Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

This is one of my all-time favorite books, so I was very excited to see it come to life. That being said I was real disappointed in this production! It seemed rushed to me. The pace of the movie was slow but being as I've read the book, there are parts of Mrs. Bovary's story that you can't leave out. This version of the story makes her seem very one-dimensional. She lost her mother as a baby and was raised by her beloved father, but there wasn't much in the way of women folk to guide her and she spent a great deal of time reading romance novels, which more than likely set her up for disappointment in married life. She wasn't a gold digger. As far as Mia Wasikowska, I dont think she was right for this role. I was rather bored with her performance. Maybe it was in the directing, but I found her to be dispassionate and too restrained. I absolutely loved the casting for the Marquis d'Andervilliers and Leon Dupuis. Logan Marshall Green was perfect for the strong and passionate first lover of Madame and Ezra Miller fit so well the boyish, more easily managed Leon (who was just as unmanageable as the marquis).

Mia Wasikowska is one of the most inspired choices for the XIX century dramas. or for classic heroines of this period great novels. and she is madame Bovary in correct manner. but this is the problem of this beautiful film. it is only a decent adaptation, almost a homework. it has inspired parts - the performance of Rhys Ifans - and bizarre options - Ezra Miller is far to be the expected Leon. its virtue is to use the atmosphere and the presence of Mia Wasikowska and, in fact, the only bad thing is to not be the first adaptation and the challenges of a great book , giving too many nuances for a film who has the purpose to give a decent story and not more. so, a beautiful film. first, for the status of invitation to read the novel of Flaubert.

"Madame Bovary" by Flaubert, the famous literature classic, is one of the most adapted novels on screen and probably the most adapted French book (together with "The Three Musketeers" by Dumas). Notable directors include Renoir (1933), Minnelli (1949) and Chabrol (1991). Some movies are not strictly based on the story but are remotely inspired by it, for instance "Abraham's Valley" by Oliveira (1993).Hence why a new adaptation? In general, the main reasons for filming literature are either to create an altogether new dimension to the story (one of the best examples is "Vertigo" by Hitchcock), either to reveal emotions or thoughts from the book. "Madame Bovary" by Sophie Barthes tries to achieve the latter, with limited success. It almost constitutes a case study of the benefits and limits of novel adaptation.*** WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS (INCLUDING OF THE ORIGINAL NOVEL) ***One issue about filmed literature is the necessity to select events, characters, themes, etc. else the movie would run for hours. "Madame Bovary" cuts a great deal from the book. One feels the action runs for less than a year while it actually lasts for eight (from the wedding to Emma's death) or, if we take into account all of the original story, for more than twelve years. Significant characters appear only a few times: Emma's father, Homais, Hippolyte, the priest, the mayor, etc. Many are simply discarded. We do not see Charles' parents nor his first marriage and his wife's death. The Bovarys do not move to a bigger town and, most significantly, they do not have a daughter. Charles has a small role in the movie, while in the book the first chapters are dedicated to him and he remains very present.So the movie focuses on Emma. This would not be an issue if the character and related themes were given more depth. Notably, an important aspect of the novel is how Emma fantasises about an ideal life before crashing against reality (one of the reasons why Flaubert said: "Madame Bovary, c'est moi"). This is famously illustrated by a fabulous party in a castle, thrilling Emma for weeks onwards, during which she idolises a cigar case lost that evening. In the movie, the party is replaced by a hunting scene. Transposing the event is not a drawback in itself; formally the scene is actually well done. However it does not show how Emma becomes exalted: she is just shocked by the deer's death (this has a symbolic meaning of course, but the result is thin). The cigar case afterwards simply becomes an object to return to its owner.Another key scene of the novel is an opera that exalts Emma's romantic feelings. Here, it is replaced by a small concert in a castle, probably because a full-scale opera would have been too costly to produce, which is fair enough. Yet we do not see Emma transcended by art and beauty.A different aspect of the novel's main character is her constant greed, which can render her ruthless. For instance, she nastily dismisses her first maid and she pushes Charles to operate poor Hippolyte purely out of calculated ambition. This is not depicted in the movie, probably not to highlight her dark side, but then her personality loses complexity.I think that direction is responsible rather than acting: Mia Wasikowska is not just pretty, she is a great actress, as she already demonstrated in "Jane Eyre" (Fukunaga), from another 19th century classic. She illuminates the screen with hope, desire, love, joy, misunderstanding, boredom, loss, despair, hate… even though her deep motives are not depicted. Other actors also are convincing and could have shown the full scale of their talent if their roles had not been reduced to a minimum. The most impressive is Rhys Ifans as a manipulative bastard (Lheureux).Another important theme of the book is pettiness, notably in the countryside that Flaubert despised: gossips, shallow friendships, false supports, greed, treachery. This is not shown in the movie, except with Lheureux. Homais even seems to support Charles until the end, in contradiction with the story and the essence of the novel. Eventually the movie also misses Flaubert's cruel ending: the good Charles dies of sorrow, his daughter becomes poor and the sleazy Homais triumphs.Not fully sticking to the novel is not an issue in itself, nor is disregarding some themes and characters, but not filling the resulting gap is. In the end, what emerges from the movie? An excellent illustration of 19th century countryside life: settings, costumes, lighting, colours, occupations, slow pace. Many scenes are shot as beautiful paintings. Rhythm is balanced: slow enough to illustrate everyday life, fast enough to be interesting. Structure is gripping: the whole movie can be seen as a flashback of Emma's life that she remembers as she dies. In summary, apart from the sad story, watching is pleasant.Hence it is unfortunate the film lacks content because if it had more depth, coupled with the existing technique and talented actors, it could have been a great movie. However, to be fair, it is generally considered that none of the previous adaptations of "Madame Bovary" are outstanding, except perhaps "Abraham's Valley".

The Emma Bovary of this movie was not charming, not attractive, not spirited, not well intentioned, not seemingly disturbed by her own conduct, and displayed no real depth of character, and she thereby offered me no reason to somehow bond emotionally with her as she stumbled into a tragic life of her own making; I never became invested in the outcome beyond increasingly wanting the story to end. The other characters in this movie were almost all as equally unmoving and dull. When the movie was over, it was not over soon enough. Maybe it was the fault of the director that this thing was a stinker. Whatever the problem with this movie, don't subject yourself to it.