Avis des utilisateurs

"Le Divorce" fails. Despite the beauty of the locales and the talent of the lead actors, the director couldn't decide if this is a Parisian comedy or an adult tale of marital discord gone horrifically askew.

The interaction between the two female leads is good-half-sisters and true soulmates. But their romantic and marital complications come too fast with too little depth and the film is on a train wreck in the making.

And suave, affluent, cheating Frenchmen are a stale staple of these movies. Nothing new or interesting here.

Too bad.

4/10.

Have not read the novel, but the movie itself is slush (not having read the novel I can't say whether to blame the author).

Supposedly, the story explores the values gulf between America and France, with sex the American taboo and money the French taboo. Sadly, the greatest taboo in this movie is common sense, which seems trapped at the midpoint between the two, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, several miles beneath the surface at the base of the mid-Atlantic rift.

Every time we think something that makes less sense couldn't happen, it does. Characters act stupidly or self-destructively, doing the kind of nasty or narcissistic things that would make them the villain of most any other putative comedy of manners, only to have their clueless behavior transcended (to the downside) in the very next scene.

The only real surprise in the film is that it was made by the same folks who gave us "A Room With A View" and its distinguished successors. Here, that body of work culminates in an anticlimactic thud, as if obscurity were the thing the production team had been seeking to perfect. (Thank goodness they have another film coming out soon.) Rather than engaging the audience, "Le Divorce" is so absurd that about halfway through, it joins the group of films that are so bad you watch to the end just to hoot at the screen.

Our antipathy to the characters is particularly amazing because there is not a bad performance. Most of the excellent cast is quite good, and I was very happy to see Leslie Caron looking so beautiful and healthy. One gets the feeling the actors chose the project because it was a Merchant Ivory film. The only betrayal we end up caring about is that their faith led them here.

The film looks great, yet the script makes us groan. Other than the sister in law and the young daughter of the divorce of the title, the characters are archetypes. The most distinctive personality belongs to a handbag, and the rest of them become so annoying they seem to deserve what they get. The genuine tragedies -- we see them coming two miles away, not just one -- don't carry much impact because these so clearly aren't real people.

"Le Divorce" was meant to be funny, but it plays out as a 90-minute Seinfeld stripped of comedy or plot. The only laughs come from the predictability and unbelievability of events, and the degree to which we don't care about anyone they happen to. Merchant Ivory have, and will, do a lot better than this.

I think this could have been an interesting film. Instead, it shows the French as being close-minded, rude and arrogant with no concern about other people's feelings. The American sisters are annoying in their lack of backbone. Instead of standing up for themselves or each other, they simply lie down and let husbands, boyfriends and in-laws humiliate them. Their last name should be doormat. The scenery is both beautiful and breathtaking. The restaurant scenes gives us some insight on the French artfulness of food. Dining is not just a daily routine but an adventure of taste, color and texture. Even when insulting, the French language is a pleasure to hear. Sadly, the bad heavily outweighs the good in this movie.

The most distasteful aspect of this movie had to be Kate Hudson's character Isabel. Her sister Roxanne has just been abandoned by her cheating husband. Isabel can see the anguish that his adultery has caused her sister, who is so distraught she attempts suicide. Isabel appears to feel concern for her sister, but what does she do? She has an affair with her brother-in-law's married uncle. She flaunts the expensive handbag he gives her all over Paris. This girl's main purpose in life is to bat her lashes and smile insipidly at men. Any man -- even the cheating SOB who abandoned her pregnant sister! Even the crazy guy who's stalking and threatening her sister! She is a disturbingly shallow, self-centered hypocrite.

Other than that the movie is just pointless and boring. I felt nothing for the characters except pity for Roxanne and revulsion for everyone else.

Have you ever seen a movie wondering about where it is heading to? And worst than that, after you finished watching it , you still felt the same? If you know what I am talking about you do not want to see this movie and end up feeling like you wasted two hours of your life. The story goes nowhere because it tries to explain so many stories that at the end you feel that the movie has the wrong name. Despite all the stories it goes around are resolved at the end, it makes you feel you're watching a different movie from the one you started watching. The stories are linked in such a weak form that you would have preferred them to be completely separated. Not even recommended for a nothing-to-do-Sunday-afternoon.

