One of my all time favorites.

Good movie but grossly overrated

Don't listen to the negative reviews

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

On the face of it, this is quite a good movie. Judy Davis puts in an entertaining performance as the eccentric and lovelorn George Sand, Emma Thompson amuses herself, and us, as the slightly mad Duchess D'Antan along with Anton Rodgers as her lovably gruff and occasionally outraged husband. Mandy Patinkin, Julian Sands and Anna Massey all turn up for work with a zesty delight, hamming it up like nobody's business.So far so very good. Everything rattles along charmingly, all and sundry delivering the amusingly droll script with great gusto and professionalism.And then just as we settle down for 90 minutes of above average entertainment, Hugh Grant turns up and sinks the entire ship with all hands.If I say that Hugh struggles manfully with an abysmal script, I would be lying. If I say that he presents us with a thoughtful portrayal of the tortured and sickly composer, rising to the challenge like the great actor he is (in some people's estimation), I would be guilty of gross misrepresentation. If I said that our highly regarded (at least by some people I know)and under talented leading man spends the entire movie looking like a terrified rabbit caught in the headlights of a speeding juggernaut, cowering with fear every time someone speaks to him and almost expiring with blind panic whenever George Sand is in the same room, my integrity and reputation as an honest man would be beyond doubt.I don't know who Hugh Grant based his performance on, or if he even took the trouble to research his character, but what he ends up showing us is a kind of consumptive, cowering, idiot who could no more compose, or indeed play, some of the most exquisitely ethereal and beautiful music known to man than I could eat the Eiffel Tower. I doubt whether this preposterous character could play a triangle without quivering in fear, let alone a piano.But never mind.The movie is actually an entertaining take on the famous love story, presented by a who's who of (mostly) British actors in a beautifully designed and photographed period piece to a soundtrack of heavenly music. And an unintentionally laughable piano player.Anyway, it's nice to see Hugh Grant in yet another comedy role.Any other actor would have portrayed Chopin as a sensitive, soulful and talented composer.

I like strong women. Maybe i am weird in that way. George Sand was a strong woman. She knew what she wanted and she was willing to wait until she found it. In the meantime, she took a man's name, she dressed like a man, she smoked and cussed like a man, and she didn't call her lovers the next day either. That didn't keep them from running back panting and that made this movie hilarious.I had never seen Judy Davis before. She was in two movies last year (The Break-up and Marie Antoinette), but I'v not seen either one. She was magnificent in her role as George Sand. I think I use the word magnificent too much, so let's say she was stupendous and tremendous.Then she found him. The one she was waiting for. She knew the moment she heard his music. he could talk to angels. He was Frederic Chopin, and he was definitely not interested. No matter she plowed ahead, despite the interference of her best friend (Bernadette Peters)and ...well, I won't tell you if she succeeded as that would spoil it wouldn't it.With Hugh Grant, Mandy Patinkin and Emma Thompson helping Peters support Davis, this film had all one could wish for. It was an enjoyable romp through the countryside, funny, and a charming love story.

This movie is about a George Sand, a woman with enough testosterone for two men, trying to seduce Chopin, a gay man with tuberculosis. His appeal to her is his fame and artistic ability. Because he is gay, he represents a challenge. Sand, had she been born today, would have been a transsexual.Judy Davis brings tremendous energy to the Sand role. I'm surprised she is not already as famous as Glenda Jackson or Judy Dench.I was quite disappointed in Hugh Grant's portrayal. His Chopin was as bland and dull a raw pork chop. He did not recoil at Sand's physical advances. Then of course with one kiss, he turned into a heterosexual. What nonsense! It would not have been anything like that. I can tell you from personal experience as a gay who has been in similar circumstances. But that's the writer's failure, not Grant's.It is a movie about silly spoiled artists who abuse their wealthy patrons. It even makes you burst out laughing at a man getting shot.The costumes and settings are so lush, you might just watch it for that.

We were surprised to find this film in the comedy section. We were interested in it because of the music, which turned out to be very nice. And, eventually, Hugh Grant started to become a sickly musical genius, but everything else got in the way. The whole thing was a melange of caricatures of all these guys, Mallefille, de Musset, Emma Thompson, her husband, the kids, George's mom, Delacroix (he was the most straightforward of them all), and last but certainly not least George Sand herself didn't have to be so frenetic, like she had some kind of motor disease. Bad script, bad directing, they had a good time acting, music beautiful, scenery super-beautiful.