In college I studied Marivaux -- whose play this movie is based on -- so I have an understanding of the movie's context and characters. Given that, I found Triumph of Love to be rather enjoyable. But I don't recommend it for everyone. If you like Shakespeare in film or other cinematic adaptations of theater, you might well like this one. Mira Sorvino is, of course, lovely in the starring role(s).
33 Reviews
A mixed effort.
train46410 November 2002
Truly a remarkable film for its ups and downs. The ups are delightful (dialog, costuming, movement); the downs are simply awful (acting, timing, editing, concept). The "jump" cutting, so dear to advertisers, becomes extremely annoying. The reference to the play as play by intercutting scenes of modern-day audience watching the play and the cast "curtain call" in modern day dress are distracting. I wish they gave us the English to the French song at the end -- it's probably the best part, and my French is only good enough to guess at the meaning. It was also reformatted for the screen (TV) which already gives it two strikes in my opinion. The 18th century French must have loved it.
Much ado about nothing
lingmeister21 December 2002
This movie is about a princess simultaneously seducing a prince, his protégé and the protégé's sister, portraying herself as either a man or woman, all in the name of undoing a wrong that her family has done to the prince's a long time ago. It has some wit, with some wordplay, some farce comedy, and the slow breakdown of each of the character giving in to her seduction. But the buildup and final revelation at the end does not have the usual Shakespearean touch, where she would get closer and closer to being revealed, until a final big bang. This film just didn't have that, although it did produce some laughs when the protégé and his sister both come out dressed in clothes they otherwise would never be caught wearing.
The camerawork plays a bit with its jump cuts, trying to impose some sense of realism to this otherwise lack of stagey feeling film. The sudden revelation of the audience did not occur frequently enough to signify anything beyond an aberration of the plot.
Still, an interesting film with good interaction between characters, and a little insight to French plays of that period.
The camerawork plays a bit with its jump cuts, trying to impose some sense of realism to this otherwise lack of stagey feeling film. The sudden revelation of the audience did not occur frequently enough to signify anything beyond an aberration of the plot.
Still, an interesting film with good interaction between characters, and a little insight to French plays of that period.
An excellent movie
tordiway29 April 2002
The commentators so far seem to belong to one of two camps; those who hated the picture for what it is and those who liked, but did not love it, because of what it was not. I think both groups are missing the point. You simply have to accept the conventions of this type of story, just as you do when you read/watch Shakespeare's plays. Do that and you will have a wonderful time with this film. I thoroughly enjoyed it; it was witty, fast paced, sexy, the acting was fantastic (especially Kingsley though Sorvino is no slouch)etc. etc. etc. etc. Just let go and let it sweep over you. A splendid time is guaranteed for all.
a little awkward
SnoopyStyle5 June 2022
The Princess (Mira Sorvino) and her maiden Corine (Rachael Stirling) are disguised as men in order to infiltrate an estate. She had inherited the stolen throne from her family. She wishes to return it to the rightful heir Agis (Jay Rodan) whom she has fallen in love from afar. The problem is that Hermocrates (Ben Kingsley) had raised him to hate her. She entices Leontine (Fiona Shaw), the madam of the estate. Then she tries to seduce Hermocrates.
There is a bit of fun here. It's an 18th century play. Sorvino is trying very hard with both a fake voice and manly mannerisms. The estate is beautiful. The fourth wall is cracked with the injection of an audience. At that point, the movie is simply trying too hard. It adds nothing and subtracts from the reality of the story. This cannot do anything but feel like a play. Again Sorvino is trying very hard. Her seductions of both Leontine and Hermocrates are partly awkward and partly funny. It must have been hilarious comedy back in the 18th century. It has a lightness to it but is unable to fully embrace the intended comedy. It's all a little awkward but also a little fascinating.
There is a bit of fun here. It's an 18th century play. Sorvino is trying very hard with both a fake voice and manly mannerisms. The estate is beautiful. The fourth wall is cracked with the injection of an audience. At that point, the movie is simply trying too hard. It adds nothing and subtracts from the reality of the story. This cannot do anything but feel like a play. Again Sorvino is trying very hard. Her seductions of both Leontine and Hermocrates are partly awkward and partly funny. It must have been hilarious comedy back in the 18th century. It has a lightness to it but is unable to fully embrace the intended comedy. It's all a little awkward but also a little fascinating.
