Sadly Over-hyped

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Lea Seydoux stars as the titular servant who has to put up w/obnoxious & lascivious overseers as she tries to maintain her sanity in the most menial of careers. Consisting of furtive looks & moody zooms, Diary hearkens back to the films of the 70's that Bunuel or Truffaut may've made but the modernity of Seydoux's casting keeps things interesting when the plot & scenery start to falter towards the mundane. The plot does becomes problematic when the story ends abruptly leaving the viewer to guess what happens next but other than this narrative hiccup, a tale well told.

This is the polar opposite of a feel-good movie.The lead actress is lovely, has some gorgeous gowns, and is occasionally displayed in a beautiful location. Everything else in this film is dark, ugly, and depressing. Even the main character's stay with her one and only kind mistress turns gruesome.From the standpoint of filming, it's well-done, but the motivations for the main character didn't seem consistent. It's almost as though the writers deliberately produced a work intended to be the exact opposite of a light-hearted romantic comedy and then tweaked it until it was sordid to the point of parody. I gather from comments and reviews that the film departs from the original novel that was the source material; that may be the reason for the inconsistent, incomprehensible characterization. But after spending two hours with the main character only to end the film with no clearer understanding of who she is than at the beginning, I felt cheated.

The third version of Octave Mirbeau's novel and by far the weakest.Marion Cotillard was to play Célestine but she was eventually replaced by Léa Seydoux, whose inexpressive looks and listless acting do not help;and anyway she is no match for Jeanne Moreau ,the best Celestine ever,even though Luis Bunuel's story underwent some changes - when the master tackles a novel ,he integrates his obsessions ,and he makes it his own.The movie suffers ,not only from Seydoux's monotonous portrayal,but also from a terribly desultory script (both Renoir's and Bunuel's efforts had firm screenplays.)Let's put it straight:I did not expect much from a third version but I did watch it because Vincent Lindon is in it;unfortunately his part is reduced to a sex machine and he is not given a single chance to show his skills ;in Bunuel's version,Georges Géret made all his scenes count .The cinematography is fine and the last pictures rather tasteful,but the movie will be quickly forgotten.

'Journal d'une femme de chambre' (= French for 'a room maid's tale') is situated in the French countryside of around 1900. Its story centers on a room maid who is able to put herself morally above the behavior of her master + mistress. Thus making some statement of dignity and independence.The film does not show much more than what is common knowledge about the lawless position of domestic servants back then. Being fully dependent on the whims and tastes of their masters, often leading to sexual assault in case of young women.In fact, I think that female lead Lea Seydoux performs an impossible role, by acting a 1900-servant who is not humble and dependent -- showing her prominent personality all the way down. Given this, Seydoux does well without being brilliant.The same goes for the rest of the film. It provides good entertainment, but does not give you anything to remember.