Le divorce

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 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 * 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")

you wonder why they ever spent money to make. It wasn't terrible, but not much happens. It didn't entertain me. Isabel goes to Paris to visit her pregnant sister, Roxanne. Upon arriving, she sees Roxanne's husband leaving her. So, she tries to cheer her sister up and has an affair with a married relative of the husband. He buys her an expensive purse and everyone knows they're hooking up. A side plot involves a painting that belongs to Roxanne's family. She doesn't want her husband to get it in the divorce. They decide to sell it and find out it's worth millions. So, now the 2 sisters have some money to start the new chapter in their lives. I don't think it was a romance film and it sure wasn't funny. I would describe it as bland. FINAL VERDICT: It may put you to sleep, so I wouldn't recommend it unless you are suffering from insomnia.

I very much disliked this film for which I was originally very positive about. This film reminded me that you can not choose a movie based solely on the actors that you usually really admire. Unfortunately, I cannot summarize the movie because I stopped watching it after 1 hour and 20 minutes (I'm surprised that I lasted that long). I guess I was hoping that at any moment something exciting would happen, but needless to say it didn't happen. As previously mentioned in other comments, I did appreciate the scenery as well as the restaurant scenes, but I think that was it. I would vote this movie as a 3 based on the fact that I couldn't even finish watching the film.

...because that's the only way to get any enjoyment out of this thing. Wow, what an unnecessary movie! Who exactly is the audience for this? Watching it I kept thinking about the fact there's absolutely no IN for the viewer. At least not for the one inhabiting planet Earth. Story seems to take place in some kind of parallel universe - it contains not a single thing that either touched, moved, tickled or engaged me in the slightest. Pretty damn hard to have a romantic comedy with the characters who might as well have come from another galaxy. Isabel (Kate Hudson), an American, comes to Paris to visit her 5-month pregnant sister Roxy (Naomi Watts). Her timing couldn't have been better since Roxy's French husband Charles-Henri (Melvil Poupaud) with whom she already has a small daughter leaves her for parts unknown. And all this out of the blue activity is happening precisely at the moment Isabel is getting out of a cab that took her in from the airport. Roxy's obviously distraught. Her husband soon informs her that he desires a divorce and not only that - he wants the property divided too. Besides the fact she doesn't want to grant him a legal split which would effectively be his ticket to marrying his loony Russian mistress Magda (Rona Hartner) who also happens to be married to another American nutjob (played by Mathew Modine), situation is even further complicated by an unclear ownership of a valuable painting they would have to split in the event of a divorce. And if that's not enough, Isabel has fallen under a spell of an aging suave and oily Frenchman who, of course, is married, and just happens to be Charles-Henri's uncle. So, for those still reading, her lover is also the brother of the mother of her sister's estranged husband. Yes, it's like a high brow Jerry Springer episode. But even that potentially intriguing storyline falls horrendously flat. The movie just stumbles from one contrived scene to another. After pretty much everything else bombed it plays up the joshingly debilitated international observational humour. First, French men and American women are paired up. Then, the French family (which seems to consist exclusively of territorial females and promiscuous males) is brought out. Then, we add a Russian free spirit, followed by an American family that flies into Paris. And finally, even a quirky British appraiser finds his place on this smorgasbord. Needless to say, all is served with a lot of dopey banter in form of lame one-liners that point out 'keenly observed' characteristics of each nation. And believe it or not, they even manage to stick in an attempted suicide and a double murder. Even on a personal level 'Le Divorce' fails to arouse. Whether it's Charles-Henri's well-off family with their nationalistically inspired pursuit of the painting that's obviously not theirs or Roxy's and Isabel's family whose general listlessness even after learning of the fact their pregnant daughter just tried to kill herself is simply baffling, the movie's characters and their motivations are very unconvincing. By the end my retina was sore from how many times I rolled my eyes in dismissive bemusement throughout the 117 minutes of this latest James Ivory offering.

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.

"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.

I found it surprising that this film was not directed by a French director - it has a certain stylistic feel that is prevalent throughout the French film industry but non-French directors rarely capture. I found the illustrations of the subtle differences between French and American perspectives to be very well handled. For anyone who has lived outside their own country and been thrown into another culture, a great many of the observations and small "inside" jokes shine through. There is an obvious juxtaposition of the two families (one very "typical" American, the other more "old money" French) with the people in the middle (Naomi Watts' and Glenn Close's characters, who are from one "side" but live amongst the others) which is refreshingly handled. Some criticisms here point to a lack of action but this film is very much about style and impressions and less about racking up plot points. The only character that I felt lacked depth was that of Matthew Modine, who seems a bit one-dimensional - despite the huge role in the plot for which he is responsible.

There are a lot of comments here about people not liking this movie. I just saw it and I loved it. I think it's very subtle, though. It's more fun to watch if you have a prior understanding of, or at least introduction to, the French lifestyle. It's a great satire on both the French and American cultures and their nuanced differences. Naomi Watts was great in her role, and Kate Hudson was pretty good as well. I have to say I liked Leslie Caron as the French "mere" best though :) All said, I thought this was a wonderfully directed and somewhat quaint satire-comedy- drama. Another good work from Merchant and Ivory!

This movie is the portrayal of a small segment of time in the lives of two families joined by the marriage of two respective members. This movie is not meant to contain a moral, its not meant to be educational, its not meant to be entertaining-in the American sense of the word-it is simply the story of a failing marriage with twists of deceit, philandering men, attention-starved women and the pride and reputation of families. The amalgamation of French and American cultures works well in the movie with times filled with tension and others that are more harmonious than any fromage/vin pairing. The acting in the movie is great overall.