Jeux dangereux

After seeing this movie, I was prompted to write and comment, once again, about the roles that husbands are afforded in almost every movie w/ a love triangle. This film offers a stark illustration of this fact. For the sake of the story, we are asked to suspend disbelief and watch as every husband portrayed in the film, is cuckolded- & offers no instance of protest, or resistance. So let me get this straight- the " GOOD WIFE" in the film, is a lustful, amoral character- who presumably destroys her marriage to pursue a worthless cad. By itself, this isn't an unbelievable tale. My pet peeve however, is how the women's spouses are portrayed, in movies of this sort. The B. Brown character not only doesn't get angry, he offers his wife to his brother, excuses her behavior w/ the barman, and willingly, immediately, and w/out reservation, offers "instant forgiveness" to his cheating wife- another predictable staple for this character. The other husband in the movie who catches his wife w/ another man, reacts the same way. In other words, every husband is weak, ineffectual & too inadequate, to show anger, towards their straying wives! No, the women are all capable of destructive actions, but the husbands?- their reaction to these actions, is reserved, measured, & minimal at best. This character is essential to filmmakers, but is so prevalent, that it's becoming a cliché' within itself! The first film that actually offers a sympathetic, strong portrayal of a betrayed man, which by the way is the usual portrayal given to betrayed wives, will be a revelation. An actual male character who doesn't whine & weakly accepts his wife's cheating. One who decides that SHE is not worthy of him- would be a first! Instead we are faced w/ the same character- gutless, weak, no balls, and willing to accept any & all humiliations, for the sake of fantasy. By no means am I one of these right-wing, "defenders of families" freaks- but it's not hard to see that the portrayal of husbands in these movies, would give one pause. What reality are these filmmakers living in- & maybe, just once, they'll join ours!

"The Good Wife" is a film that seems to have a lot of quiet seductive power.... the story itself, which I found only minimally absorbing, is also somewhat lame and perhaps a bit goofy (Marge, a married woman, played by Rachel Ward, feels bored and unfulfilled in her rural Australian setting and first sleeps with her husband's younger brother, then begins to lust after a local barman played by Sam Neill...). However, the atmospheric setting, the scenery, the cinematography, the costumes, the characters, the enchanting background music - well, just about ALL elements of the film, are so rich and vibrant that they suck you right in, and more than make up for the rather daft story line.

Hence, "The Good Wife" is that sort of movie where you end up caring about the fates of the various players. You actually care about the denouement of the movie, because as the story unfolds, you really do start to care about the players as human beings, and you can't help but become interested in their individual destinies.

The creators of the film did an excellent job of recreating the look and feel of the time period of the story, which is set in 1939 Australia. I especially like the attention given to minute details that help to establish time and place and also give the movie a rich and full-bodied flavor. The eye-candy cinematography is just spectacular. This is easily one of the most "beautiful" movies I've ever seen. I'm glad I taped this movie off of a cable showing on TV. I will definitely be watching this one again!!

I saw this movie for the second time again after having seen it when it first came out in 1987. I enjoyed it just as much now as I did then. The characters are interesting and thought-provoking especially the main character, Marge Hills played by Rachel Ward. It's about a woman who lives in a small town in Australia ca.1939. She has a loving husband but feels that life is passing her by and that exciting things only happen to other people. Enter Sam Neill. He comes to town and things change drastically for her. I felt sorry for her character which rapidly becomes pathetic. This is a movie for people who don't need a whole lot of action and special effects. I also liked seeing Bryan Brown and Rachel Ward teamed up again. The first time was in The Thorn Birds where I believe they actually met and, sometime afterward, eventually got married.

'The Good Wife' is for those who like films that focus on an obscure little corner of the world and look at the feelings and foibles of the people therein. This time the camera is aimed at a small Australian town in 1939, where Marge Hills (Rachel Ward) feels that life is passing her by despite her work as a midwife and marriage to a loving husband. Nothing exciting ever happens to her, she thinks, and her attempts to make something happen get her into all sorts of small-town trouble.

Rachel Ward is such a beauty and has such a presence that I probably would have been content to watch her putter around the kitchen for ninety minutes at this stage of her career. Anyone familiar with Bryan Brown's work will not be surprised to hear that he is excellent in the role of Sonny, the husband. Steven Vider is also very good as Sugar, Sonny's younger brother, a youth so callow that he asks his brother if it's OK to sleep with his wife. Sam Neill is the newcomer to town whose attention Marge tries so desperately to get. A lot of people would describe this as a "little" film but I got more enjoyment out of it than many of its bigger brethren.

I saw the second half of this movie on cable starting from the point where Sam Neil came into town. Then the next day i caught the second half again. The story and the truth it brought to me was captivating. It brought many things to my mind. besides that it reminded me of many things it was all very atractivly shot with beutifull powerfull actors/actresses.

i noticed there is only one comment in 3 years about this film and feeling so strongly about it i worte this. I have noticed many have though nothing of this film. though it fake or a physcolical atempt at "showing us something" "being something" but i belive these peoples life expereance has not agreed with the content and for that reason they do not like it. It has seemed very real to me. Although the style of acting in many ways is more like stage acting and carried more by the writers ideas then by the "relisim" of the actors themselvs. But what true ideas the writer has shown us!