Pretty Good Script/dialog Let Down by So-so Acting
pc955 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The script and dialog of "The Triumph of Love" is often first rate in this movie, directed by Claire Peploe. Though I don't know how much the original story or script has been altered for modern tastes, the main problem of the movie is the uneven acting. Lead Sorvino is good in some scenes but stilted and off in others as is curiously Ben Kingsley. This can probably be somewhat attributed to inconsistent direction likewise. Anyway the movie features some very good scenes especially toward the beginning and end. I Didn't care much for the liberty thrown in with touch of the modern play towards the end. Mildly recommended, though if you're looking for a superior Victorian-ish story, check out the better though darker"Ridicule".
Creaky Adaptation that Does Not Translate Well Despite Gung Ho Actresses
noralee14 October 2005
"Triumph of Love" is proof that not every Comédie-Française author who uses cross-dressing disguised courtship like Shakespeare is worth seeing.
Or maybe something was lost in the translation of this adaptation of Marivaux, a Commedia Dell Arte-inspired playwright of whom Brittannica says: "His nuanced feeling and clever wordplay became known as marivaudage."
While Mira Sorvino has fun dangling three mixed-up romances, her pants role wasn't even up to Cherubino in "Marriage of Figaro."
The herky-jerky editing is annoying and just seems to indicate that a lot of takes were needed for each long speech.
Best was Fiona Shaw as the fooled spinster, as well as the costumes.
The glimpses of audience we see and the closing curtain call to wink that this is all artifice doesn't really help.
(originally written 5/29/2002)
Or maybe something was lost in the translation of this adaptation of Marivaux, a Commedia Dell Arte-inspired playwright of whom Brittannica says: "His nuanced feeling and clever wordplay became known as marivaudage."
While Mira Sorvino has fun dangling three mixed-up romances, her pants role wasn't even up to Cherubino in "Marriage of Figaro."
The herky-jerky editing is annoying and just seems to indicate that a lot of takes were needed for each long speech.
Best was Fiona Shaw as the fooled spinster, as well as the costumes.
The glimpses of audience we see and the closing curtain call to wink that this is all artifice doesn't really help.
(originally written 5/29/2002)
In a few words
aripaceimilipseste28 August 2011
I loved how it kept getting more and more complicated, more and more your palms sweat because you can't imagine how it could all work out in a logical way after such intrigues and lies. The movie caught my attention, but true, most of it was to see the ending, to see all the nods get untangled. I also loved the lack of shyness and ethical boundaries which you see in all the more "puritan" love comedies these days (which abound in sex related acts or words). Surely, I am not talking of sex when I say the main plot lacks shyness, but of a certain perversity of thought, a scheme for love. Of course it can never be imagined as true, but the story is, as it should be, a story.
The worst
mattmcg3spamtrap12 January 2005
Let me be clear. I've used IMDb for years. But only today I went through the trouble of registering on the site, just so I could give this movie the lowest possible rating. I've seen hundreds of films, some of them bad, a few awful. Never, though, have i seen such a contrast of pretense and incompetence, of high intentions and failure.
Mira Sorvino is horribly cast as the princess, but entirely unbelievable as Phocion, a young boy. Fiona Shaw is always an entertaining character, but the dialogue in the film is much worse, even, than in the insipid French play that is the source (Marivaux never reached Hollywood until now, and we should keep it that way).
To illustrate, for example, that Leontine is a brilliant, passionate philosopher and scientist, she is shown frantically pouring chemicals from beaker to beaker, shouting out names of famous scientists. And the romance between Agis and the princess is played even sillier. For this, the pair should receive a joint 'Clair Danes' award, which in a just world would be awarded for gratuitously anachronistic and uninspired re-interpretation of interesting teens from literature as brats of the 1990's (see Miss Danes in Les Miserables).
Aside from the atrocious plot and dialogue, there are some attempts to introduce artistic tropes into the filming. For example, there are moments when a handful of spectators are faded in and out of view of the action, sitting in chairs, watching the principal characters. The Director wants us to realize she's adapted a play. I get it. But it doesn't happen at all until far into the film. At that point, seeing a crowd of people sitting in chairs for a moment, then disappearing, is creepy and distracting. They're like some sort of un-scary zombie crowd, appearing through the mists, filling us with dread. When you see the horrible frolic and song that ends this movie, you'll want to rouse your own crowd of zombies and kill them all for the grave injustise of poisoning your mind for 112 minutes.
-Matthew McGuire
Mira Sorvino is horribly cast as the princess, but entirely unbelievable as Phocion, a young boy. Fiona Shaw is always an entertaining character, but the dialogue in the film is much worse, even, than in the insipid French play that is the source (Marivaux never reached Hollywood until now, and we should keep it that way).
