The Misadventures of Margaret (1998)

Absolutely Fantastic

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Parker Posey very good, as usual, appearing, as usual, in a unique, funny, provocative, offbeat story. Margaret's reality rarely meets her expectations (she's a novelist). In love and monogamous, jealousy drives her to seek an affair. Of course she finds this more complicated than she expected. Margaret's monogamy is ironic given her enormous likability. Maybe that's what makes her so likable. She doesn't settle for what she's offered; she strives for what she wants. Parker Posey's performance can be compared with her equally powerful performance in "Personal Velocity," a more realistic look at infidelity. Very good dialogue; reminiscent of the "screwball" comedy genre, or something from the more "mature" Woody Allen. So not meant to be realistic, although I have known a few people like these. I really liked it.

Great film that has the wonderful ability to be both very funny and very touching. The acting by the main characters really allows the viewer to see into their relationship. The supporting characters add depth to an already deep relationship and help the view to understand why the two characters act as they do. I would recommend it to anyone.

I love Parker Posey's movies, but this one was horrible. The dialogue was strangely paced, Parker's character had absolutely no depth or reason to care about her, the tension of the fidelity issues between her and her husband was played out entirely wrong.The whole film had a navel-gazing stupor to it, with only a few characters seemingly able to rise above it's silliness. Parker's husband, and her gay editor are the two people who perform their roles with any kind of natural behavior. Kudos also to Brooke Shields, in a minor role with some funny moments.All in all, however, this movie left me cold. The plot was slow, and culminated in an entirely unbelievable scene between Parker and her husband. The dialogue was delivered far too quickly and not enough was said to make you identify with anyone. The editing was also odd: a character would be in New York in one frame, then Paris in another with nothing to let you know why.If you want to see Parker in a better light, watch The House of Yes or The Anniversary Party. Avoid this movie at all costs.

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.'