Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

susan-317 I LOVE costume dramas, yet not all costume dramas are created equally. And though I would hate to criticize the directing of the wonderful Alan Rickman, whose performance in this movie was creditable, I would like to say that the movie was dis-jointed and dull. Partly because I felt that Kate Winslet's character had very few responses beyond confused or sleepy. With a female protagonist, you need to feel that you can either relate to her or, at the very least, understand her behavior. I could not relate to the sleepy, confused character portrayed by Winslet (and I do like her very much). I understand that she discovered/announced that she was pregnant during filming and I wonder if perhaps she was simply nauseous! That might explain everything!Everyone else in this film is excellent. I loved each and every character and the performances shone more brightly because Winslet was so dull. This is not based on a true story, so there's nothing interesting there. It was simply kind of meh.

Edmund Bloxam The setting of the movie is appropriately 18th century, the way the characters act so too. They even seem to speak (mostly) like it too: sometimes they construct long, florid sentences, and sometimes the king takes his wig off and talks about money.It is not a glitzy romance, because the romance is suitably subtle (it thus also reflects the period). The romance is conducted, until near the end, almost entirely in subtext. Is it a perfect picture of 18 century France? Probably not, but, like the Gardens of Versailles, which are the true main character of this thoughtful drama, they have enough rough edges to feel real.

The D'Ascoyne Family It's worth it just for one last glimpse of Alan Rickman in full uncomfortable sneer, the pained uncle, so wounded and so wise... And it's worth it for some other stuff too, including a Winslet somehow more mature, and some truly beautiful images from Rickman as director.But there's a sense that - like its late lamented director - the script of A Little Chaos could have given us so much more. Having decided for dramatic purposes to get so chaotic with the truth - in reality Le Notre the head gardener was decades older than the King, not t'other way round, and Winslet's radical female gardener simply didn't exist - the writers don't take much creative advantage.Perhaps lacking confidence in any of the strands, they try to throw in too much that remains undeveloped: the back-story of Winslet's family is worthily sad, but neither necessary nor developed into any explanation of her relationship to natural forces; supplanted mistress Jennifer Ehle's semi-secret court of wounded women is a surprising, haunting and beautiful moment, but basically a digression; Stanley Tucci is wasted; a couple of pat metaphors aside, the tension between order and chaos doesn't go anywhere.Structurally, Rickman the writer-director has made Rickman the actor part of the problem. Because from the opening scene we see the fragile warmth behind the monarchical mask - and because it's Alan Rickman and everyone knows that Professor Snape always secretly cares - he can't carry the kind of threat required of the capricious absolute ruler. If the King was still a distant authority, his scene with Winslet and the pear tree would be a moment of revelation and transformation; instead it's just pleasant and a bit poignant. And by then, there's no chance that he's going to be anything other than indulgent of the apparent hiccough of the waterlogged garden.There's a similar lost opportunity around Schoenaerts. His Le Notre doesn't develop at all. He's a bit snooty in his first scene, but after that he's just sort of romantically moody. The potential conflict and tension between a (much more) austere, order-obsessed Le Notre and a (more) wild and wilful Winslet is never realized. Because Madame Le Notre is such a horror, and promiscuous, and already signed up to an open relationship, there's no practical or moral obstacle to Schoenaerts and Winslet leaping into the shrubbery. There's no tension, and no sense of achievement.(And they don't even leap into the shrubbery. All that mud, and all that luscious fruit, and they finally get it on indoors, which seems rather a waste - as well as a defusing of the little passion there was.)Pruned (sorry) and chopped around a bit, the script would have more energy and grip. If Schoenaerts was really uncomfortable about Winslet's garden planning, and about the idea of betraying his wife, Winslet and the story would have something to aim at and work on. If Rickman seemed capable of ruining lives by banishment from employment in his Eden, the risks and tensions would have consequences and impact. Say Schoenaerts is still uncertain, about the funky horticulture and about Winslet, when the more perceptive Mrs Le Notre ruins the garden to forestall the threat of losing her husband; Schoenaerts and Winslet then have their moment of near-death near-passion in the tempest; Jennifer Ehle's boudoir then becomes a place of real refuge, from a very grumpy King and from the unknown result of the passion; the nicely-staged Mexican stand-off between the wounded ladies and the King's posse can then be a moment of real resolution - what if that's the moment when she realizes that the King who could be about to ruin her is the same mysterious figure she met under the pear tree? - when Winslet's spirit and argument must convince the King, and when Schoenaerts must decide to follow his heart and speak up for her. Instead Rickman denies himself a fitting farewell, and we're left wanting what might have been.https://thescripthack.wordpress.com

NicolaiLevin Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed watching this film. It was - well - nice. Still, I was disappointed. "A little chaos" has no point to me.First, I had thought it was based on a true story: a charming footnote in history worth being told. But no: The plot is entirely made up, the main character Sabine de Barra never existed and Versailles' famed garden architect André Le Nôtre was over 70 when he completed the surroundings of the castle. And Louis XIV was never ever such a subtle self-ironic personality as displayed by Rickman.So - what might be the point of the story? The "Win-against-all-odds" plot is highly predictable and really not much.The love story comes somewhat inevitable and - although nicely played by Winslet and Schoenaerts - does not really add to excitement; it has hardly any twists and turns.The gardening aspect could be interesting, but without in-depth knowledge of the history of garden architecture, we viewers are kept at loss to see why Mme de Barra's concepts might have been groundbreaking to gardening.For an breathtaking period drama the visuals are too modest and small.Personally, I would have liked to take this little episode as the exemplary and decisive turning point in the history of the ancien régime. Individual thinking and considerations of nature's law paving the way for 1789's revolution that overthrew the royals and their useless courtiers. The king's family, the nobles, their jaded ways are doomed long before they even know it.But we get far too little insight to allow such a far-reaching interpretation.What remains is a nice enough film for a rainy Sunday afternoon, but not more. And that is really a pity.