To illustrate, for example, that Leontine is a brilliant, passionate philosopher and scientist, she is shown frantically pouring chemicals from beaker to beaker, shouting out names of famous scientists. And the romance between Agis and the princess is played even sillier. For this, the pair should receive a joint 'Clair Danes' award, which in a just world would be awarded for gratuitously anachronistic and uninspired re-interpretation of interesting teens from literature as brats of the 1990's (see Miss Danes in Les Miserables).
Aside from the atrocious plot and dialogue, there are some attempts to introduce artistic tropes into the filming. For example, there are moments when a handful of spectators are faded in and out of view of the action, sitting in chairs, watching the principal characters. The Director wants us to realize she's adapted a play. I get it. But it doesn't happen at all until far into the film. At that point, seeing a crowd of people sitting in chairs for a moment, then disappearing, is creepy and distracting. They're like some sort of un-scary zombie crowd, appearing through the mists, filling us with dread. When you see the horrible frolic and song that ends this movie, you'll want to rouse your own crowd of zombies and kill them all for the grave injustise of poisoning your mind for 112 minutes.
-Matthew McGuire
Enjoyable, if not great
beelkay7 July 2007
I just wanted to put something on here that was a little more positive than what Matt McGuire wrote. If I had seen this before I'd seen some of the movies based on Shakespeare, I might have felt that the dialogue was weird and the story contrived. However, having seen filmed plays like Twelfth Night and read a few early modern plays makes me appreciate what's going on more. What seems silly, stilted, and improbable to a modern audience is actually a very understandable play that follows traditional story beats and tropes. When watched from the right point of view and state of mind, it's actually quite an amusing story with occasional moments of romance and heartbreak. Perhaps the best thing about this movie for a modern audience is watching Ben Kingsley, Fiona Shaw, and the others enjoy their roles so thoroughly. PS: I think the audience members that are glimpsed now and then was an inspired little touch.
'Oh, Agis!'
ferrerogrrl24 April 2003
Gods, I haven't watched a movie this awful in a long while. Maybe not since 'The New Guy' or various Freddie Prinze Jr. movies. Yes, it is that astoundingly awful. Mira Sorvino's blank and wooden acting surely must've been inspired by Freddie. The movie staging was awkward (like a play, rather, and that feeling of confinement does NOT work well on film). The actors had no idea what they were doing, especially Sorvino. Her accent was awful and her sex appeal non-existent here so it was painful to see her 'seducing' other characters and they 'falling' for it. And what was with the occaisional shots of a live audience in lawn chairs? Nonsensical! I had to turn the dvd player off, it would have been self-inflicted pain to finish this film.
let the hijinx ensue
dawny131321 July 2003
i loved this movie. it was fun, humorous, entertaining, and witty. the play was first performed in 1732 but i think the plot meets (and excels) today's standards. Mira Sorvino did a great job as did all of the other cast members.
if you liked Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest" or any Shakespearean style plots of mistaken identity, deception, lies, love, comedic betrayal, and that sort of thing, you will enjoy this movie.
(of course it is supposed to take place in France, but as everyone knows, they apparently all speak with English accents there. ha ha.)
if you liked Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest" or any Shakespearean style plots of mistaken identity, deception, lies, love, comedic betrayal, and that sort of thing, you will enjoy this movie.
(of course it is supposed to take place in France, but as everyone knows, they apparently all speak with English accents there. ha ha.)
Surely Ben Kingsley deserves the nickname "Sexy Beast" more for his role here
eddax20 June 2003
Egad, what a cheesy title. But since it's a period romance comedy and not a contemporary one, it's a little more excusable I guess. The plot is a gender-bender. Mira Sorvino, a princess, falls for a young hunk who's been brought up by his bachelor uncle (Ben Kingsley) and spinster aunt (Fiona Shaw). Unfortunately, they've taught him to hate her and all other women (oooooh!), as well as reject the notion of love, so she has to dress up as a man to infiltrate their household and get Mr. Studly to fall for her. However, her charms are so great that the whole family winds up falling for her.
Therein lies my moral quandary. Sorvino not only takes the trio of infatuations in her stride, she encourages all of them to selfishly accomplish her goal. Doesn't this make her an unworthy heroine then? Should we still be rooting for her when she breaks two hearts to attain one? I'm not sure if the ending is morally justified for suitable enjoyment of the movie, even if all parties involved eventually benefit by learning about the power of love. The sight of a simultaneously crushed Kingsley and Shaw are heartbreaking and put a damper on the happy ending. That aside, The Triumph of Love is a lovely display of fine actors having fun giving melodramatic performances.
