IMDb user comments for
The Portrait of a Lady (1996) 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

59 reviews in total

---

19 out of 21 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-

---

21 out of 28 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?

---

13 out of 13 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).

---

17 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Misses the mark, but shouldn't be entirely dismissed, 14 September 1999
Author: Sean Gallagher (naes@cgocable.net) from Oakville, Ont. Canada

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.

---

9 out of 9 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.

---

8 out of 9 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.

---

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Overwhelming!, 4 March 2003

Author: Roberto Lorenz (rlorenz2810@yahoo.de) from Dresden, Germany

I did not really like the movie, at first. Nice, okay, but that was all, I thought.. Meanwhile I read the novel, watched the film again and again... And I love it more and more! Okay, NOTHING compares to "The Piano", but it's simply stunning.

Jane Campion (what a director!) tells the fascinating story of Isabel in unforgettable pictures and very true to the original novel of Henry James. Nicole Kidman is just made to play the main-character and the whole cast is without exception astonishing and powerful.

Kilar's musical score... A dream! Ardent, subtle themes, flowing and catchy. But not only that: The film succeeded in picking out the two most beautiful Piano-Pieces Franz Schubert ever composed; and melts story, pictures and music perfectly together.

To all the people who don't like or even hate "The Portrait of a Lady": I'd like to point out, it is a masterpiece! Point.

Watch it in a rainy afternoon, listen closely to the music and check out the - without a doubt - most beautiful ending of film-history!

Thank you.

---

7 out of 8 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.

---

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
As underrated as The Piano is overrated. Superior psychology and story., 7 June 2003
Author: FlorisV from Netherlands

This review mainly focuses on the comparisons with The Piano.

A lot of people might say The Piano is a better movie. It is certainly a prettier movie with lush imagery and music, and especially the latter was somewhat lacking in this movie, in favor of a lot of dialogue.

Portrait of a Lady is still far superior to The Piano in terms of story, acting and psychological depth. Where The Piano wasn't much more of an excuse to put some very pretty images and music on film, this movie actually has very real characters that don't just serve as eyecandy. The same goes for the scenery. Although some scenes definitely look lush, most of the movie looks quite dark, with little light and a blueish color overall. Quite fitting the mood, because it is a tale of an unhappy woman, who, despite her (financial) independence, and plenty of male admirers, fails in finding freedom and happiness, by making the wrong choices in life.

John Malkovich is excellent as always as a dominant, insensitive and cruel husband, holding his daughter (from another marriage) perfectly on his leash, and attempting to do the same with Anne Archer who he marries. A far cry from the man we were supposed to hate in The Piano, but who I actually found sympathetic and felt sorry for (that was a difficult and unthankful role by Sam Neill, I think Campion was to blame). Mr. Osmond (Malkovich) was convincingly real and malicious, also because the character was reasonably well written and is pretty much the cause of everyone's misery, thus being the center of the story. Still, perhaps a little too onedimensional, but this seems to be a bit of a recurring Jane Campion flaw: we put a male character in a movie and we have to make him look evil, while the women are mostly kindhearted (tho I did find the Holly Hunter character in The Piano quite unsympathetic). It seems to me that Campion has a much greater understanding of the female psyche than that of the male.

Judging Portrait of a Lady overall, I have to conclude that it has excellent acting and a good tragic storyline that is involving enough. The camerawork and scenery serve their purpose, depicting a dark, somber environment in harmony with Anne's feelings (and to think that most of the film takes place in sunny Italy!). Some people may be however bored by the amount of dialogue and the lack of pace, and music. Others may find the main character too cold but I think she's not. Anne Archer is her own woman, a character well acted by Kidman, and has a good heart. She just seems to have trouble giving in to deeper desires, instead giving in to a destiny she believes to be hers, and thus suffering from a dominant husband. A popular theme among fin-de-siecle naturalist novels, the Inevitable Fate, and it is so ever tragically present here.

I think there should be a lot more costume dramas like this one. The only movies like this one, which I also recommend, is The Age Of Innocence, and The Remains Of The Day. I prefer these movies, and Portrait Of A Lady, over Jane Austen adaptations because those depict too small a world with teaparties and marriages as the only things that matter in life. Fin-de-siecle films are much better tragedies.

I give this one 7,5 out of 10.

---

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
THE BEST MOVIE OF THE CENTURY!!, 19 December 2001

Author: Hernan Amado (hernan_amado@hotmail.com) from Colombia, Popayán

Having seen this. I just say It has certainly been my pleasure getting to see this amazing movie. Jane Campion really did her best to bring us Isabel Archer's portrait. I'm not ashamed to say that "The portrait of a lady" by Henry James is the best movie I have ever seen. I know what I say. I have seen a bunch of movies, and I can really say that it's much better than those. It's beautiful visually, wonderful costuming, perfectly acted.

