This film is a joy to watch -- as not many films these days are. The settings are superbly created -- the green, grotto-like woodland where Irons and Streep meet in the Victorian world of the film, the murky streets of Lyme, Exeter, and London, and the interior of the lawyer's office, for example. The Victorian part of the film emerges from the dawning of the concept of abnormal psychology (just before Freud) and is really convincing. Streep shows us that her character cannot move on emotionally until she has worked out her own madness. That constitutes a remarkable and complex performance of insanity and self-awareness inhabiting a single psyche. She earns the gentle movement out of the tunnel and onto the calm lake. The turbulence of the unconscious -- that threatening sea of which Irons has warned her -- has been subdued. Seems to me the flaw lies in the 'modern story' (as some here have pointed out). It may be that the Streep character is trying to find a subtext for her fictional heroine, but it looks like the old ennui, so that, while her lack of concern for the relationship is understandable, his obsession with it is not. Though the garden party at the end almost gets it there. Were we shown her decision there? If so, I missed it. I like the concept of the 'two endings' and their contrast, but the ending in the 20th century was a so what? The one in the 19th century was complex and included much of the pain that the relationship had caused both characters. A little more attention to the contemporary love affair -- to suggest that it was more than just a romp on location -- would have helped that dimension of the film per se and also suggested what the Victorian lovers had earned within their Hardyesque world.

As we all know, Meryl Streep has a special affinity for accents: Polish in "Sophie's Choice", Oklahoman in "Silkwood", Danish in "Out of Africa", Australian in "A Cry in the Dark" and Irish in "Dancing at Lughnasa", to name a few. In "The French Lieutenant's Woman", she sports an English accent.

That said, there isn't really much to the movie. Essentially a cross between a Jane Austen novel and a tell-all Hollywood story, this movie tells of an actress (Streep) whose role in a movie reflects her real life. Jeremy Irons plays her husband in both the movie and in the movie-within-a-movie.

The movie doesn't suck. I guess that it's the same sort of situation with movies like "Hurry Sundown": given the talent involved, they should have come up with something better.

The biggest draw for seeing 'The French Lieutenant's Woman' in the first place was the casting of Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons, hold both in very high regard and love both in a lot of roles. John Fowles' novel is nothing short of masterful, but due to the parallel story within a story/film within a film storytelling mainly it is not easy to adapt to put it lightly. Who better to adapt it though than Harold Pinter, a highly intelligent and thought-provoking writer.

Found 'The French Lieutenant's' Woman' to be a very well done film with many fantastic things, and the enormous amount of talent in front of and behind the camera is far from wasted. Although one storyline is better handled than the other, a great job is done adapting Fowles' novel and with little sign really of being taxed. Source material that is near-unadaptable, but 'The French Lieutenant's Woman' is a rare case of adaptations of unfilmable novels done well and with less of a sense of being adapted from something that should have been left alone.

As said, 'The French Lieutenant's Woman' is more successful with one story than the other. The modern day storyline, while still intelligently handled and beautifully made and acted especially, is not as involving with a tendency to drag and feel a touch cold.

Did feel at times that the back and forth doesn't always flow and has its jarring moments early on.

On the other hand, Freddie Francis as cinematographer was always a plus and to me 'The French Lieutenant's Woman' contains some of his best non-horror cinematography. It is hauntingly gorgeous, especially in the Victorian historic storyline with some of the shots of Streep staying with one forever. The period detail is the very meaning of sumptuous. Adding hugely to the atmosphere is Carl Davis' music score, also a fine score on its own where the haunting power of the story is reflected in every note featuring some of the most effective solo viola writing and playing on film.

Pinter's script is concise and thought-provoking in a way that's distinctive of him while showing much respect to Fowles. Karel Reisz's direction is suitably reserved which suits the Victorian storyline perfectly, without being over-clinical and the claustrophobic atmosphere is powerfully done. Much of the story is compelling and passionate with the Victorian storyline in my mind being a triumph, carried by the searing chemistry between Streep and Irons. The richness and complexity of the source material is obvious throughout without being too literal.

While all the supporting cast are fine, with David Warner a standout, it's Streep and Irons that stay with the viewer most. Streep received her first Oscar nomination for her powerful dual role performance and deserved it, while along with 'Brideshead Revisited' this was the role that made Irons (also playing two characters) a sensation and he is every bit Streep's equal. They sear together onscreen.

In summary, very well done. 7/10