This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

I did enjoy this film but I really want to comment on the the bad editing and/or filming of this film. I don't think I really have seen worse and is absolutely ridiculous that it should be like this. Who ever is responsible for the production editing of this film should be ashamed/sacked/run-out-of-town/laughed at/never used again.I liked this film for what it is; a play written in 1732 and brought to the screen. Possible the story is a little outdated and not very plausible but it was fun and I think thats the point, it is a "farce" in the same style of a shakespearean play. I also wondered if anyone has seen a film with a women playing a man's part and the audience actually believes that it is a man? My method of evaluation would be that you wouldn't know unless someone told you that it was a women. I have seen guys play women and be really convincing but I don't think I have seen a women "fool" me in a movie. It would be interesting to see.

I gave this movie a rating of 1 (Awful). The only reason that it should even get a 1 instead of a big -0- is Ben Kingsley, who always shines not matter what terrible material is thrown his way.Mira Sorvino is so out of her element here that as a viewer one simply can't get over the fact that she is even in such a piece.Stupid, stupid story and horrible production. Do NOT waste your video rental $.

I wasn't sure what to expect upon renting this movie, and as it began, my first thought was that I had wasted a good four dollars. However, once I realized that the "cheesy" factor was intentional as well as the strange editing, the movie improved. In fact, I found it to be quite enjoyable and pretty hilarious as well because it was quirky--definitely straying slightly from the movie norm. The plot is based on Pierre Marivaux's romantic comedy from the 1700s in which a princess will do practically anything to be with the man she loves...who happens to consider her his sworn enemy. The director took a modern approach to conveying the classic story. If you're looking for something a little different but entertaining, then look into "The Triumph of Love."

I really wanted to like "Triumph of Love;" several of the elements, in fact, might be organized into a film I could enjoy. There's the elegant period sets and costumes, the gender-bending undertones, a couple comic servants, and Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw giving fine performances as a pair of emotion-disdaining intellectuals who become undone by their own vanity. But "Triumph of Love," sadly, proves to be all promise and very little payoff.Mira Sorvino is the princess of an unspecified (and presumably fictitious) country, who infiltrates the house of her political enemies disguised as a man. Her purpose is twofold: to right the wrongs wrought by her father on true heir to the throne Agis (Jay Rodan), and to win Agis' heart, which has been taught to disdain love by his guardians Hermocrates (Kingsley) and Leontine (Shaw). Since nobody can do anything the easy way in a story like this, Sorvino's character works towards her ends by wooing Leontine (who thinks she's a guy), Hermocrates, and Agis (both of whom are in on her ruse) at the same time. That's the setup; unfortunately, it's also the majority of the film. Comedy of this sort usually hits its stride when complications entangle the protagonist's original design. Here, the difficulties are introduced to late and resolved too quickly for us to care. Meanwhile, a handful of servants are thrown into the plot and then given almost nothing to do either within or apart from it.Nor does director Clare Peploe help her case much. Several scenes consist of choppy, distracting cuts--and not even cuts from different angles, but cuts from the same angle, giving the impression of a bargain-basement film cobbled together with the only pieces of film that were usable. Images of a "modern-day" audience peeking in on the action add nothing to the procedings, and are introduced in such a way as to feel like an intrusion on the film, rather than a part of it.For a much richer experience in this genre, I recommend the recent adaptation of Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night." Like "Triumph of Love," it features a cross-dressing heroine, romantic entanglements and misunderstandings, comical servants, and a good turn by Ben Kingsley in a supporting role. But it also contains infectuous life and energy and a story that dances merrily on its way rather than walking sedately. Also Imogen Stubbs, as the gender-defying central character, makes a much more convincing man than Mira Sorvino.