It's amusing to read some of the comments in this page of IMDb. Most postings place the blame for what they perceive as the failure of this picture on James Ivory, Ismael Merchant and Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, the successful creative team of some of the best movies of recent years. In fact, the sin they appear to have committed was to adapt the Diane Johnson's novel about the contrasts she has always written about between two cultures that should be more similar: the French and American, yet, as we read in the book, and now watched in the film, they are not as close as one would imagine.

First, the French one sees portrayed in the film belong to the high classes that are imbued in their traditions, savoir faire, their sense of style and being B.C.B.G., something the Americans, being somehow a new society without those traditions cannot comprehend. Money is a taboo subject to be spoken at all by the wealthy French, whereas in America the flaunting of having made fortunes and having millions is an everyday subject for the higher ups.

Ms. Johnson, who has lived in France for quite some time, is an observant of that society. In her many books about life in that country, the study in the contrasts she sees, are at center stage and the mixing of Americans with the French bourgeoisie produces surprising results that make the reading of her novels more compelling for the joy they bring to her readers.

Isabel, the young American, arriving to stay with her sister Roxanne, takes easily to the new surroundings. In doing so, she completely disregards the established rules when she enters in a liaison with Marc-Henri, who sees the occasion as one for amusing himself for a while. Roxanne, on the other hand, soon discovers what she is against when her French husband decides to ask her for a divorce. Little has prepared her for the consequences that go with it and the archaic laws about a couple's separation in that country, which benefits the husband while punishing the wife.

The other theme at the core of the story is a painting Roxanne has brought with her from San Diego. The possibility of it being a real Delacroix is now at the center of the divorce settlement. Where one can see it has nothing to do with the cheating husband, Suzanne, the mother-in-law deems otherwise because of the possible value the painting will fetch when it's sold.

Naomi Watts makes another great contribution in her appearance as Roxanne. Kate Hudson is not in the same league, although her good looks and natural charm makes one care more for her Isabel. The delicious Leslie Caron plays Madame de Persand with great panache. Just watching her remarking about the granulated sugar Charlotte offers her to sweeten her tea is one of the delights of the film. Tierry Lhermitte is seen as the callous Edgar. Glenn Close plays Olivia Pace, a writer,who might be Diane Johnson's alter ego in the story. Stephen Fry, Stockard Channing, Sam Waterston, and the rest of the French and American cast do a good job.

This film has a feeling of being more French than some French movies. The cinematography of Pierre Lhomme is wonderful as he takes his camera all over the city showing us what a treat it is to be in Paris, even for a visit. The other thing that comes across is the involvement of the late Ismail Marchant to the production. Mr. Merchant got great locales in where to film and had a great eye for the style of the pictures he was producing. His absence, alas, is sadly missed from the latest James Ivory project "The White Countess".

In spite of not being up to some of his best movies, James Ivory still shows he has a keen eye for presenting the material on the screen.

"Le Divorce" shocked me. As a French woman and Parisian I felt insulted by it and really wondered what was in James Ivory's mind when he made it.

Kate Hudson's and Naomi Watts' characters seem to be attracted by French rude and worthless men, but as far as I know, not all French men are rude and worthless... Yes, we too have gentlemen around here, and marriage does mean something to some of them - just like anywhere in the western world. Oh, and, last but not least: 99% of the French _don't_ know what a Kelly Hermes bag is... I didn't before I saw "Le Divorce".

A few good points though: Naomi Watts is beautiful and so is the photography.

The performances are terrific, Kate Hudson proves that she is the actress that Goldie Hawn never was, and it is always good to see Leslie Caron looking her age and looking great. Now, the matter of the plot has been raised and the consensus so far is that it is a bag of clichés dumped into a blender and then poured out on film.

True. But, the book was no great shakes either and the screenplay simply has not risen above its origins.

I enjoyed Le Divorce for its cynicism and its predictability, frankly. It is nice every now and then to see a movie that elicits a sour chuckle rather than a guffaw or a shriek, and this is one of them.

