Given the fact that I'm neither a Kate Hudson fan nor a Naomi Watts fan, I probably shouldn't have rented this movie expecting to like it. But I love Leslie Caron, and will watch anything she's in. Unfortunately for me, she was in Le Divorce and I had to sit through it.Kate Hudson goes to France to support her pregnant sister Naomi Watts, whose husband has just left her for another woman. While they battle through a very messy divorce, Kate gets involved with two men, Thierry Lhermitte and Romain Duris, and her callous attitude towards both is very off-putting. Meanwhile, Leslie Caron plays Naomi's snobby and cold mother-in-law, and Glenn Close plays an odd author, whose purpose I'm still trying to figure out.There was absolutely nothing about this film I enjoyed, and to be honest, I turned it off and didn't make it all the way through. People who absolutely love France and the French culture, or die-hard Kate Hudson fans might like Le Divorce, but besides that, I can't imagine most people getting through it. Although marketed as a romantic comedy, it actually gets pretty heavy as everyone's affairs and issues collide. If you do decide to watch it, against my recommendation, keep an eye out for Sam Waterston, Stockard Channing, Matthew Modine, Bebe Neuwirth, and Stephen Fry in small roles.

Roxeanne/Roxy (Naomi Watts) is an American in Paris. Pregnant, she is abandoned by her husband who decides he prefers his mistress, and the story unfolds as her family gets involved. Her sister Isabel (Kate Hudson) flies over to help her, the rest of her family hear about if from afar, and the husband's French side of the family try to deal with his mistakes and discuss how they can come out of the divorce on top, whilst avoiding the unspeakable subject of the affair.The tag-line for Le Divorce is "A comedy of manners...both good and bad." Unfortunately, Le Divorce isn't a comedy. It's a problem riddled drama that mishandles the big issues, has little respect for its characters and is far, far too long. It kicks off with a perfectly OK beginning, introducing us to some unlikeable people saying unlikeable things. Roxeanne's parents care more for a painting than the happiness of one of their daughters - "our girls are thousands of miles away from and they should be home with us. That's the essentials," one of them says, before the conversation swiftly returns to an expensive painting she has in her Paris home. The Americans in Le Divorce equally appear to be commodities to be retrieved from the French - Watts's character seems abandoned by those who should care for her beyond using her as a pawn to gain the upper hand.After finding out about his affair, Roxy rightly detests her husband, does not want to see him, even spend time in the same room as him, yet will not consider a divorce. It's almost as if the writer wants to continue to punish the character. She must be chastised for her American ideals in Paris, and indeed she does not get off lightly.The sister, now in Paris consoling her sister, then sees the husband kissing another woman in a bar, and her reaction is to smile and then chat with him amiably whilst he rationalises his affair in a stereotypical French way - "she should understand. She is a poet." Meanwhile, Roxy is pregnant and alone. It's impossible to tell what message the film is trying to get across - that all French men follow their heart at the expense of duty and honour? That a charming accent justifies all actions. Perhaps. The actions of Isabel, however, are impossible to justify and the film doesn't even try.First she decides to pursue the French uncle - why? A flirty line on liking "red meat," followed by a strange sideways transition in the editing and 3 minutes later she becomes his mistress, simultaneously continuing on a flirtatious courtship with a young Frenchman she slept with within a day or two of arrival. Meanwhile, as we know, Roxy is still pregnant and alone. The film is inherently shallow, glorying in its consumerism and appearances - opera, poetry recital, expensive paintings, designer handbags, lingerie, fine dining. The lack of confrontation is infuriating, revelations are merely glossed over, and nobody appears to say anything that an actual person would say dealing with these issues. The worst example of this is Roxy's failed suicide attempt, which is expertly glossed over. Isabel tells the family not to mention it, they don't, and Roxy, lying in a hospital bed with bandages on her wrist tells her husband that she blames herself for her decision making. Quick, move on, we have a great little scene with Stephen Fry as a Christie's buyer to get to! And off we go.The change of pace and time is also difficult to follow or justify. Whilst at the start, the film seems to be taking one day at a time, it begins to jump several days, perhaps weeks, between scenes without any visuals clues that we've moved forward. Occasionally an increasingly more pregnant Roxy is shown side on so we're aware of some time passing, but generally it's a mess. Things occasionally pick up with the few scenes afforded to Matthew Modine's character. He's the husband of the mistress of the husband of Roxeanne, who seems unstable enough to spark some life into the entire film. Sadly, as in the scene in the bookshop, he is quickly ushered out of the frame again, only to return for an improbably contrived finale with a gun on the Eiffel Tower.Yes, the weird ending - from drama to Hitchcockian suspense to a whimsical voice-over conclusion as the handbag, containing the gun, floats on the wind over Paris. It all feels a bit Sex and the City hearing Kate Hudson sum everything up into a neat little package. A horrible, superficial, meaningless package. And I hated it.

It beggars belief that James Ivory would conceive of such a film in 2003. It all feels like a soft-focus Eurotrash/American melodrama from the 1980s, with its soft-focus lensing and European clichés. The acting leaves a lot to be desired and is often very wooden and awkward as the European actors strive to be convincing in the English language - Melville Poppaud in particular is miscast as the cheating husband.Not even Naomi Watts can save the day. She is also miscast alongside her screen sister Kate Hudson. Both are above the material but fail to rise above the clichéd and mediocre script.Le Divorce is a pitiful embarrassment and belongs on 1980s TV as a mini-series rather than a fully-fledged feature film.

I looked forward to watching this film on DVD after missing watching it at the cinema. It reminded me of previous films of Kate Hudson which I thoroughly enjoyed e.g How to lose a guy in 10 days. Both the fact that the actors and actresses are well known in the comedy scene as well as the polished 'ambiance' of the French capital appealed to me so I was eager to watch this film . Furthermore, by looking at the sleeve on the DVD case, I felt that the film had a lot of funny moments.At times light hearted, at others dramatic, the film could not decide between being a drama or a comedy. I was a little disappointed by Hudson's role which is rather different from the familiar image of the girl-next-door. Maybe it was a deeper role than the usual superficial character role we are used to but her part certainly did not appeal to me.On the other hand, the presence of Naomi Watts, though more limited than that of Hudson, stole the attention of the film in a sympathetic way.If you are up for laughs I would not recommend this movie. But if you are in search of a simple story and yearn all things French,give it a try.