Madame Bovary (TV Movie 2000) Poster

(2000 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
A little underwhelming but with many great merits
TheLittleSongbird19 January 2014
Madame Bovary is a European literary classic but also very difficult to adapt because of the complex situations and characters(which can easily become skimmed over or one-dimensional). This adaptation is not going to please everybody and definitely does fall short of the book but it is a good attempt and has a lot of good aspects to it. It does get off to a slow start, with the adaptation getting much better quickly pacing-wise but not fully recovering. The execution of the sex scenes are also a mixed bag, for this viewer there was no problem with their necessity, some were sensual but others were a little too gratuitous. And the adaptation does suffer at times from incompleteness, some scenes could have had more time dedicated to them like with the Waltz, a scene that did agreed need more daring tension. Visually though it is a wonder, really beautifully photographed and the production values are true to period with rich colours and a great dark atmosphere which was much appreciated. The dress that Emma wears in the Cathedral is most envious. The music has an elegance and foreboding, not too satirical. The script occasionally does plod but is very literate and does capture the book's dark edge and ironic humour. There is also a real sense of French provincial life being very suffocated, very important and captured very well.

The story while not as complete as one would like is at least coherent and has much darkness, pathos and irony. The characters are more complex in the book certainly but they are equally so to pull off on screen because most you don't feel much sympathy for and it is easy to make Emma too bitchy or too sympathetic. But there is eye for characterisation here, Emma and Charles are different and Marie Louise can come across as a caricature to some but everybody else is spot on and generally there does seem to be respect for the source material with the knowledge of its adaptation difficulty. The direction is fluid, at times efficient without rushing and at others languid without lacking pulse. The performances are fine. Frances O'Connor takes a noble stab at possibly one of the most difficult literary characters to portray and does so with pathos and vanity, there is definitely a sense of Emma being a rather insufferable person but with O'Connor you can't help feeling some compassion for her. Hugh Bonneville is a commanding and comparatively mild-mannered Charles, while Greg Wise captures Rudolphe's eroticism, menace and suavity outstandingly well and Hugh Dancy's Leon is gentle without being dull. In support, standouts were the sly L'Hereux of Keith Baron and Eileen Atkins' Marie Louise, who steals her scenes although their roles are not exactly big. All in all, has many great things and a few things that definitely could have been done better, a respectable if comparatively underwhelming adaptation. 7/10 Bethany Cox
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The book is much better
koolsbergen5 August 2006
The book - I read it one day before I watched the film on DVD - is (as often) much better. It sounds like a cliché but it's a fact. It's difficult to understand the motives of Madame Bovary and one simply needs hundreds of pages to describe what's going on in her mind.

Of course the movie omits many details of the original story. Yet the actors who perform the personages of Bovary, Homais, Lheureux and many minor roles are cast well. However, Frances O'Connor is not a credible Madame Bovary. I think it is difficult to find a actress for this complicated character. I could not help imagining that Emma Thompson might have been a much more sympathetic and understandable Emma Bovary.

Yet I think the BBC deserves a 7 out of 10 for this attempt to represent Flaubert's masterpiece.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A tiny notch above usual costume fare.(spoiler)
alice liddell13 April 2000
Warning: Spoilers
David Lean's RYAN'S DAUGHTER is sublime and a masterpiece, but it is the film Emma would have made rather than Flaubert. Normally I avoid BBC costume dramas as the antithesis of everything I hold dear in terms of literature and film. Because most lassic novels are so long, they are stripped to their bare bones, like the summaries in York's notes, as if it is the plot that is important, and not the way it is told.

Further, this skeleton is weighed down by a crazed fetishisation of period detail in a quest for authenticity. As has been pointed out, these bourgeois entertainments, supposedly an antidote to 'generic' Hollywood fare, are actually more generic, in that an undisclosed standard of respectability must be continually adhered to.

Perversely, the most outstanding and inventive films of the year are adoptations of classic novels, Raul Ruiz' LE TEMPS RETROUVE, and Patricia Rozema's MANSFIELD PARK, two works which take thrilling liberties with their sources, which are unashamedly cinematic, daring to be disrespectful when needs be, which emerge from the closed world of the text to become comments on the artistic creation of that text itself, as well as the socio-political pressures that helped that creation. That is not to say they stint on period pleasures - costumes, decor etc - but these are part of the films' meaning and critique, not a stagnant end in themselves.