The plot of the portrait of a lady is excellent and different from other drama movies. It's extremely interesting and highly recommended by me. The story is about a woman who rejects a most lucrative marriage proposal in favor of her hunger to experience the world. She wants to be free and marry the person she wants to. Isabel's defiant refusal stuns her suitors "Lord Warburton" (Richard Grant) and "Caspar Goodwood" (Viggo Mortesen) as well as the relatives who she is staying with in England. Nevertheless, her admiring cousin Ralph Touchett (Martin Donovan) secretly urges on her dying father to leave Isabel a great deal of his fortune. Isabel is very happy being rich, but this large inheritance makes her be deceived by her duplicitous friend Madame Serena Merle (perfectly played by Barbara Hershey) who leads her into an unfortunate marriage to an evil, devious dilettante, Gilbert Osmond (John Malcovich). Gilbert Osmond has a beautiful child named Pansy (played by the Italian actress Valentina Cervi). She is very obedient and apparently submissive. She is in love with Edward Rosier (Christian Bale); However Gilbert doesn't like him that much because he is not as rich as lord Warburton. He wants her to marry lord Warburton, even though he was Isabel's suitor. He just wants to become rich no matter how unscrupulous he has to be in order to ensure his success. Isabel's only comfort is Pansy. Isabel loves her, but she doesn't know many things about her parentage. It was a surprise for me to find out about Pansy's mother. It made it so interesting. Isabel suffers gravely for having married Osmond. But after the dark truth behind Madame Merle and Osmond's deceits are revealed. Isabel awakens to an incredible freedom. In emerging from the darkness of her folly. Isabel discovers her one true love (her cousin Ralph Touchett) in an epiphany that sends her forth in hopeful triumph, stronger, and more selfless than she had ever imagined. At the ending It's beautifully filmed as she runs to be free in the snowy winter in England. Have a look at the landscapes and the snowy England. They are gorgeous. They made one of the best and different endings ever made. It's truly one of the best sceneries I've ever seen in my whole life. This movie takes us to the grand European background (Rome, England, Florence/Italy) of splendid wealth and Old-World sensibilities. It must have won an academy award for best cinematography.

Nicole Kidman was stunning to star as Isabel Archer. She really envelops herself into the role very well. I never ever thought she could act like this. She was perfect to play Isabel Archer. This is definitely her best performance. I thought she was going to get an academy award for best actress in a leading role in this movie, but she didn't. Anyway she must be an Oscar winner in 2002 for best actress either in "Moulin Rouge" or in "the Others". I have seen those movies and I think they were pretty good; However, they weren't as stupendous as this one, Nicole Kidman showed us her great acting skills.

Barbara Hershey is altogether outstanding. She gives an absolutely exemplary performance. She got an academy award nomination for best actress in a supporting role in this movie which was very well-deserved. She is amazing. She really made the movie as great as I thought it was going to be. She really knows how to act. What an excellent actress!! It must have been difficult to star as the complicated, enigmatic Madame Serena Merle; Nevertheless she really got it. I'll not forget when Madame Serena Merle regretted to have been so mean to Isabel. It's also unforgettable as she is outside the convent and it's raining hard, she gets totally damp as she's telling Isabel the truth about everything.

The musical score by Wojciech Kilar is extraordinary. It is completely delightful as Madame Serena Merle plays the piano. It's also remarkable as Isabel fantasizes sleeping with her three lovers, the music reaches an incredible mysterious level. Also listen to the fabulous music at the beginning and the ending. It's wonderful, just listen to it.

I don't really like romantic movies at all. This is why I liked it so much. It wasn't romantic. The scene as Gilbert Osmond twirls Isabel's umbrella to hypnotize her, was interesting and outstanding as well as dark and terrifying. It was utterly dramatic. I haven't seen more beautiful woman than Isabel Archer (Nicole Kidman) in this movie.

It's worth watching just for intellectual people who like drama movies. If you like drama and epoch movies. Watch it! You'll not regret it. Otherwise, Don't even try watching this, because you'll easily get very bored and it's highly unlikely you'll like it.

Overall, TWO THUMBS UP!! This is the best movie of the century. It has truly been the most brilliant adaptation ever made. Congratulations Laura Jones. After saying this I just can tell that the sad part is that it was very under-rated. Anyway What can I do?. 10/10

---

---

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