gridoon2018 Personally I don't much care for the term "chick flick", but "The French Lieutenant's Woman" probably falls under that category - albeit a chick flick of the highest order. Handsomely staged, impeccably crafted, well acted, ingeniously structured....but not as dramatically involving as it should have been, until the bittersweet ending(s). *** out of 4.

gavin6942 A film is being made of a story, set in 19th century England, about Charles (Jeremy Irons), a biologist who is engaged to be married, but who falls in love with outcast Sarah (Meryl Streep), whose melancholy makes her leave him after a short, but passionate affair.I did not think this would be my kind of movie. A period piece romance with Meryl Streep? Sounds pretty boring. But instead, we get this really interesting movie-in-movie, where the action we see as real can be cut away from at any time. And then this also allows us two stories in one, which have more than a few parallels.Streep is obviously a gifted actress and the best of her generation. Irons is great, as well, though not nearly as recognized. He makes all that he touches turn to gold.

[email protected] Thirty years after seeing it for the first time, I revisited this film last night on PBS. I had remembered only two things from it: The quality of Meryl Streep's acting and the famous scene of her standing on the very edge of a stone wave breaker while the sea burst around her. I had forgotten that it was a film within a film. I had forgotten all but the vaguest outlines of the plot. I had entirely forgotten Jeremy Irons. If retention in memory is the hallmark of a good work of art, I'd have to give "The French Lieutenant's Woman" a low mark.And yet the second viewing of the film was a revelation. I hadn't previously been struck by how beautiful Meryl Streep was when she was young. Nor did I remember how controlled her acting was in this overwrought movie. "The French Lieutenant's Woman" was nominated for five Academy Awards and deservedly lost all five, including Ms. Streep's nomination as best actress. Nevertheless, this was one of the record number of nominations she has compiled and it should be seen if only for that reason. It adds a different dimension to her incomparable portfolio of challenging roles. Jeremy Irons fares less well in my estimation. Like Ms. Streep, he plays two parts, one as her co-star in the film being made and the other as the lover ruined by his all-consuming love for her film character. Not that Irons does a bad job of acting. He simply fails to be convincing in the second of his two roles. That may be because the story (or the part) is inherently unconvincing, sort of Wuthering Heights without the emotional tide which causes that heavy- breathing romance to seem plausible to many women if not to their menfolk.It's still not a great movie. Maybe not even a good movie. But if all we ever cared to watch were good/great films, Hollywood would soon be out of business.

kneiss1 When I got this movie, and read the title, I wasn't expecting anything that would suit my taste. I have been expecting a cheesy, unrealistic and boring women's movie. - I have been wrong. Of course it was a bit cheesy, but less cheesy than most Hollywood movies. Actually, the whole movie was quite realistic. Of course this movie is mainly for women. - It's a love story! Yet, I find it has more to offer to male viewers than other love stories. The main actor is male. An absolutely interesting character. A character that is trying hard to be good, but isn't perfect at all. A character you can actually identify with. And my god, Jeremy Irons played that character so well. This movie has a calm and melancholic atmosphere. I am sure many people will mistake it for "boredom". - Not me; the story is so interesting, that it kept me curious throughout the whole movie. I really didn't know how this story was ending. And yet, the ending satisfied me totally. An extremely unusual case for me.My pretty much only gripe about the movie is, that the story in the 20th century is suffering in length. While characters and storyline are in perfect shape when it comes to 19th century, the story and characters lack depth, when it comes to the 20th century.