I only watched MADAME BOVARY because its star is MANSFIELD's beautiful Frances O'Conner, an actress in the process of becoming very great. Robbed of the freedom given to her by Rozema, her stifled sprightliness is appropriate to this story of a bored fantasist stuck in dreary, suffocatingly conventional provincial France (oh, for MOUCHETTE!). In fact, the brooding and muted production is probably appropriate too, as Emma struggles to free herself not only from social mediocrity, but filmic as well.

Too often the stage is set for a grand, moving, emotionally devastating scene - the waltz with the Vicomte (compare this with the heavenly ball in MANSFIELD); the midnight meetings with Rodolphe; the trip to the Opera etc - only to be hobbled by conventionality and a lack of daring. This is MADAME BOVARY made by Charles.

This is not to say that the film is not without merit. The script is comparitively crisp, and there is a lovely vein of humour you'd be hard pushed to find even in Flaubert - my favourite is when an initial Emma daydream is followed by a farcical falling of her father from a tree.

The visual dankness is true enough, and allows for the odd visual epiphany, such as Emma's lilac dress. There is rarely much room for acting in these things, but Hugh Bonneville is a magnificent Charles, so decent, so nice, yet so intolerable, while Eileen Atkins is perfect as the mother-in-law from hell.

What seems most odd is the religious underpinning given to Emma's ecstasies. Maybe, like Bresson, Flaubert's relentless depiction of spiritualless banality is underpinned by imminent transcendence, but if it is, I missed it. This doesn't matter, because it allows for some intriguing effects - the opening ceremony that could be either wedding, christening or funeral; the delirious reading from the Song of Solomon; the burning cross in Leon's carriage as he and Emma are about to make love. In the end, the fumbling attempts at subjective sympathy with Emma culminate in her memories living on after her death, 'realistically' impossible, giving this ending a real force. The barrel-organ leitmotifs are pretty neat too.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie is appropriately sexually explicit.
tpanebia9 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I don't think this really has a spoiler in it but I am just being careful! This is mostly a comment on commenter Lori's objections to the nudity in this version (she asks, where is there a reference to sexual techniques in the novel?), and also her objection to Rodolphe making Emma bleed during the rough sex. In fact, Flaubert suggests that Emma loses her virginity (not literally, but figuratively) to Rodolphe, not her husband Charles. By that I mean that after her wedding night, she is bored and unimpressed, while Charles is jaunty and energized the next morning. Then, after Emma has sex with Rodolphe, Flaubert notes that it is her turn to be newly energized, as she gallops around jauntily with her horse, and Rodolphe "mends his bridle", a sly figurative reference to her broken hymen, I believe. I think the bleeding suggests that Rodolphe has gone places that Charles never reached before, both sexually and emotionally for Emma.

Flaubert himself was prosecuted for writing explicit (for the day) sex scenes, as one where Emma strips naked for Leon and pounces on him, and another in which she uses words during sex (apparently "Oh God Oh God") that she previously had reserved only for prayer! Making this movie sexually explicit, therefore, is certainly in keeping with what Flaubert did.