Sorvino is a great choice for the lead role, if only for her naturally deep voice. Her facial features are soft but back then it wasn't an uncommon thing for nobles back then to be gentiles in looks and nature. I can't help but to compare her to the other period gender-bending actress, Gwyneth Paltrow, in Shakespeare in Love. Paltrow undeniably gives the superior performance, but I can't say if it wasn't because Shakespeare was a better movie. Shaw is an excellent actress who can portray romantic torment with both comedic and dramatic flair. Sir Ben Kingsley reminds me of an older Colin Firth, not looks-wise of course, but in that they both look adorable when demonstrating the melting of their icy exteriors. And oh my, is that Gandhi wearing a wig and nuzzling a boob? Surely he deserves the nickname "Sexy Beast" more for his role here than in his other movie of that title.
Therein lies my moral quandary. Sorvino not only takes the trio of infatuations in her stride, she encourages all of them to selfishly accomplish her goal. Doesn't this make her an unworthy heroine then? Should we still be rooting for her when she breaks two hearts to attain one? I'm not sure if the ending is morally justified for suitable enjoyment of the movie, even if all parties involved eventually benefit by learning about the power of love. The sight of a simultaneously crushed Kingsley and Shaw are heartbreaking and put a damper on the happy ending. That aside, The Triumph of Love is a lovely display of fine actors having fun giving melodramatic performances.
Sorvino is a great choice for the lead role, if only for her naturally deep voice. Her facial features are soft but back then it wasn't an uncommon thing for nobles back then to be gentiles in looks and nature. I can't help but to compare her to the other period gender-bending actress, Gwyneth Paltrow, in Shakespeare in Love. Paltrow undeniably gives the superior performance, but I can't say if it wasn't because Shakespeare was a better movie. Shaw is an excellent actress who can portray romantic torment with both comedic and dramatic flair. Sir Ben Kingsley reminds me of an older Colin Firth, not looks-wise of course, but in that they both look adorable when demonstrating the melting of their icy exteriors. And oh my, is that Gandhi wearing a wig and nuzzling a boob? Surely he deserves the nickname "Sexy Beast" more for his role here than in his other movie of that title.
Awful
littlesb11 May 2003
I gave this movie a rating of 1 (Awful). The only reason that it should even get a 1 instead of a big -0- is Ben Kingsley, who always shines not matter what terrible material is thrown his way.
Mira Sorvino is so out of her element here that as a viewer one simply can't get over the fact that she is even in such a piece.
Stupid, stupid story and horrible production. Do NOT waste your video rental $.
Mira Sorvino is so out of her element here that as a viewer one simply can't get over the fact that she is even in such a piece.
Stupid, stupid story and horrible production. Do NOT waste your video rental $.
Well Manicured
tedg27 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers herein.
Set physically in a well-manicured garden, managed by an obsessive gardener. Set philosophically in a similarly ordered mind-space, tended by two (co-equal) minds. Set dramatically in a narrative world formed by three cooperative directors (the original dramatist, the screen adapter, the filmer). Of these three, two of the affairs are false, and one is tentative. So we have the contemporary play audience flashed; we have the cinematic relationship similarly stuttered; we have the players playing actors playing roles (and one of these playing three roles to mirror the dramatist, adapter and filmer).
`Love's Labor's Lost/Twelfth Night' meets `Rosencrantz and Guildenstern' meets `Draughtsman's Contract.'
I love the idea, and appreciate the energy of the players and the apt set: that carried me over the flaws. But these flaws are significant: the excessive self-reference kills the rhythm of internal humor, the acting about acting seems downright silly in the many places where the enveloping direction was weak. The self-conscious editing was overly explicit, and could have easily been done precisely the same with bleeds instead of cuts with greater effect and no jarring.
In the case of Peploe, the intelligence outstrips the skill -- in the case of the players, it is the other way around. I think a better strategy would be to try different philosophies of acting rather all from the same tradition as we have here. A more fluid camera could have helped as well. As it stands, we have something worth watching with the potential to have been great. But it abdicated.
