cleesolnick I surely hope that the responses to this movie is NOT a true representation of the thinking and devotion of that of our generation. I could only hope & pray that we are a better nation of true love and devotion. I certainly understand that we are human, just like Adam & Eve. But why do we spend the effort, time, energy and money to beautify our weaknesses? In my opinion, it is a movie that tries to justify and beautify our lust. It seems to be Eastwood's cup of tea. What will happen if we, the audience and actors as well in general, will glorify these creations and allow it to grow in volume and in the much cheaper and lustful way..

Andrew Judkins I finally saw this film after vaguely hearing about it for years. It was a little different than I expected within the 'Iowa housewife gets swept off her feet by a mysterious traveler' concept.There seems to be an ideological split in the reviews of this film beyond the normal love/hate thing. It basically boils down to people who find the concept beautiful and romantic(as intended) and those who think all infidelity is repugnant and this film is a creepy justification for it. I'm not into those camps--I don't really like infidelity and yet the film has beautiful concepts and moments and maybe that can overcome the moral failings of infidelity at times. My bigger question is how does the film handle the concepts, material and characters?The concept of the film is interesting. I was surprised how short the span (4 days) covered is and how intense things got in that time. That is hard to portray. Streep is so lauded that I guess I expected more from her. She emotes well in the waterworks scenes but... Little things bothered me. One is her accent (which seemed off) and the exotica of how she is Italian, living in what seems a numbing and strange land to her. I think it would have been more interesting if she was a 100% Iowan corn fed housewife who Eastwood's character still felt was exotic and sublime. Her Italian aspect makes the exotica and romance seem too easy, too expected, too asked for in the middle of Iowa. Her portrayal is also slightly dense and even charmless, at times. It doesn't gel with the wise, worldly sounding old woman in the journals pleading people to follow true love, even if in the afterlife. This has a way of not only being a bit dull (who wants to watch a film about a charmless women receiving undue attention?) but also making us wonder why Eastwood is so interested in her. It's not that we think about all his travels and think 'why HER?' like she does in the breakfast scene. It's that even if he hardly ever met women, only from a small regional area, it would still seem strange he was so taken by this somewhat dense and boring woman, a woman reticent to follow her passion (even when given the opportunity of a lifetime). Eastwood simply does his Eastwood thing, but it falls right into charming, authentic, independent minded photographer, and it is no wonder why SHE is interested him. The last problem with Streep's character is her history. We don't know anything about it. We just see she's in this marriage and family, and maybe not thrilled about it. The sacrifice she makes, the boredom she feels under the surface, the lack of true love that gets brought out by Eastwood's character are a bit hard to have empathy for. We are left to assume she chose these circumstances under willing conditions. So on some level the almost victimhood we are expected to buy into in order to cheer on the infidelity and true love in the film is difficult to buy into. Her problems are her own fault and at the core, she's simply unwilling to rock the boat and do anything to make herself more happy and this cuts back on some of the heartbreak and empathy we feel at the end of the movie. I felt it more for Eastwood's character (though it is confusing why he took so strongly to her, he plays it well, and it is clear he's heartbroken). But I think it needed to be a total two way street for the film to work right.The bookend aspect of the kids learning about all this through things left after Francesca's (Streep) death is a cute idea to add some depth to the message of the movie. The lack of full development in the romance kind of demands a secondary element to enrich. But the acting is second rate and compared to Eastwood and Streep (even if it isn't their best work) it feels like parts of a Hallmark Channel movie pasted onto a real movie.The whole Bridges/charming Iowa countryside thing is a hook, a fun setting framing device. But I did hope they would do more with it. The history and draw of the bridges isn't brought into the meaning of the film at all. The cinematography is not very interesting or expansive, and the actual film minutes dedicated to the surroundings are limited. In fact, the film feels claustrophobic, with much of it taking place in the farmhouse kitchen/dining room. We get only the most limited and cliché feel for small town Iowa life in the 1960's an how to a certain type of soul it would suck at the oxygen.Overall, this is a more flawed and run of the mill romance than I was hoping for.

Juliette Betram One of the best movies I have ever seen... Bridges of Madison County is not only for those who are having a hard time in their lives or are in a critical situation of unhappiness, it is the perfect example of someone who falls in love but is hit by the "reality" which we all are used to live in. It made me weep (Although I'm not a crying person honestly), laugh, sigh and wonder why people prefer not to take risks and stay instead right into their comfort zone. If you love Meryl Streep or Clint Eastwood you won't be disappointed and by now I can only tell you that you will for sure enjoy this movie, as I did for the third time. Just stop reading and watch it now, you won't regret it...

Anssi Vartiainen Francesca Johnson (Meryl Streep) is a country woman left alone in her home as her husband and two children drive away to enter her daughter's bull into a prize contest. She decides to relax, perhaps read a book, take things easy while her family is not there to keep her busy round the clock. But, things change when a photographer drives into town. One Robert Kincaid (Clint Eastwood).As much as I don't like this movie, I must at least admire what Eastwood has managed to achieve with it as its director, given the source material, which is basically just housewife literature, in the most derogatory meaning of the term. But with Eastwood at its helm, it transforms into something almost bearable. It is unhurried, yet never slow. The characters feel like actual three-dimensional people, and not just props meant to fuel our fantasies. The sets are nice, the dialogues feel natural and if only the story had even the slightest bit of substance, this could have been something. Plus both Eastwood and Streep are phenomenal actors.Alas, the story is garbage. I can see Eastwood trying to tell something about the loneliness of house wives, or the loneliness of a traveler. You can see his attempt to build passion where in the book there's only lust. But, the fact remains, that this is simply a movie about an affair. The movie tries to hang bells and other assorted decorations to hide the fact, but it fails. And it's dull to boot. You can guess exactly how the story will unfold from the very first scene, and even the pretentious framing story isn't enough to arouse our interest.The Bridges of Madison County has its upsides. And, honestly speaking, I will be the first one to admit that I'm about as far from this film's target audience as is possible. So my opinion should not count for that much. And yet I'll say that this is one boring film, with horrible, horrible morals to teach and I cannot in good conscience recommend it to anyone.