I found it to be an utterly pointless and boring experience with less Paris scenes than hoped. Thought the scene on the Eiffel Tower was pretty good, although ridiculous. There were some scattered high points. One was a restaurant scene where the american and brit diners were eating "french fries" with their fingers. Another was a gendarme questioning his female partner about her perfume.

Btike, They may have said Istanbul. and some reason I picked another country.

Not sure if we plan to go to a movie (again) this weekend (last weekend it was for "Bend it Like Beckham" - - a nice little feel-good-er that is like a quick visit to the highly Indian area around Heathrow)...

... but maybe mucdh more to the point for Francophile tastes would be "Swimming Pool"? The culture, imagery and insouciance of the south of France and the "topography" of Ludivine Sagnier, for those of us XY chromosome types who appreciate that kind of thing.

Meilleurs voeux,

Rex

It was ok as a movie, but not as good as I expected from Merch. & Ivory.

I agree that the character of Matthew Modine was bordering on ridiculous with him popping up from time to time looking frantic, the scene on the tower was pretty dumb too.

I did like the gendarme commenting on his partner's perfume and the other scene I liked is the one on the trailers which show Hudson saying "what do you mean by mistress". This was her best line and she spoke it well.

I would rec. it for a light summer movie, it's no worse than some of the other light comedies and maybe a little better.

I thought the couple of dark scenes were out of place for that type of movie. I loved seeing every inch of Paris I could capture although my eyes were stretched to the max having had to sit in the seats kissing the screen. What was up with that Russian girl? Her DH was handsome. She was just plain weird and creepy. As for Kate Hudson, I think they did her wrong. She's too cute for such an unattractive sleeze she played. And the guy that was her instant friend/bed partner? Hugh? What a mismatch. I ADORE Goldie Hawn. Who could ever get tired of her movies? Kate can look and act so much like her right down to her facial expressions, she may as well capitalize it by being in modern day movies as Goldie II. Just my opinion.

The movie was probably a B- or so. Cute, nothing too deep, it was wrapped up a little to easily. I agree that it wasn't up to the usual standard of Merchant Ivory but still very lovely to look at. I especially enjoyed the restaurant scenes. Relating to another thread, I had to go out and buy several new chic outfits after seeing the movie for my first trip to Paris next week.

I saw it yesterday and enjoyed it, but it certainly doesn't make a list of my favorite movies.

The comment above about how Hollywood could have cast a much older man is kind of funny. I'm not great at ages, but I thought Kate Hudson came off as early twenties, and the guy opposite her seemed about 55 to 60. What are you suggesting? Should the girl have been 14 and the guy 95???

I was glad we ate before we went. The restaurant scenes were excellent and the one montage of plates of food was more than mouthwatering!!

I loved the book. Read it twice and even went to the address of Roxy's house which was fun. The whole time I was reading it, I was thinking what a great movie it would make. Then they made the movie and it was just barely ok. They murdered the intricacies of the plot and wildly miscast the main characters. Paris looked good, the food looked great. But otherwise, do yourself a favor and read the book! It's really entertaining.

I think you should read the book than see the film. Kate's character is more earthy in the book, in the film she's miscast as being more Betty Boop

Patrick, in the book, the older man is much older, in his '70's if I recall correctly. The point is that the young woman is seduced not by physical attractiveness, but by his savoir faire, charm, and powerful position in society. I do think it takes away from the point if the man is old enough to be her father, as opposed to her grandfather.

By the way, I am just finishing Diane Johnson's Le Mariage, also an American/French romance/mystery, and it certainly lacks the more interesting aspects of Le Divorce. I would give it a C- at best.

OK, but the point you suggest is certainly what I got from the movie -- that she is seduced by those things and not by his attractiveness. I guess I found the age difference very great, but then I hadn't read the book to know that the author meant it to be even more extreme.

He was a "big"man, (now, now, not that.) in the book and her language was more funky. Thierry lhimitte who plays that lover a long leading man known for his good looks is too good looking for the books character. But always see the film, and if you like it, the book is always better. One exception: "Room at the top"with Laurence Harvey and Simone Signoret. Book was dull, they( the film) made it alive.

... may I suggest another film involving Paris - "Winged Migration - the birds land on the Seine at twilight - very nice. Lots of clattering and chattering, but since they're not American birds, it shouldn't offend the PC'ish. Be warned they are not sporting jeans and white tennies, or even mules and crops, but they are dressed for the occasion.

Saw the movie last night. It's VERY slow, the characters are portrayed very one dimensionally, but OH, Paris! Wanted to get on a plane immediately. And the clothes, and the food and the decor and Leslie Caron's house and garden (did you see that tree trimmed as a square box? How do they DO that!)

Merchant Ivory can't seem to do a modern day film-the pacing & character development is all wrong but they sure know how to give you eye candy. If you love Paris, go immediately but don't expect great cinema.

So what were the restaurants???