I think the film shows us how difficult it is for people to achieve true love, regardless of the age they live in. Although it might seem that today there is less direct pressure from society, but there are other different reasons to make people stay in the status quo, convenience can be very powerful too. In the very beginning of the film Anne watches herself (Sarah) in the mirror, which in one hand is the beginning of Ana's, the actress's transformation into Sarah, and in my eyes it is also a nice allegory of how the two parallel stories in the film reflect on each other. They are in fact more or less the same, except from the ending. In the film Ana and Mike are acting in, Sarah and Charles end up together, but Ana and Mike don't stay together. For me the overall message of the film was, that romantic love only triumphs in tales, in a romanticized world, but not in reality. I liked the contrasting cinematic styles of the two story lines, the acting was great, and also liked the different endings. For me the main flaw was that the "present" story-line felt very much overpowered by the Victorian story-line, it felt it was less important, and we also didn't get to know too much about Ana and Charles. Even if portraying the two relationships in an equally significant way would have been very very difficult in two hours, but I think it would have served the theme of the film better. Plus because I don't believe in love at first sight, it's always hard for me to believe that two characters can fall deeply in love with each other as fast as Sarah and Charles did.

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.

So... I finally read the book and -at last- I saw the movie!! Well,even though, as usual I preferred the book, I did like the film as well. Very much. Meryl Streep was unbelievable, I just loved every quote that she said. She managed to show the peculiar Sarah's character and to create a very interesting character for Anna, as well. Jeremy Irons was great also. Generally, all the cast played good. However, I didn't like Lynsey Baxter as Ernestina. I think she didn't appear as young as it was supposed too, and that she was saying the lines sooo slowly that it get annoyed after some time. I also didn't like the idea of adding Anna's and Mike's world in the story. I'd rather prefer just to be in Sarah's and Charles' reality. It's true that John Fowles often interrupt the narration to comment something or to compare the two centuries. However, Anna's and Mike's existence didn't touch his comments at all. In the first half of the film their scenes last too little so they are not useful. In the second half their story becomes more interesting but at the end it seemed to me that it was a small and fast-made movie, violently put into J.F's story. In other words, I'd like to see Anna's and Mike's story in a different movie! Additionally, It wasn't justified -to my opinion- Anna's behavior at the end that reminds us Sarah! Yet, I have to admit that I was impressed because Meryl and Jeremy could easily "play themselves" as Anna and Mike. But, I was not seeing Meryl and Iron on the screen, even they were playing two characters so common to their reality, they find their own character's personality -a personality different than theirs. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. In conclusion, I believe that if I hadn't read the book and haven't seen the movie on the laptop (I couldn't find it in a DVD) I'd like it much more! It is a story that you have to learn either from the film, either from the book, they both have their own magic!

I don't really think this is all that good a film. I mean, it's not exactly bad in any way, and it still left me interested n it throughout to continue it, but it was mostly out of respect to Streep and me wanting to finish her filmography. It does drag quite a bit throughout. But one reason to seek it out is Streep, who is marvelous playing the American and the American herself playing a character. She's definitely worth it, and I mean, it's Streep. That's why I kept with the film, because I do want to end up seeing al of her nominated performances, but if you're expecting a Sophie's Choice performance, you won't get it here at all. As it is I give it a C