cathy-39

It is indeed a wonderful love story, a strong script, a strong cast; it's clever, intelligent and beautifully edited.

Viola is a young and beautiful woman who falls for words and poetry, a bit like Roxanne in Cyrano de Bergerac, and as Shakespeare doesn't have a big nose, they fall in love. The big bad guy is supposed to be Lord Wessex and he could be bad I supposed if he weren't played by Colin Firth ( who delivers as always a delicate performance and gives a deep inner life to his character).

Lord Wessex is a bit like Darcy in Pride and Prejudice: no one has a good opinion of him in the audience, Darcy is proud and distant, Lord Wessex is not romantic, raw and really doesn't have a clue about women. This could be the perfect beginning for a love story... that will never happened. It is indeed a real mystery to me: How can Viola resist the first look of Lord Wessex in their first scene at the theater?

As for Joseph Fiennes he is a good Shakespeare but I wonder how better it could have been if Shakespeare In Love had been made earlier and Colin Firth had had the part of Shakespeare as planned! I must say that personally I would have prefer Lord Wessex to change throughout the movie and conquer Viola's heart, but I also prefer Colin Firth's acting to Joseph Fiennes' !!!

Although the movie is well made, I'm not particularly fond of it. When Juliette Binoche and Colin Firth are around we assist to the best scenes of the film, as they are both absolutely excellent, and truly Juliette Binoche holds the movie on her shoulders. I guess Ralph Fiennes is good too in a certain way, but I find he lacks subtlety and is often cold ( he doesn't have the delicacy of Colin Firth); he really is at his best when he has a lot of make-up and he cannot rely on his looks.

The photography is beautiful and I guess in a general way it deserved its Oscars (mostly because the other movies in contention where not very good either). But one of the major problem is the love story - which unfortunately is the plot line - between the count and Mrs Clifton. It may appeal to some, but to me it's completely histrionic that she willfully leaves Colin Firth for Ralph Fiennes'character! Maybe I should read the novel to see how Goeffrey is described, but the way Colin Firth plays it, Mrs Clifton is a fool to walk on him. Could it be possible that Colin Firth was miscast because he was too charming for the part? Surely, in the script, Goeffrey's character is not enough developped, but to me there is no real valuable reason why she needs to cheat on him, because she is not in love with the count, what ever happens between them is torrid sex! It's mostly a physical fling which is not justified to me. Personnaly I would prefer a husband who could sing with humor in front of a bunch of people than the guy who wonders all movie long how to call the little hole in the woman's neck!

I give it 6/10 because there are way too many scenes between the count and Mrs Clifton that don't make any sense to me and because the story in itself has not touched me enough. If you fall for Ralph Fiennes' blue eyes, you will probably adore this movie. Maybe I wasn't objective because I watched it to see Colin Firth, be the judge!

It's a love story about rebirth and self healing. The foundation of the plot seems very simple: a young man comes in a town to clean the wall of a church. With a subject like that it could be absolutely boring...but it's not. "Emotion" could be the word to describe it all, though "repressed emotion" would be even more accurate. It's a delicate movie, with thousands of details you might not see the first time; it's deep and truly is a masterpiece in its genre.

Of course to appreciate it you must love repertoire movies. It's not a blockbuster movie...far from that. You must be in a slow mood I guess to enjoy it.

This is the kind of movie I would like to keep in my collection: isn't it a pity that "anonymous" has probably sold his tape already? (I cannot find it in Montreal!)