Finally, several comments objected that this Emma wasn't very sympathetic. I don't believe Flaubert's Emma was intended to be very sympathetic. She was understandably bored and disappointed with the hand life dealt her being a woman and a peasant who was romantic at heart, and then stuck in a one-horse bourgeois backwater town with a clueless oaf for a husband. But she was selfish, dishonest, shallow, stupid and had God-awful cheesy taste in everything. This is realism, not romanticism, and Flaubert created no heroes --- just a cynic's view of real folks.
27 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Wonderful rendition of Flaubert's classic, tragic tale of a lady searching for true love, superb cast
inkblot1112 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Charles Bovary (Hugh Bonneville), in the French countryside, starts school late, is teased, but manages to become a doctor of the lowest rank. His domineering mother (Eileen Atkins) even arranges a marriage for him to a wealthy widow, who dies a couple of years later. Meanwhile, Emma (Frances O'Connor) grows up nearby but spends years in a convent school. Her mind is filled with books, poetry, and romantic notions and desires. One day, her father breaks his leg and Dr. Bovary, newly widowed, comes to set it. Charles is very taken with the beautiful young lady and Emma, naively, believes that Charles' desire for her indicates romantic days ahead. They marry. All too soon, Emma realizes her husband's interests are simple and he doesn't understand her need for loftier ideas. Not long after, Emma meets a town clerk, Leon (Hugh Dancy), very handsome, who also loves discussing music, poetry and ideas. Although not requited at this time, the two grow to love each other. But, Emma is pregnant and refuses to leave her husband, who, in truth, is very kind and attentive. Leon moves to Paris. Soon, Emma gives birth to a daughter and remains in failing health, due to her grief over her existence. Charles moves the family in an attempt to revive her spirits and Em meets another man, Rodolphe (Greg Wise) who pursues her relentlessly. With mounting debts and a lover on the side, how will Emma's marriage survive? How will she live on when Rodolphe cruelly leaves her? This wonderful adaption of Flaubert's classic should be better known. O'Connor is terrific as the dreamy-eyed Emma while Bonneville excels as the dimwitted but kindly Charles. Dancy, Wise and Atkins are likewise very fine. The sets, costumes, and movie making are beyond measure, resulting in a beautiful movie with hidden riches. Don't miss this rendition of one of the most complex, tragic, but glorious stories of all time.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Im glad Im not like this woman!
davyd-0223718 June 2021
Having been in a relationship with a woman whose attitude to life was...."mine...mine...mine....me...me...me...I want...I want" this production is simply sex, sex, nudity, sex. Emma meets Doctor Bovary and decides to marry him, but hes a bit plain and she wants excitement and doesnt like boredom, which is him! Q: 1st affair....then another.....and on and on and yet she seems to have no regrets until getting into debt. This is a woman who "lusts" - men, clothing, society, "belle of the ball" etc etc. She cares for no one but herself. IF this is NOT your sort of film.... DONT WATCH....it has NOTHING to commend it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Nudity and sex
missj-2467810 July 2018
I'm a person who searches IMDb guidelines for this, but found none. So, just a warning to others who feel the same as I do.
8 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
some pretty botched-up casting
ljp-23 March 2000
I've got to admit that Madame Bovary isn't my one of my favorite literary works, but I've watched several adaptations nonetheless. This was a fairly intelligent attempt at adaptation, with a pretty good script, but it was ruined for me by some casting misjudgments and a misguided decision to use nudity and explicit sex.

It takes some doing to make a woman as misguided and blinkered as Emma Bovary truly sympathetic (one of my major problems with the book), and though Frances O'Connor is a good actress, she often comes across seeming merely like a spoiled brat. She seems even more so because the decision was made to have her speak out loud so many things that Emma only thinks in the book. But I think the negative impression I got of this Emma is less due to her, perhaps, then to the other cast. I think it was a major mistake to cast somebody so obviously manly and sympathetic in the role of her husband as Hugh Bonneville (in the book Charles was really a dork) and such lightweights as Greg Wise (who looks stupefied most of the time) and -- well, I've forgotten what is name was -- as Leon. You definitely have to question her preference from them over Charles.

The various explicit nude sex scenes really add nothing, and often lead us in the wrong direction. Is it merely a difference in sexual technique that makes Emma unsatisified by her husband, but satisfied by Rodolphe? You can look at these scenes for hours and never find out. By the way, what is this about Emma apparently liking rough sex (her first time with Rodolphe, when he makes her bleed). Where was THAT in the book??! But most of all it was a mistake, I think, because Emma focuses as much on romance as on sex, and these scenes completely miss that.

I was mainly disappointed in this try at the book. Beautifully photographed, though.
38 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Disappointing
lindakidder01237 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Spoiler alert. She seems to have only one lover, once, then was happy to go back with her husband!!?? What?? I see they want 10 lines of text. Well, I never read it or saw it before and it seems this one was made for TV so maybe that is why is was so unrealistic? No, it must be the book. Everywhere I read it says she had "lovers" plural, but in the movie it was only one. Then why is she so happy to just return to her boring husband whom she was bleeding dry financially? Also, frankly I did not think the star was that beautiful, just pretty but rather plain. I am used to being succinct so going on and on is just not my thing but I guess I have to reach 10 lines of text.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
No appropriate rating for U.S. viewers/DVD version
signlady13 May 2022
Real late to the game . . .

Anyway . . .

As far as direction, casting, & most of the production - considering it's a period piece -this movie is done pretty well, Probably worth a solid 8 for those basic things.