The director's credit at the beginning was one for the books. Perfect. It had the words stuck to the carriage wherein the characters are dressing as actors.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
Set physically in a well-manicured garden, managed by an obsessive gardener. Set philosophically in a similarly ordered mind-space, tended by two (co-equal) minds. Set dramatically in a narrative world formed by three cooperative directors (the original dramatist, the screen adapter, the filmer). Of these three, two of the affairs are false, and one is tentative. So we have the contemporary play audience flashed; we have the cinematic relationship similarly stuttered; we have the players playing actors playing roles (and one of these playing three roles to mirror the dramatist, adapter and filmer).
`Love's Labor's Lost/Twelfth Night' meets `Rosencrantz and Guildenstern' meets `Draughtsman's Contract.'
I love the idea, and appreciate the energy of the players and the apt set: that carried me over the flaws. But these flaws are significant: the excessive self-reference kills the rhythm of internal humor, the acting about acting seems downright silly in the many places where the enveloping direction was weak. The self-conscious editing was overly explicit, and could have easily been done precisely the same with bleeds instead of cuts with greater effect and no jarring.
In the case of Peploe, the intelligence outstrips the skill -- in the case of the players, it is the other way around. I think a better strategy would be to try different philosophies of acting rather all from the same tradition as we have here. A more fluid camera could have helped as well. As it stands, we have something worth watching with the potential to have been great. But it abdicated.
The director's credit at the beginning was one for the books. Perfect. It had the words stuck to the carriage wherein the characters are dressing as actors.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
Weirdly amateur
r_j_t_kelly14 August 2006
Yikes. This is pretty bad. The play isn't great to begin with, and the decision to transfer it to film does it no favours - especially as Peploe doesn't decide how she wants to treat the material's theatrical origins (we get occasional glances of an observing theatre audience etc.) and has decided to go with a jumpy editing style that is intended to keep reminding you that you're watching a film, whereas in fact it only serves to remind you that you are watching a very poor film by a director who is overwhelmed by her material. Mira Sorvino's central performance is breath-takingly poor: stage-y and plummy, it's as if she's playing the part via Helena Bonham-Carter's Merchant Ivory oeuvre. Only Fiona Shaw delivers a performance of note - and it may be that her theatrical pedigree means that she is best able to handle the material - but it's hard to watch a film for one performance alone, even if that performance is as light, truthful and entire as Shaw's. Ben Kingsley turns in an average and disengaged turn, and Diana Rigg's daughter, Rachel Stirling plays her supporting role as just that. Sadly, none of Bertolucci's magic has rubbed off on his wife if this film is to be the evidence.
This movie is pure torture.
mgressma17 April 2002
"The Triumph of Love" doesn't triumph over anything. It is a plodding, ponderous, 4 hours of torture. Actually it's a little less than 2 hours long, it just seemed much longer. It pains me to even think about the amateurish performances of such fine actors as Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw. The supporting players are not quite as awful. Maybe they were trying to be so over the top, so as to be clownish, but, if so, I didn't see it that way. Mira Sorvino doesn't make an impression one way or the other. She(he)'s just there. My guess is, the play of the same name, written by Marivaux some 270 or so years ago, is much better. It couldn't be any worse. Clare Peploe, the writer and director of this movie, was inspired by a recent production of the play. I don't know what she was thinking when she created this bomb.
Maybe it all got lost in the translation.
Maybe it all got lost in the translation.
Painful to watch
mxue7817 January 2007
I borrowed this movie from library think it might be delightful. How wrong am I!
It is such a bad movie that I have to write something about it. Mira Sorvino is SO bad in the movie, it is very painful to watch the scene with her. She is a pretty girl, but in this movie, She is not seductive at all, but I will have to witness her awkward attempt to seduce almost all the other major characters. It is so ridiculous.
And the dialog of the film is so pretentious, and lack the humorous fact that make then acceptable.
Totally failure.
It is such a bad movie that I have to write something about it. Mira Sorvino is SO bad in the movie, it is very painful to watch the scene with her. She is a pretty girl, but in this movie, She is not seductive at all, but I will have to witness her awkward attempt to seduce almost all the other major characters. It is so ridiculous.
And the dialog of the film is so pretentious, and lack the humorous fact that make then acceptable.
Totally failure.
