Wonderful character development!

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

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.

A film crew on location in Dorset, England, is shooting a Victorian drama about a passionate affair between a gentleman (Charles) and an abandoned woman (Sarah);there is a parallel story about the love affair between Mike, the actor, and Anna, the actress, who are Charles and Sarah in the film within the film. The modern love story is presented in brief episodes and so the Victorian drama appears to be the core of the film. Fowles's novel,Pinter's screen adaptation and Reisz's direction seem to be the best combination for a great cinematic enjoyment: the photogenic landscape, even more dazzling than Kubrick's Barry Lyndon and Polanski's Tess, along with the high level acting by Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep, create a unique filming atmosphere...

I am going to the top end of a 5 here. This film had a big reputation when it was 1981 but almost all the quality here is Meryl Steep in her first role, and first Academy Award.Some great sites were used and the filmography has an experts look to the eye. It has a great score. The problems- it is too long and the story turns into a mush mash of themes once you get past the early reels.There is not enough romance scenes with Meryl Streep either and at an age where any guy would climb all over this one unless he was spade or neutered. For Streep, she earns 4 out of the 5 rating out of 10 I give it.

I have watched this movie in its entirety once and attempted to rewatch it a few years later. I was quickly reminded of how boring and drawn out it is, and even though it's beautiful I needed something w/ more of a pace. If you are a Meryl Streep fan, she gives a knockout performance and the movie is worth watching for her alone. However this movie flows like The Bridges of Madison County, another amazing performance in a film that I will never rewatch b/c it is so slow, but she embodies those characters well. The cinematography, lighting, shots, locations are outstanding, yet make the story move slowly and beautifully, yet the story is hard to follow and makes u so bored that it is hard to separate story lines. All in all, a beautiful film if you do not have digital cable, youtube, myspace, facebook, or an iphone, b/c those will make u distracted and lose focus. This movie would not be enjoyable to anyone ADD, ADHD, w/ a short attention span, who did not go to an Ivey League school, or someone who takes a lot of breaks. If you are in a hospital bed or retired you might enjoy this slow-moving long journey.