Gordon-11
This film is about an author who tries to write a follow up to her successful erotic novel debut. In the process of her research, she begins to question her marriage."The Misadventures of Margaret" tries to be an erotic romantic comedy, but it does not achieve either way. The production is B grade, looking more like a movie with a very tight budget. The plot is a little strange, jumping from fantasy and reality. Some of the fantasy scenes are laughable, and it's not a good thing. Most scenes are not that memorable either. I think "The Misadventures of Margaret" is a miss, despite a great cast.
dtengstrom
This is a fun romp, not unlike the exploits on Sex in the City. But not being a fan of that particular show, I found Parker Posey to be endearing and hilarious, unlike Sarah Jessica Parker. Some of Posey's line deliveries made me literally crack up. She carries the film throughout, and it is her charismatic frivolity that makes the film such a treat. Not unlike her turns in the Christopher Guest films like Best in Show, she turns a character on her head and takes her for a ride. Yet Margaret's sexual awakening is definitely a relatable misadventure, and Posey takes you with her on her journey, creating a character you'd actually want to get to know.Too bad it's not that well known because this is an enjoyable little film.
tedg
Spoilers herein.Rich potential: New York a la Woody; writer creating her own life; snappy dialog; sex as philosophy, set in a `perils of Pauline' context with anachronisms as a running joke. But the New York wasn't bookish and chic enough. It failed like the recent `Great Expectations.' The attempt at snappy dialog was energetic, but the cadence was all wrong, and that makes up for even the grandest stretch in the words. `An Ideal Husband,' is the recent example of perfection of this art. The problem isn't Parker. It's the director.I'm particularly attracted to films that fold reality in themselves: plots where the story involves its own creation. These abound in several forms, and some indie films have actually explored new territory recently (`eXistenZ,' `Memento,' and `Mulholland Drive' come to mind.) But this offers nothing new, so it is doomed to be compared to other examples of the same.Parker is a conundrum. I think she has a good instrument, rather flexible. I've seen her in 11 of her 37 listed film projects, which I think is comparatively high given the poor circulation of many. Never brilliant, she's been adequate and varied. I think she would have been up to this if she were directed to be less frantic and unappealing. And if the director knew how to clip the dialog like Jennifer Leigh in `Hudsucker,' or James Woods in `True Crime,' or Robert DuVall in `The Paper.'
James-66
Saw at LFF - very good indeed.Go and see for Brooke Shields; she is a riot as a lesbian femme fatale!Parker is a bit irritating, but beautiful!Good film.
AD