After viewing the unfortunate "Golden Bowl" (also by James Ivory) the day before, an exposure to "Le Divorce" was certainly a refreshing sip of champagne. This may be the first James Ivory movie I've seen where I forgot to look at the sets (unlike Ivory's other French venture, "Jefferson in Paris"). This is mostly due to the depth of certain actors and the fact that this time Ivory decides to close in on them rather than frame them. When the book came out, as an American living in Paris for 30 years, I avoided reading another set of American observations on everything French that foreign residents here hate, and I can't say that the movie avoids the pitfalls of throwing around generalities. Yet this is kept to an astonishing minimum, perhaps because few of the main characters really consider themselves typical representatives of their native country. Instead of a plethora of reflections coming out of their mouths, "the French are like this, the Americans are like that," the viewer can actually draw his own conclusions about which country has the "nicest" people and the place of formality when it comes to private matters. After all, would the story have been that much different if it had dealt with class differences in New York City? The characters who do tend to generalize are perhaps the least involved in what is going on. They form the real "décor" of the film, rather than the wallpaper and polished furniture, although these elements certainly haven't been omitted.

I find it strange that the two most interesting actors are supposed to belong to the subplot, Kate Hudson and Thierry L'Hermitte. The latter is currently being wasted in his late middle age in French films, and, like Louis Jourdan in "Gigi," manages to bring a little subtle something extra to the most stereotyped part in the film. I'd like to see him extend what he has done here, if any producer or director can be bothered.

The film had such a short run in France that I missed seeing it in a movie theater, and it was dismissed by most French critics on its release like the way that some of the American characters are dismissed by their French counterparts in the film itself. It would be a shame to overlook this light but not lightweight effort, for it has a surprisingly natural charm and raises interesting questions about how much the culture that forms our conditioning influences our very humanity.

Romantic dramas and comedies are not usually my thing, although I admit they can be interesting. Despite myself, I found I liked The Bridges of Madison County (1995), for example. So also with this one: a nice mixture of irony, wry humour, and culture clash (American vs French) all topped off with some murder and financial skullduggery.

There's a large cast of characters, but I'll confine most of my comments to the four main players: Kate Hudson as Isabel Walker, Naomi Watts as her sister, Roxeanne, married to Charles-Henri played by Melvil Poupaud and Isabel's aging lover, Edgar Cosset, played with exquisite panache by Theirry Lhermitte.

The story begins as Charles-Henri is leaving Roxeanne (and his daughter) for another woman, Magda (Rona Hartner), just as Isabel is arriving, from USA, to assist Roxeanne. Essentially, Charles-Henri wants a divorce, but Roxeanne refuses. And for much of the resulting interaction between the couple, that impasse remains. In the meantime, Isabel settles in with Roxeanne and, through the family connections meets Edgar (who is Charles-Henri's uncle) and agrees to become his lover.

The divorce battle gets worse as Roxeanne discovers the inequalities that exist in French law regarding marriage settlements. Relationships sour even more between the two, and now compounded by the growing dispute about a La Tour painting owned by Roxeanne's family but which Charles-Henri now half-claims as part of any divorce settlement. Further drama ensues when Tellman (Mathew Modine) shows up, ranting to Roxeanne about Charles-Henri's seduction of Magda, Tellman's wife.

And, in and out of that mess, Isabel becomes more involved with Edgar, much to the annoyance of Edgar's family – but, trust the French to be very civilized about Edgar's affairs – and the arrival of Roxeanne's parents and brother (Sam Waterston, Stockard Channing and Thomas Lennon, respectively) who have come to support Roxeanne during her difficult time – and, just quietly, to help torpedo Charles-Henri's grab for the La Tour art piece, now valued at multi-millions.

The resolution of all these affairs is competently contrived with many scene changes as the plot interweaves between the two couples, one seeking divorce, the other eventually seeking a divorce of a different kind: as Edgar says to Isabel, finally: "I'm too old for you." And, through the latter half of the story, the American and French families intermingle, giving rise to some delicious moments of that humour and irony already mentioned.

The denouement is predictable, but still enjoyable, and marred only by Mathew Modine's somewhat overacted deranged husband; still, his intervention is instrumental and provides the only real suspenseful moments in an otherwise conventional divorce story. The use of Glenn Close, playing Olivia Pace, as a quasi-mentor for Isabel assists with the story development with Edgar and adds some further touches of irony; however, it added little to the story, as a whole.

