pc95 The script and dialog of "The Triumph of Love" is often first rate in this movie, directed by Claire Peploe. Though I don't know how much the original story or script has been altered for modern tastes, the main problem of the movie is the uneven acting. Lead Sorvino is good in some scenes but stilted and off in others as is curiously Ben Kingsley. This can probably be somewhat attributed to inconsistent direction likewise. Anyway the movie features some very good scenes especially toward the beginning and end. I Didn't care much for the liberty thrown in with touch of the modern play towards the end. Mildly recommended, though if you're looking for a superior Victorian-ish story, check out the better though darker"Ridicule".

noralee "Triumph of Love" is proof that not every Comédie-Française author who uses cross-dressing disguised courtship like Shakespeare is worth seeing. Or maybe something was lost in the translation of this adaptation of Marivaux, a Commedia Dell Arte-inspired playwright of whom Brittannica says: "His nuanced feeling and clever wordplay became known as marivaudage." While Mira Sorvino has fun dangling three mixed-up romances, her pants role wasn't even up to Cherubino in "Marriage of Figaro."The herky-jerky editing is annoying and just seems to indicate that a lot of takes were needed for each long speech.Best was Fiona Shaw as the fooled spinster, as well as the costumes.The glimpses of audience we see and the closing curtain call to wink that this is all artifice doesn't really help.(originally written 5/29/2002)

FlorisV This is a very light period piece, in the spirit of plays like a midsummer night's dream, based on a 17th century farce. Don't expect the type of comedy that will make you laugh out loud, it's more the atmosphere of things not to be taken too seriously, particularly the princess having to pass as a young man. In the spirit of the movie and of older plays it's all perfectly normal and acceptable, because these kind of stories sacrifice believability in favor of good fun. And though flawed, the film is much better than the hugely overrated Shakespeare in Love.What I did have a problem with, was the horrible jump-cut editing. In a lot of scenes there were useless, unnecessary cuts because the camera did not even switch views, it looked extremely unnatural. Did someone spill coffee on some of the tape so they had to leave some out? Now the acting is what saves the film, I was especially delighted with Mira Sorvino and Ben Kingsley who both skillfully display grotesque but pleasant, sympathetic personalities. It was fun to see Mira in a men's outfit with boyish mannerisms tho still maintaining a feminine look. Also, the backdrops (of the 18th century-design garden and house) are gorgeous, real eyecandy.I bought this film for quite some money because I was very curious about it and have become fan of Sorvino. I would have rented it, would it have been available, but had to find it somewhere on amazon. But even though it wasn't entirely worth the money, I had a reasonably good time. If you want to see Mira's best, go watch Wisegirls, but this one is worth a watch as well! Enjoy.I give it 7 out of 10

tedg Spoilers herein.Set physically in a well-manicured garden, managed by an obsessive gardener. Set philosophically in a similarly ordered mind-space, tended by two (co-equal) minds. Set dramatically in a narrative world formed by three cooperative directors (the original dramatist, the screen adapter, the filmer). Of these three, two of the affairs are false, and one is tentative. So we have the contemporary play audience flashed; we have the cinematic relationship similarly stuttered; we have the players playing actors playing roles (and one of these playing three roles to mirror the dramatist, adapter and filmer).`Love's Labor's Lost/Twelfth Night' meets `Rosencrantz and Guildenstern' meets `Draughtsman's Contract.'I love the idea, and appreciate the energy of the players and the apt set: that carried me over the flaws. But these flaws are significant: the excessive self-reference kills the rhythm of internal humor, the acting about acting seems downright silly in the many places where the enveloping direction was weak. The self-conscious editing was overly explicit, and could have easily been done precisely the same with bleeds instead of cuts with greater effect and no jarring.In the case of Peploe, the intelligence outstrips the skill -- in the case of the players, it is the other way around. I think a better strategy would be to try different philosophies of acting rather all from the same tradition as we have here. A more fluid camera could have helped as well. As it stands, we have something worth watching with the potential to have been great. But it abdicated.The director's credit at the beginning was one for the books. Perfect. It had the words stuck to the carriage wherein the characters are dressing as actors.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.