The Portrait of a Lady

Name: The Portrait of a Lady
Genre: Drama, Romance
Released: December 24, 1996
Duration: 144 min
Rating: 60
Cast: Barbara Hershey, John Malkovich, Martin Donovan, Nicole Kidman

1996

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 18 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 15 Ratings

See All

6.0

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6.0	Your Score
6.0	User Score Mixed or average reviews based on 15 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

The Portrait Of A Lady

Now Playing: The Portrait Of A Lady

Movie Details & Credits

Gramercy Pictures (I) | Release Date: December 24, 1996 | PG-13

Starring: Barbara Hershey, John Malkovich, Martin Donovan, Nicole Kidman

Summary: Isabel Archer (Nicole Kidman), a head strong American finds herself trapped in a marriage to Gilbert Osmond (John Malkovich).

Director: Jane Campion

Genre(s): Drama, Romance

Rating: PG-13

Runtime: 144 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

TV Guide Magazine Ken Fox

[A] bold and brilliant rendering of Henry James' masterpiece. Read full review

Josh Larsen

Campion’s camera captures the sort of things most costume dramas are too fussy to notice: mirrors and windows that bifurcate Isabel’s distressed face; the bleary darkness of her home with Osmond, where the doors close behind her like those of a tomb; a slide into slow motion when one character smells a flower that has been given to her and another character crucially notices. Read full review

David Sterritt

A splendid adaptation that will be hard for the others to match. The Portrait of a Lady, directed by Jane Campion, brings intelligence and sensitivity to a story rich in psychological subtlety and sociological detail. Read full review

Lisa Schwarzbaum

In aiming for a new kind of lit-drama cool, Jane Campion freezes the warmth right out of Henry James' expansive heart. Read full review

Mike Clark

Intelligent but exasperating, its monotonous tone will wear down even viewers who started out in its corner. [27 Dec 1996]

Edward Guthmann

The Portrait of a Lady is a huge disappointment. It's a deliberately arty, overly formal exercise in emotional terrorism. Read full review

Jonathan Rosenbaum

[An] unsatisfying mess. Read full review

SEE ALL 18 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

etopp

Dec 25, 2020

This film has amazing cinematography and is well-acted but the direction does not reveal the frankly mystifying motivations of, and actions taken by, the central characters

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

wildwickedslip

Sep 2, 2022

Oh dear. It doesn’t seem like anybody, the director and screenwriter included has read Henry James’ first period masterpiece. The novel itself has no story whatsoever - it’s entirely about the psychological complexity of the characters, so when you suck all of the psychology out of the film,Oh dear. It doesn’t seem like anybody, the director and screenwriter included has read Henry James’ first period masterpiece. The novel itself has no story whatsoever - it’s entirely about the psychological complexity of the characters, so when you suck all of the psychology out of the film, we’re ultimately left with nothing but a tedious tale of a group of people we know nothing about and who’s motives we don’t understand - which isn’t helped by the fact that the film skips the first 150 pages of the novel. I understand that psychology is hard to portray on-screen, but only a very lazy, cheap attempt is made here. The acting, for the most part, is wooden and flat out wrong, especially Kidman’s, as she turns Isabel Archer from an enigmatic, quietly strong willed, complex heroine into a stroppy, bolshy girl with no depth, who builds no apparent rapport with Pansy, and therefore makes the end not make any sense. John Malkovich gives a poor performance of Mr. Osmond - he presents us with an outright baddie rather than the deviously manipulative man that Henry James writes in the novel. There’s no variation in Malkovich’s performance, and therefore we are shown no valid reason as to why Isabel marries him. Quite frankly the entire thing is a mess. The casting is okay, and at least the story and dialogue aren’t tampered with, but unless you’ve read the novel, this film isn’t going to make much sense. But then again, it makes very little sense to those who have.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

SEE ALL 2 REVIEWS

71	#71 Best Movie of 1996
79	#79 Most Discussed Movie of 1996
75	#75 Most Shared Movie of 1996