As you might expect from an Ivory production, the cinematography, editing, and sound are top notch. And the script, although also somewhat predictable, still shows some moments of brilliance; the lunches and dinners with both families in situ were, for me, a real joy to savour. The acting, apart from Modine, is uniformly very good to excellent. This was the first time I'd seen Kate Hudson on the screen and I think she did well opposite Lhermitte. Watts is always worth watching, as are Channing and Close. And, I was very pleasantly surprised to see Leslie Caron once again, as Edgar's mother.

However, with a lot of sub-titles, some people will be turned off from an otherwise English-speaking film, despite the French actors often lapsing into that language. Being a bit of a Francophile, however, I just found it all quite delightful.

There are some mild and brief sex scenes, and nothing offensive, even for adolescents. It's not a film, however, for those who like action/thrillers.

I wanted to like this movie. I didn't. I watched half of it, hating the characters more and more with each passing minute. Finally, I just stopped watching. I really do not care what happens to any of them. Waste of an hour of my life.

...because I LOVED this movie. I read the other reviews and I'm astounded. I think this is a great movie. I received the DVD for free, and was so pleasantly surprised by the acting, the scenery, the humor, the exaggerated French snobbishness. I thought Kate Hudson glowed, carrying most of the movie. I loved the lingerie store scene, where the French women giggled over Isabel being "le petite" when she showed them her chest. I loved how Naomi Watt's character was perpetually scowling until she met the handsome divorce lawyer, and visibly fell in love at first sight. Glenn Close was wonderful as the graceful, well-aged American writer, clearly bitter about her being dumped by Edgar, but over-compensating with sarcasm. I loved the scene in the police car, where they were going to investigate a murder, and got side-tracked by the police women's perfume. There are so many wonderful nuances that make this movie great, I don't even care that the plot was muddled and non-existent. It's visually wonderful to watch, and the acting is superb. It's the kind of movie girls like to watch on a weekend, doing their nails, just relaxing. It moves slow, but it's additive and I've watched it more than I'll admit...

I love the cast of this movie, but I had to stop the movie. I wanted more for from everyone. It felt so bland and like everyone's performance was forced. So, I got bored. Unfortunate because it had so much promise. I also think I was misled because it was in the comedy section, when it should be in the drama section (I'm not a film critic though).

Isabel Walker (Kate Hudson) is visiting her sister Roxeanne de Persand (Naomi Watts) in Paris. Roxeanne's husband Charles-Henri is leaving his pregnant wife for another woman. Poet Olivia Pace (Glenn Close) hires Isabel to assist her on her tour. Isabel has a very French affair with the married Yves. A family painting given to Roxeanne is discovered to be more valuable than first thought. Charles-Henri insists on a divorce and splitting everything including the painting. Tellman (Matthew Modine) is the husband of Charles-Henri's mistress.

Nobody cares. The only rooting interest is Roxeanne because she actually shows a beating heart. Charles-Henri is played with such a robotic unfeeling manner that it's questionable how they ever got married. Even Roxeanne as a character is destroyed after her suicide attempt. She does a 180 and turns into her family where she's sipping wine and discussing alimony with them over lunch. There is no passion in this thing that survives. This is a stereotype of two elitist cultures.

The French are callous cold-hearted about love. There is no passion. Love is transactional. The Americans are almost as cold-hearted about love. They care more about the money. They care more about the painting than the marriage. Tellman is the only person with consistent passion and he's a madman. None of it makes for compelling drama. It's a movie about cold people that leaves me cold.

There is a light comedic tone throughout the movie but there is no comedy to be had. It is an infuriating movie. It could have survived as a drama only about Roxeanne's divorce. I rather not spend any time watching the very boring affair with Isabel.

Soooo bad! Boring, slow, and pointless, with uninteresting spoiled rich characters. I'm sorry, but if Hudson's romance with a fiftysomething womanizer is supposed to be the romance, it's just gross. She never sticks up for herself in the whole movie! She just gets used and discarded, and supposedly "grows" from the experience. The French people have no respect for marriage or for the feelings of their pregnant daughter/sister-in-law (Watts) whose husband has left her with no explanation like a b**tard and a coward. NOTHING about Watts' story line is funny. It's depressing. I don't think I laughed once in this "comedy." Both the Americans and the French are annoying and there is barely any actual humanity in their characters. I want my two hours back!