Unfortunately, I give it a 2 because it is totally lacked rating, and seemed to be pigeon-holed into being really only about a dissatisfied, immature woman who fulfills her lusts. True enough, in essence that IS what the story is about. This movie adaptation did try to delve more into the internal dynamics of the main character if indeed that was the intention, but this internal narration was shallow & repetitive.

I've never read the book, but we all know that usually the movie is by necessity, as well as often uneccesarily, very lacking and/or critically changing the authors real intent. This is the second version of this movie I've seen, and tho somewhat better done than the other in some ways, I still would not have bought this (Amazon) DVD if it had shown an R rating.

This was a TV movie - so I assumed it was PG-13. Apparently the explicit scenes were cut from the TV version, because I did not see the most explicit scene listed in the parents guide.

(however, I have since posted it) Typically, usually, 'made for TV' movies are PG-13. The DVD cover has no rating either, I suppose because it is a BBC film . . .?

However, it is definitely an R movie, not only for obvious reasons but thematically as well, not for the kiddies. And in my opinion, also unecessarily over-indulgent and condescending in its explicity for adults.

The story here, if forced to be explained concisely-in a nutshell-very basically, is about a particular woman with a sexual addiction.

Some of the movie is told - randomly - thru Emma's internal thoughts as we watch her move thru life discontented at every turn. Her attention to morality appears to be nothing more than a pretense: she's actually coy, using a 'front of morality' as a challenge to her pursuers to chase & break her, which doesn't take much, due to her immaturity.

One could possibly say that the two main points of the film seem to highlight the disgust, jaded views, or some motivation of the author and/or the movie maker to portray as follows; First the weak man; The doctor, somewhat weak minded, acquiescing sort of man, still under his mothers thumb, always diplomatically trying to please his mother & wife. Simply a mostly passive, insecure, whipped guy, tries hard to be non-confrontational, will excuse anything to try to get along. Possibly has some sexual repression and/or disfunction as we are shown Emma quite bewildered on her wedding night. The viewer is left to infer men are fairly easily controlled and led.

Then Emma, the 'tragic' female, who's dissatisfaction is born mostly of immaturity & her own lack of knowledge, as well as her own selfishness. Dissatisfied at every turn, she indulges her lusts (addictions) whether sexually or materially, becoming more unhinged & tyrannical, only rushing faster to her ultimate downfall - the viewer is left to infer the portrayal of women as weak, immature, sexually immoral, self-indulgent, not naturally nurturing, and totally inept at managing anything financially due to all the previously mentioned traits.

Bewteen these two - loss & ruin is inevitable.

Along with all that, there's the portrayal of the rather over-bearing, demanding, vocally opinionated mother-in-law, trying to control this obvious disastrous, impending ruin.

Overall, what is portrayed is a peter-pan-syndrome husband that symbiotically fit perfect with a wife's tinker-bell magical-thinking-immaturity; Emma and her husband are a perfect match - for all the wrong reasons.

At least the mother-in-law finally lets go of her reigns, wisely bowing out before more events culminate in the family doomsday onthe horizon.

The most entertaining character was Emma's charming, sweet, & cute old father.

But all the actors played their parts well.

One interesting thing, although it may or may not have been intended - is the relevance of a different era then, today, and all the decades between as it adequately portrays the lives of an addict and a co-dependent.

Emma is basically a sex & material-things addict. She indulges all her lusts, which overrides her responsibilities as a wife and mother, and even as a daughter, and these things brought herself, husband, & child to ruin as well.

We see the doctor-husband being the epitome of co-dependency, constantly excusing, in denial (turning a 'blind eye'), and trying to fix, hide, cover up, etc.

Under that lens, the movie is relevant across all eras of history regarding addiction, co-dependency, and enabling.

Just about everyone has some level of familiarity with these dynamics which seem to occur more & more often in so many families via prescription or street drug addictions, addiction to food, sex, and many other kinds of addictions.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A BBC TV mini-series was released in 1975 to great acclaim so why a remake in 2000?
Turfseer30 June 2022
Warning: Spoilers
For any adaptation of Flaubert's iconic novel to be successful, a primary question must be answered first successfully before going forward. And that question is whether Emma Bovary is a victim or victimizer?

