Madame Bovary

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.

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!

"Madame Bovary" was already transferred twice to the screen in its native country :Jean Renoir's version (1934) is generally considered the best ;the more recent version by Claude Chabrol who claimed he "made the movie Flaubert would have done" ;there's also Vincente Minnelli's film, starring the most beautiful romantic Emma ever in the shape of Jennifer Jones .

Mrs Barthes took more liberties with the novel than any of her colleagues,sometimes not for the best: it's really a bad idea to replace the Marquis' ball by a hunting with hounds : a ball is par excellence the place where a woman can shine,dazzle all the men around and outstrip all her rivals:Flaubert's depiction of the soiree ,which is the turning point of the novel ,reveals Emma's monotonous living,her longing for a socialite life ,for a romantic love story her meek oafish hubby cannot give to her;the Marquis ,becoming Emma's lover , led the screenwriters to do without Rodolphe Boulanger ,which may disappoint the readers.Gone is Emma 's daughter -she wanted a boy and she found her ugly- who landed as a working girl in a spinning mill ,ironical fate for a daughter whose mom wanted to climb the social scale.On the other hand,Lheureux,Emma's evil genius, is given a (too) prominent role ,and Monsieur Homais ,the atheist chemist hardly appears ,he 's only in it to urge Charles to operate on Hippolyte,the person with club- foot ;the scene in the church with the vicar is much weaker than its equivalent in Renoir's movie;the agricultural meeting fete is botched ,and passes over in silence the way Flaubert showed "the poverty of the century " ,in the shape of a very old lady who is awarded a medal after a life of hard labor.(Renoir did not forget that either)

The movie is not completely wretched though.Mia Wasikowska is a very credible Emma ,and even if her suicide may surprise Flaubert's readers,the final scene with these torches in the night is cinematographically dazzling(but the prologue which makes the movie a flashback is pointless);Charles Bovary(Henry Loyd-Hughes) is exactly how Flaubert depicted him,an unambitious good man with a small mind, whose main pleasure in life is to sit down at table and enjoy his meal;the wedding night -not shown in precedent versions- is revealing .To get a semblance of a luxury life,she's seized by a compulsive desire to buy mountain of things ,most of which are thoroughly useless.She lives in a world of illusion,even Leon (Ezra Miller)holds a second-rate position he may easily loose if he continues with his romance with a married woman.

This new version will probably not go down in cinema history.But ,even though the screenplay is eminently debatable,the cinematography is splendid indeed.

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.

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.