UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

mxue78 I borrowed this movie from library think it might be delightful. How wrong am I!It is such a bad movie that I have to write something about it. Mira Sorvino is SO bad in the movie, it is very painful to watch the scene with her. She is a pretty girl, but in this movie, She is not seductive at all, but I will have to witness her awkward attempt to seduce almost all the other major characters. It is so ridiculous.And the dialog of the film is so pretentious, and lack the humorous fact that make then acceptable.Totally failure.

FlorisV This is a very light period piece, in the spirit of plays like a midsummer night's dream, based on a 17th century farce. Don't expect the type of comedy that will make you laugh out loud, it's more the atmosphere of things not to be taken too seriously, particularly the princess having to pass as a young man. In the spirit of the movie and of older plays it's all perfectly normal and acceptable, because these kind of stories sacrifice believability in favor of good fun. And though flawed, the film is much better than the hugely overrated Shakespeare in Love.What I did have a problem with, was the horrible jump-cut editing. In a lot of scenes there were useless, unnecessary cuts because the camera did not even switch views, it looked extremely unnatural. Did someone spill coffee on some of the tape so they had to leave some out? Now the acting is what saves the film, I was especially delighted with Mira Sorvino and Ben Kingsley who both skillfully display grotesque but pleasant, sympathetic personalities. It was fun to see Mira in a men's outfit with boyish mannerisms tho still maintaining a feminine look. Also, the backdrops (of the 18th century-design garden and house) are gorgeous, real eyecandy.I bought this film for quite some money because I was very curious about it and have become fan of Sorvino. I would have rented it, would it have been available, but had to find it somewhere on amazon. But even though it wasn't entirely worth the money, I had a reasonably good time. If you want to see Mira's best, go watch Wisegirls, but this one is worth a watch as well! Enjoy.I give it 7 out of 10

bgrantaus I did enjoy this film but I really want to comment on the the bad editing and/or filming of this film. I don't think I really have seen worse and is absolutely ridiculous that it should be like this. Who ever is responsible for the production editing of this film should be ashamed/sacked/run-out-of-town/laughed at/never used again.I liked this film for what it is; a play written in 1732 and brought to the screen. Possible the story is a little outdated and not very plausible but it was fun and I think thats the point, it is a "farce" in the same style of a shakespearean play. I also wondered if anyone has seen a film with a women playing a man's part and the audience actually believes that it is a man? My method of evaluation would be that you wouldn't know unless someone told you that it was a women. I have seen guys play women and be really convincing but I don't think I have seen a women "fool" me in a movie. It would be interesting to see.

Lawson Egad, what a cheesy title. But since it's a period romance comedy and not a contemporary one, it's a little more excusable I guess. The plot is a gender-bender. Mira Sorvino, a princess, falls for a young hunk who's been brought up by his bachelor uncle (Ben Kingsley) and spinster aunt (Fiona Shaw). Unfortunately, they've taught him to hate her and all other women (oooooh!), as well as reject the notion of love, so she has to dress up as a man to infiltrate their household and get Mr. Studly to fall for her. However, her charms are so great that the whole family winds up falling for her.Therein lies my moral quandary. Sorvino not only takes the trio of infatuations in her stride, she encourages all of them to selfishly accomplish her goal. Doesn't this make her an unworthy heroine then? Should we still be rooting for her when she breaks two hearts to attain one? I'm not sure if the ending is morally justified for suitable enjoyment of the movie, even if all parties involved eventually benefit by learning about the power of love. The sight of a simultaneously crushed Kingsley and Shaw are heartbreaking and put a damper on the happy ending. That aside, The Triumph of Love is a lovely display of fine actors having fun giving melodramatic performances. Sorvino is a great choice for the lead role, if only for her naturally deep voice. Her facial features are soft but back then it wasn't an uncommon thing for nobles back then to be gentiles in looks and nature. I can't help but to compare her to the other period gender-bending actress, Gwyneth Paltrow, in Shakespeare in Love. Paltrow undeniably gives the superior performance, but I can't say if it wasn't because Shakespeare was a better movie. Shaw is an excellent actress who can portray romantic torment with both comedic and dramatic flair. Sir Ben Kingsley reminds me of an older Colin Firth, not looks-wise of course, but in that they both look adorable when demonstrating the melting of their icy exteriors. And oh my, is that Gandhi wearing a wig and nuzzling a boob? Surely he deserves the nickname "Sexy Beast" more for his role here than in his other movie of that title.