It seems Director Tim Fywell and screenwriter Heidi Thomas decided to take the "victim" route here as was done in another unsuccessful film adaptation in 2014 directed by Sophie Barthes starring Mia Wasikowska.

Frances O'Connor is infinitely better in the leading role as Emma than Wasikowska--with her American accent that sticks out like a sore thumb. It also helps that O'Connor manages not to follow Wasikowska's lead as an over-the-top depressive.

Instead, O'Conner appears to have been instructed to play Emma as a thwarted romantic instead of a narcissist with a real marked sense of entitlement (so successfully conveyed by Isabelle Huppert and Francesca Annis in earlier and later film adaptations).

Everyone here in 2000 is so grim-faced from the outset that we expect the dark shadow of melodrama to creep into the proceedings at any moment. The villain of the piece arrives in the form of recently widowed Dr. Charles Bovary played by Hugh Bonneville, one of the worst casting choices I've ever seen on the silver screen.

The good doctor is supposed to be a pleasant, solicitous, perhaps happy-go-lucky fellow but Bonneville manages to play him as deadly dull and unfriendly, the exact opposite the way character should be presented.

Hence dull Charles is at the root of Emma's longings to escape provincial Yonville and fulfilling her romantic fantasies in a grand city such as Paris.

That is not to say Charles is not a man without faults but without establishing his good nature, he comes off as insufferably unlikable-not what I think Flaubert intended at all.

Fywell and Thomas forget to focus on Emma's moral failures which peg her more as a comic character than a tragic one. Instead, it's all about "lost love" in which Emma's two trysts are played up to the hilt and we're all supposed to swoon.

In the '76 and '91 versions, Leon, the young law clerk is not that demonstrative in his affections toward the beleaguered Emma early on. But here (and similarly in 2014) he's slobbering all over her before finally packing it in and leaving for Paris. The romance angle is played up even on Emma's side, when her fantasies of passionate lovemaking are revealed.

The same thing occurs with the treatment of wealthy landowner Rodolphe Boulanger (Greg Wise) who, with his good looks, is too much of your standard romantic foil to be believable. Left out by Wise is the internal monologue in which he reveals his cold plans of seduction with Emma.

And without hearing those plans, we don't come to realize that he changes his mind and ends up falling for her completely (before realizing that running away with her would not be a good idea at all).

The chemist Homais (David Troughton) is given short shrift without developing the character's anti-clerical bent in which he extolls the science of the day, pitting the superstitions of religious folk against an "enlightened" medical profession.

Ironically Homais is the one who pressures Charles into performing the botched surgery on his manservant Paul (not called Hippolyte as in the novel). Charles shows little backbone when he's quite aware that he's unskilled in performing such an operation, leading to the amputation of part of the manservant's leg.

The continuation of Emma's torrid affair with the insufferably immature Leon is presented as perfunctory scenes of more passionate lovemaking.

With Emma as perpetual victim, all opportunities seem to be intentionally lost in presenting her sadistic side. Note the difference between the two BBC versions when Charles's mother rages about the power of attorney given to Emma.

In the 1975 version, Emma tears up the note and burns it in the fireplace-pretending that she's been defeated by the mother who seemingly has gained the upper hand. But the following scene with Leon she makes it clear (laughing all the way) that she manipulated Charles into getting him to sign a new note.

And even Charles is shown to compliment Emma when he reads his mock missive to Charles out loud, claiming Emma (in effect) as his "cuckolded" lover.

In 2000, Charles retrieves the burning note thrown into the fire by his mother, cradles it and insists he'll take no action regarding taking away Emma's power-of-attorney in the family. Nor is there a proceeding scene in which both Emma and Leon mock Charles for his spinelessness.

Keith Barron measures up to other actors playing the seedy draper, L'Heureaux, and certainly the scenes in which Emma puts herself in debt and finally falls apart are perhaps the best done in this underwhelming film.

I believe that Flaubert's novel was designed as a moral history of his community. No one is spared as all the characters are compromised by a lack of self-knowledge.

I wouldn't mind at all if an intrepid playwright turned the entire narrative into a farce. Instead of Emma successfully committing suicide, I'd love to have her take some white powder from a mislabeled bottle in Homais's pharmacy and then go into hysterics on her "deathbed," until it's revealed she hadn't ingested arsenic after all.

Instead, the family recovers financially but then she runs up more bills with L'Heureaux, and all the bad karma begins again!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed