost three hours, but in the end you are left with nothing. You don't feel empathy, you don't relate to them, you are left there in your couch watching a sequence of events and scenes that have very little to say.

9) I hated the "stop the music in the restaurant" scene (which some comments praised a lot). Why Sabina has got such a strong reaction? Why Franz agrees with her? I really don't see the point. The only thing you learn is that Sabina has got a very bad temper and quite a strong personality. That's it. What's so special and unique about it?

After all these negative comments, let me point tout that there are two scenes that I liked a lot (that's why I gave it a two).

The "Naked women Photoshoot", where the envy, the jealousy, and the insecurities of Sabina and Tereza are beautifully presented.

The other scene is the one representing the investigations after the occupation of Prague by the Russians. Tereza pictures, taken to let the world know about what is going on in Prague, are used to identify the people taking part to the riots. I found it quite original and Tereza's sense of despair and guilt are nicely portrayed.

Finally, there is a tiny possibility that the movie was intentionally "designed" in such a way that "Tomas types" are going to like it and "Tereza ones" are going to hate it. If this is the case (I strongly doubt it, though) then my comment should be revised drastically.

Previous reviewer misunderstood movie...

[jakkaj · 21 July 2003]

I would have to disagree with the previous reviewer. First of all, the movie should have a "euro" feel to it because it's about Europeans, in Europe, and their European mentality. No car chases here, hot shot. That being said, I only have great praise for this film. It's a tremendous attempt to put to screen the subtle understanding Milan Kundera has of the human condition, and it surprisingly succeeds. For those more interested, I recommend you pick up some of his novels (start with a short story if you are pressed for time) and you, too, will realize why he is one of the best storytellers alive today.

The unbearable length of the film

[=G= · 7/10 · 26 July 2003]

"The Unbearable Lightness of Being" tells an old story about a womanizer (Day-Lewis) who has an agreeable relationship with a woman (Olin) who is equally unable to commit beyond casual sex when a woman who equates sex (Binoche) with commitment enters his life, wants to love him and he her, but he is conflicted. The film asks the question can they find happiness together? On the upside, this flick has an excellent cosmopolitan cast, is shot on location, and offers all the usual trimmings. On the downside, the characters are too flat, too laconic, and too enigmatic to create great depth and the film is just plain too long and stuffed with too much inconsequential filler. I watched this film in 1988 and found it quite forgettable which accounts for watching it a second time. Fodder for critics and buffs, the person seeking sheer entertainment should beware. (B)

Utterly romantic

[francheval · 9/10 · 17 February 2006]

Romanticism originally doesn't mean romance. The 19th century romantic hero was always a doomed one. The romantic characters long for something larger than life. The frailness, lightness of things is unbearable to those sensitive beings. This is why romantic stories typically end with the death of their heroes. Romanticism is the opposite of Hollywood, as there is no happy end. The epitome of a romantic story is for example "Romeo and Juliet", where death is preferred to an impossible love story.

Because such intense feelings are a threat, some people try to escape them by taking nothing seriously. For example, Tomas (Daniel Day Lewis), a young surgeon living in Prague in the late sixties. He is a perfect womanizer, but he never sleeps together with any woman, because he instinctively refuses any attachment. Such is also sensuous Sabina (Lena Olin), his favorite mistress and best friend, whose utmost erotic weapon happens to be... a bowler hat.

When Tomas is called for an operation at a small country spa, he seduces a young ingenuous waitress named Tereza (Juliette Binoche), but is not aware that she does not take things as lightly as he does. Bored to death with her provincial life, Tereza longs for something larger than life. She is vulnerable, sentimental, attaching. When she shows up by surprise at Tomas's apartment in Prague one evening, he lets her stay. He is trapped.

Neither of them suspects that they are living an intense moment in a crucial place. This is Prague, Czechoslovakia, the Eastern Block. But the winds of change are blowing in general enthusiasm, and Czechs believe that they are about to create " socialism with a human face". Encouraged by Sabina, Tereza becomes a photographer, and captures on film all the small daily life scenes, the beauty and uniqueness of every moment.

Tereza's caring love can't stop Tomas having affairs with "other women", much to her disarray. As she finally can't take it anymore, she decides to leave. But as she steps out on the dark streets, it sounds like an earthquake is coming. The Soviet tanks are entering the city. The reconstitution of Prague's invasion in this movie is extraordinarily intense, even more so as clips of the real events are included in the footage. Those few moments alone are strong enough to make this long movie worth seeing.

Tomas, Tereza and Sabina exile themselves to Geneva. Sabina has an affair with a married Swiss man, who "doesn't like bowler hats". As he eventually decides to leave his wife for her, she is very shaken, but she disappears. No attachment. It's lonely to be free. As for Tomas, Switzerland can't stop him either playing Casanova. Tereza still can't stand it, and she suddenly goes back to "the land of the weak". But I said it, Tomas is trapped. He can't live without her. He can't help following her back to Prague, although it's clear there is no future for them there anymore.

The story is an adaptation of a novel by much praised Czech novelist Milan Kundera, and it is one of those cases when the movie is more intense than the book. Whereas the movie is highly emotional, the book's tone is dry, cold, almost clinical.

Made by American director Philip Kaufman, this picture is European in every way. It captures perfectly well the "old world" nostalgic atmosphere of Czechoslovakia. The music score by Czech classical composers is gripping, sometimes melancholic, sometimes frantic. The lead actors are giving their all, and this film is certainly among their best performances for all three. The supporting cast also has some big European names in it (Erland Josephson, Daniel Olbrychski, Stellan Skarsgård). Cheerful performance by Czech actor Pavel Landovsky, who personally lived the Prague events. Here, he appears as a jolly and solid peasant with a pet pig called Mephisto, who follows him just everywhere, even at wedding parties!

Tomas and Tereza's pet is a she-dog called Karenin. She is the symbol of their love. They adopt her at the beginning of their relationship, take her together to Geneva, but as she escapes, Tereza takes her along back to Prague. As Karenin gets ill in the end, they make her a lethal injection so that she doesn't suffer. Pretty much what will happen to them too.

And well, I never knew bowler hats could be so erotic!

Springtime For Dubcek And Soviets

[writers_reign · 6/10 · 30 October 2014]

By all accounts - many of them here, on IMDb - this went down well on its initial release possibly because of the similar blend of politics and great loves to that we had already seen in Dr. Zhivago, another movie in which Russia was the third angle of the eternal triangle. Like Zhivago this was also based on a well-known novel albeit one I haven't read so I can comment only on the film. This may be only the second film featuring Daniel Day Lewis that I have actually seen albeit he appears to flavour of every alternate month and the delight of the Academic-Pseud axis. I found no evidence of why this should be so in There Will Be Blood and nor do I here. I see an actor who is competent, knows how to hit his marks and deliver dialogue but anything more than this eludes me. Juliette Binoche is, as usual with her, outstanding, and Lena Olin manages to hold her own. Apart from that ...

Unbearably Beautiful - one of the best films ever made

[zetes · 10/10 · 11 August 2001]

One of the most romantic films ever made, it shows the problems of people whose intimacies and personal conflicts are being interrupted by history on the move. I think this film surpasses the novel, which is utterly cynical (although understandably). Even in the last moments of the novel, Teresa is concerned that Tomas is cheating on her. The film also does well by dropping much of Franz's character - he was kind of uninteresting compared to Teresa, Tomas, and Sabina. It also drops such deadweight characters as Teresa's mother, Tomas' son, and Franz's wife. Also, a ton of different coworkers are combined into a few, so that their characters have time to develop. By concentrating on the three central characters, this film blossoms past what the novel ever achieved (although the novel is arguably more historically important). Philip Kaufman and Jean-Claude Carriere also add a couple of beautiful scenes that weren't in the novel, including Tomas' and Teresa's wedding, which is one of the most beautiful scenes in filmdom.

The Unbearable Lightness of Being

[alexx668 · 6/10 · 22 September 2009]

This Philip Kaufman adaptation of the famous Milan Kundera novel is.. so-so. The best bits have to do with the quasi-documentary portrayal of Eastern-Block era Czechoslovakia. The rest is little more than a melodrama, guised in art-house artistic-credibility visuals. Two questions though, first, why does Juliette Binoche put up with Daniel Day-Lewis, who is essentially a male prostitute, when she's not into the libertine lifestyle? And secondly, why does Daniel Day-Lewis sabotage his life so much just so that he doesn't renounce his anti-communist past? What a moron! This film doesn't make much sense, but then again, such is the unbearable lightness of being.

A Masterpiece!

[namashi_1 · 10/10 · 26 January 2016]

An adaptation of the novel of the same name by Milan Kundera, 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' is A Masterpiece of a film. Its difficult, saddening, challenging, but ultimately, affecting. The Top-Notch Performances only add more to the narrative.

'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' Synopsis: In 1968, a Czech doctor with an active sex life meets a woman who wants monogamy, and then the Soviet invasion further disrupts their lives.

Writer Jean-Claude Carrière portrays the effect on Czechoslovak artistic and intellectual life during the 1968 Prague Spring of socialist liberalization preceding invasion by Soviet led Warsaw Pact and subsequent coup that ushered in hard-line communism. Its an extremely disturbing story, that has layers of some great sexual power, beneath all the sadness. The characters are complex, but expressive. And their journey bristles with anger in those rousing 171-minutes, while this story unfolds.

Philip Kaufman's Direction is excellently done. He deserves credit for churning out a film that turns out to be much more than just a dramatic exploration of its characters. Cinematography is proper. Editing is decent. Art & Costume Design are flawless.

Performance-Wise: Daniel Day-Lewis, Juliette Binoche & Lena Olin deliver superior performances. Day-Lewis is in very good form, measuring his performance perfectly between sexual temptation & of being a victim of his surroundings. Olin is a marvel, stealing some of the film's best scenes with her seductiveness. Binoche is quietly devastating in her portrayal, matching up to Day-Lewis & Olin at all times.

On the whole, 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' is A Must Watch.

A classic case of "nice film, shame about the lack of excitement" - 73%

[Benjamin_Cox · 7/10 · 2 February 2009]

After watching this during a surreal snow storm outside, I can honestly say I have thought more about this review than any other. Not that my brain has been damaged by the amount of booze consumed during last night's Superbowl, oh no. Nor is it due to a particular fondness for Juliette Binoche. You see, in terms of cinematic value, this is a breath-taking exercise in film-making. Every shot feel lovingly crafted, every line of dialogue is poetry and the editing is some of the best I have seen. It's just that, in terms of entertainment, I personally found it uninvolving at times and a bit dull. Call me what you will but on some levels, it just didn't work.

Adapted from the acclaimed novel by Milan Kundera, "The Unbearable Lightness Of Being" takes us back to Prague in the days before Soviet occupation. Care-free surgeon Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) spends his days sleeping around, usually with his bohemian artist lover Sabina (Lena Olin) and occasionally doing some work when he's not chatting up the nurses. After being sent to a nearby town to treat a patient, he meets the beautiful Tereza (Binoche) and against his will, Tomas falls for her after she follows him back to Prague. Gradually, Tereza and Tomas are accepted by Sabina and the three strike an unusual friendship - a friendship forever altered by the dramatic invasion of the Soviet forces and their subsequent emigration to Switzerland.

I'm still not sure exactly where I stand on this film. Feeling reminiscent of "Lust, Caution" (which isn't a bad yardstick, as things go), there is not a single frame of this picture that looks anything less than beautiful despite the occasionally bleak subject matter. Olin and Binoche are brilliant but strangely, Daniel Day-Lewis lets the side down. He comes across as a selfish, manipulative dandy and I found it difficult to emphasise with him. I also felt he looked like Ben Stiller going through college and once that thought was there, it stuck! The supporting cast, largely unknown to most English-speaking audiences, were all faultless and deserve as much credit as the director for creating a sublime, smouldering masterpiece. The story also had its moments where it was genuinely upsetting but for the most part, it lacked any sort of narrative. It seemed to wander at will, from country to country, with little to link it like a bad James Bond movie. It also isn't as controversial as it would like you to believe - the sex, while moderately graphic, isn't a patch on what we see in mainstream movies today. This is no "Monster's Ball".

Maybe I'm missing something. At times, I felt like the movie was talking to me on a different intellectual plain that I couldn't understand and the fact that a lot of dialogue seems to be whispered didn't help - I needed the DVD's subtitles, that's for sure. It doesn't confuse you like "Donnie Darko" did but instead tests every sinew of attention as there's every chance that a small but vital line is missed or overlooked. So I'm afraid that "The Unbearable Lightness Of Being" didn't float my boat as I was hoping it would but it is a glorious, beautiful film which looks and sounds the business (despite its age) but doesn't offer much in the way of entertainment. Personally, I think that "Secretary" is a better kooky and controversial romance than this is or even Binoche's other legendary skin-flick "Damage". This is more high-brow, thoughtful and European than that though and if you like a challenge then this could be the film for you.

Astonishing!

[minunimion · 10/10 · 9 March 2021]

Wonderful! Never I thought that it is too long, the pace is perfect, never been bored. It's so good that in the end I thought... oh come on, I want more, then I realized that it lasted almost 3 hours! Sometimes you watch a movie that lasts 90 minutes or less thinking... this movie is very long, I need a pause... not in this case, the actors are great, all of them, the direction is perfect in every scene. What should I say more... it's a masterpiece! Pity that it didn't get any Oscar, it would deserve it. My complain is that it has been released in 1988 and since that time I saw really very few movies wonderful like this one. Highly recommended.

Victims of Circumstance?

[gcd70 · 6/10 · 3 July 2008]

Kaufman's probing drama which centres around the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia seems to suggest throughout that our very existence is always shaped, influenced and, to varying degrees, controlled by the dramatic events in our world. In short, we are victims of circumstance.

The story, co-written by Kaufman and Jean-Claude Carriere, is an amoral one concerning the extra-marital activity of Tomas, a doctor married to the young, timid Tereza who struggles to come to terms with his unfaithful lifestyle. Day-Lewis solidified his reputation with this accurate portrayal of pleasure seeking self-indulgence, and together with Binoche's touching portrayal of innocence and dedication, the two keep the audience interested. Lena Olin also turns in a fascinating performance as the third in a love triangle which threatens the young couple's marriage yet provides them both with their strongest friendship.

Kaufman, adapting from Milan Kundera's novel, constantly tries to add a human touch to the turmoil in the world surrounding the players in his film. Mostly he succeeds, though often it is hard to sympathise with a hedonistic, self centred anti-hero.

Art director Pierre Guffroy and Director of Photography Sven Nykvist have combined to grace the film with some splendid visuals and a most convincing look. Four editors conspired to under chop the final product.

Wednesday, October 1, 1997 - Video

A very poor adaptation

[yayotwo · 3/10 · 14 November 2008]

After reading the book, which had a lot of meaning for me, the movie didn't give me any of the feeling which the book conveyed. This makes me wonder if Kaufman even liked this book for he successfully made it into something else.Either that or he is simply bad. Most importantly where is the lightness?! From the very first scene, music drownes out most of the dialogue and feeling, and this continues right through the movie. I think the makers thought that by having upbeat music playing right through the movie, this would make the story feel light- however they have completely failed here. Instead the music manages to give everything that 'movie feel', in a way dramatising events so that we linger on them, so that everything actually feels heavy.

Another example of the how this adaptation fails is by embellishing the story line making it more dramatic. In the movie we see Franz passing Tomas on the street, who is on his way to see Sabina. The introduction of this chance meeting/passing, which im sure didn't happen in the book, gives Tomas' story more significance than it does make it light.

There are many other examples where the continuity of the story has been changed, imo for the worst, however this might have been done because the book simply doesn't convert well into a movie, such is Kundera's style. This makes we wonder if all the generous reviewers on this site were writing with their book AND movie experience in mind rather than writing about just the film. A film which is as long as it is uncompelling. For those who haven't read the book yet I recommend just reading that. For those who have, I have to say you will just be wasting your time and probably end up here writing similar stay-clear warnings.