James Ivory is not exactly a politically orientated film maker, but it took some courage, and it was a politic message releasing a film about Americans living in Paris, and the culture clash between American and French in 2003. Although his film is more about family relations and cultural perception, it says a lot about humans being more important in the relations between two nations than their leaders politics.

Not that the relations in the film are that soft. I know quite well both American and French mentalities, and I appreciate the ironic mirror this film puts in the faces of the two peoples. There is certainly a certain dose of stereotype in the approach, but still the characters are well built, they act with logic most of the time, and some good acting from a bi-lingual team

helps a lot. Paris is still the best location to pick for a film ever. The plot is a little bit too long, and the end suffers from hollywooditis, but overall it is a satisfying cinema experience. I do not like the romantic genre too much, but it was better than I expected. 7 out of 10 on my personal scale.

Director James Ivory also co-adapted this film-version of Diane Johnson's novel about a pregnant American writer in Paris getting a visit from her vivacious half-sister on the same afternoon her husband walks out on her and their young daughter; while the estranged couple squabbles over legal matters, the sister gets a job working with another female writer and seduces a French politician, whom she calls "Uncle Edgar". Botched treatise on American marriage versus French marriage (as well as politics, money, art, and cuisine) is light at first but soon becomes a dirge. In the leads, Kate Hudson and Naomi Watts are certainly likable, but the bland script (directed in a woefully low-keyed manner) never allows their personal chemistry to shine through; Watts, in particular, struggles with her sniping, unhappy character. Curiously misjudged effort from the team of Ivory-Merchant. *1/2 from ****

I adore this movie. Yes it's not the typical move the directors produce. Yes it's a bit scattered.

But it's quirky and I love all the cameos.

Just try it.

I do not understand how a team of great actors and actresses accept such bad screenplay. The characters are simply terrible, not well developed and absolutely stereotyped and ridiculous, with Frenches being sophisticated, seductive and having culture, and Americans having basic culture and common sense only. Isabel Walker (Kate Hudson) is a shallow slut visiting her sister in Paris. She arrives in the city, and a couple of days later she is shagging two guys, one of them with the age of her father. Her sister, Roxeanne de Persand (Naomi Watts), is a silly insecure and mediocre pregnant poet in deep love with her husband Charles-Henri de Persand (Melvil Poupaud). The reasons why she is so in love with him are never elaborated along the story. Charles is a great son-of-a-b*** mediocre painter born in silver spoon that leaves his daughter and his pregnant wife to have an affair with a married Russian woman, Magda Tellman (Rona Hartner). Magda's husband, Tellman (Matthew Modine), is a deranged sick guy that should be in a mental institution. Isabel becomes mistress of a sophisticated older man, Edgar Cosset (Thierry Lhermitte), a hypocrite moralist that participates in talk shows, but does not walk the way he talks, giving expensive gifts to his many lovers. Roxeanne's mother-in-law is a ridiculous old woman that shows no respect to the American family. The nicest character is the writer Olivia Pace, played by Glenn Close, but wearing an awful hair cut. In summary, I found this unpleasant movie a great deception. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "À Francesa" ("French Style")

I keep trying to figure out why this movie is rated so low. I thought it was very good, and that was before I started reading the book -- well more than halfway through, I think it's a faithful adaptation that delivers the storyline and the theme of the novel very well. I tend now to read the novel a movie is based on after I've seen the film, since my experience has taught me that doing the reverse always leads to disappointment in the movie. This was not an error with this title. I think all the casting, all the acting, and especially the direction, were well done.

It seems to me that somehow viewers were expecting too much from the movie. My philosophy is that expectations are arranged disappointments, and I try not to expect anything going in. I do admit that I had some doubts when it seemed that Merchant-Ivory were doing what looked like a light comedy, but there is much more to the book and film than that, first of all, and secondly, why should accomplished filmmakers not move around the genres? Look at Kubrick and The Archers, just to name two, who did so and did it successfully. I wonder how many people went in expecting "Howards End" and thus were disappointed, not in the film but by their own expectations. It's not fair to the filmmakers. Expecting "Le Divorce" to be on par with "Howards End" was like expecting "Howards End" to have the same effect as "Shakespeare Wallah" -- two completely different experiences. It's entirely possible, in fact, that Merchant-Ivory might not have done as good a job on "Le Divorce" had they not made "Howards End" first. It's a matter of process. My point being, that each film must be judged on its own merits.

I've read a couple of comments and message board posts that complain about how the movie makes French people look -- arrogant, garrulous, etc. I think that's overstating a generalization. The movie makes THESE PARTICULAR French people look arrogant and garrulous, because they are -- and devious and self-centered and boorish. But to leap to the conclusion that the movie is making a statement about all French people is patently ridiculous. "The views expressed by the characters in this movie are entirely their own".

On the other hand, one has to remember that Diane Johnson, who wrote the book and a number of books about the culture since, spends half her time in France. She does't take her subjects lightly; she's an intelligent, thoughtful, and though-provoking writer, and I would urge the people who find the movie too subjective to go to its source and read the book. They will find that the book is written from the point of view of one person, and is about the relations between two families -- not two complete cultures. Just because people say something about a culture does't make it true. Perception itself is subjective. In the book (I can't recall if this occurs in the film, I'll have to see it again) Uncle Edgar, perhaps the most sensible character, himself speaks those words that send a shiver of annoyance up my spine: "You Americans. You think..." As if we all think the same thing (and we all know THAT isn't true!). It shows that subjectivity is a common human trait, that we look at the world with our own particular set of blinders, filter our thought through our cultural stance, although I think that perhaps French thought is more synthesized and common than American thought which is, by nature of the population, more diverse.

In the end I think that the book and the film are VERY objective, and let us look at our own judgmental selves and see how the judgmental and subjective nature of our thought and attitude can be damaging and inhibiting. I think that's the theme, and it comes across very well.

Being a french living in Paris, i can tell that this movie offers a very accurate vision of the parisian life & the french bourgeoisie. It's a great achievement in regard to its American cast & director.

Speaking of Paris, the essence of this town is to be anchored in a golden past. So, in a world more & more technique, the old buildings & small places of Paris can bring a sense of nostalgia.

Speaking of its bourgeoisie, it's totally truth that money is a taboo. As bourgeoisie equals money, their members are totally hypocrite, which is depicted with talent in this movie.

So, with all this heavy background, the American family bring their freshness. So the shock of culture can only spread continuously, because the movie is about the rift of a divorce between a American-french family.

In those days of religious misunderstandings, it is a good recall that even people who share the same faith but leave in different countries, are so much disparate.

A good recommendation, even if the DVD lacks terribly of bonuses.

Two hours of painful nonsense in which every cliches about each country is expressed by someone of the other country. The only good cliche, perhaps too recent to be a cliche, is that Americans cannot commit crimes of passion; they only kill for money and drugs. Those who know the French know that they are far more materialistic than Americans, far more addicted to drugs so long as they are prescribed by doctors, who normally even prescribe medications for problems which yoghurt could solve more cheaply and more deliciously.

Those who have read Balzac, Flaubert, Choderlos de la Clos, Diderot -- any French writer -- does not need this movie to reveal the sexual proclivities and temptations of the French. Nor do they need information about the French bourgeoisie whose glory came in 1789 and was pretty well gone within a year or two. All the vices of the pre-revolutionary aristocracy were as nothing compared to those of the 19th-century and 20th-century bourgeoisie. The Americans in this film are portrayed as naive and trusting while the French trust no one not in their own family -- a very wise policy perhaps but not one to make you enamored of them. I still like French food very much and hate the fact that the French make it. But then I recall that the French until the reign of Catherine de Medicis in the mid 16th century who brought cuisine and culture and coture were true barbarians and ate the same crap that the British ate: meat stewed in beer and other such delicacies. The French are very contemptuous not only of Americans but of their neighbors. A French tourist guide to Italy will tell you that the Lombards are good at this and the Neapolitans good at that -- as if Italy were Africa or some other godforsaken place. It is a pity we came to France's rescue in 1917. It's a crime that the French could not persevere against the Germans in 1940 when they had a much bigger army than the Germans and plenty of equipment. But they decided that it was better to hitch their wagon to the Third Reich than to fight. In WWI they fought bravely and successfully and didn't really need us; Woodrow Wilson was a fool to enter the war.