Sumptuous,voluptuous,languid,clever and funny.
ianlouisiana17 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
An 18th century princess(Miss M.Sorvino) wants to restore the rightful heir to the throne of her country.He is incommunicado,living with a famous philosopher and his sister deep in the countryside.She decides the only way to get close to him is to seduce the philosopher,his sister and the prince himself in no particular order.Miss Sorvino has all the knowing innocence required of a Comedy Francaise heroine.Of course she is not in the least believable,but that's the whole point."The Triumph of love" is,in its entirety,an exercise in deception.But it is not a deception that is meant to fool anybody but the play's characters. The beauty of the film as an entity is quite overwhelming.The colour is exquisitely rendered,the lush grounds of the philosopher's house are as vividly verdant as a Brazilian rain forest. Each shot is carefully composed to show off the performers to their best advantage. None of the performances is particularly subtle,nor are they meant to be.This is not serious drama,nor serious anything else.We are seeing a filmed play,a comedy of the sort that was once popular all over Europe,Miss Peploe could not have made that much clearer short of putting the camera crew in the action. Miss Fiona Shaw is absolutely outstanding as the philosopher's sister.
Stolid Adaptation Of Pot-Boiling Comedy
boblipton18 June 2022
Princess Mira Sorvino feels guilty because her father is an usurper. She searches out the rightful king of her unnamed realm. He turns out to be Jay Rodan, maintained in luxurious exile in two villas in Lucca, guarded and instructed by stoic philosopher Ben Kingsley. Miss Sorvino falls in love with him on the instant, which proposes a happy solution. Donning male attire, she and her servant invade the precinct. By the end of the second act, she has seduced Rodan, Kingsley, and Kingsley's sister, Fiona Shaw, and her servant the remainder of the male company.
It's based on a comedy by ancien regime playwright Marivaux. The actors perform everything in a straightforward and serious style, which doesn't really work for a commedia del' arte piece, where everyone comments on their own bad behavior.
It's based on a comedy by ancien regime playwright Marivaux. The actors perform everything in a straightforward and serious style, which doesn't really work for a commedia del' arte piece, where everyone comments on their own bad behavior.
Love triumphs, but the film doesn't
divaclv1 December 2002
I really wanted to like "Triumph of Love;" several of the elements, in fact, might be organized into a film I could enjoy. There's the elegant period sets and costumes, the gender-bending undertones, a couple comic servants, and Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw giving fine performances as a pair of emotion-disdaining intellectuals who become undone by their own vanity. But "Triumph of Love," sadly, proves to be all promise and very little payoff.
Mira Sorvino is the princess of an unspecified (and presumably fictitious) country, who infiltrates the house of her political enemies disguised as a man. Her purpose is twofold: to right the wrongs wrought by her father on true heir to the throne Agis (Jay Rodan), and to win Agis' heart, which has been taught to disdain love by his guardians Hermocrates (Kingsley) and Leontine (Shaw). Since nobody can do anything the easy way in a story like this, Sorvino's character works towards her ends by wooing Leontine (who thinks she's a guy), Hermocrates, and Agis (both of whom are in on her ruse) at the same time. That's the setup; unfortunately, it's also the majority of the film. Comedy of this sort usually hits its stride when complications entangle the protagonist's original design. Here, the difficulties are introduced to late and resolved too quickly for us to care. Meanwhile, a handful of servants are thrown into the plot and then given almost nothing to do either within or apart from it.
Nor does director Clare Peploe help her case much. Several scenes consist of choppy, distracting cuts--and not even cuts from different angles, but cuts from the same angle, giving the impression of a bargain-basement film cobbled together with the only pieces of film that were usable. Images of a "modern-day" audience peeking in on the action add nothing to the procedings, and are introduced in such a way as to feel like an intrusion on the film, rather than a part of it.
For a much richer experience in this genre, I recommend the recent adaptation of Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night." Like "Triumph of Love," it features a cross-dressing heroine, romantic entanglements and misunderstandings, comical servants, and a good turn by Ben Kingsley in a supporting role. But it also contains infectuous life and energy and a story that dances merrily on its way rather than walking sedately. Also Imogen Stubbs, as the gender-defying central character, makes a much more convincing man than Mira Sorvino.
Mira Sorvino is the princess of an unspecified (and presumably fictitious) country, who infiltrates the house of her political enemies disguised as a man. Her purpose is twofold: to right the wrongs wrought by her father on true heir to the throne Agis (Jay Rodan), and to win Agis' heart, which has been taught to disdain love by his guardians Hermocrates (Kingsley) and Leontine (Shaw). Since nobody can do anything the easy way in a story like this, Sorvino's character works towards her ends by wooing Leontine (who thinks she's a guy), Hermocrates, and Agis (both of whom are in on her ruse) at the same time. That's the setup; unfortunately, it's also the majority of the film. Comedy of this sort usually hits its stride when complications entangle the protagonist's original design. Here, the difficulties are introduced to late and resolved too quickly for us to care. Meanwhile, a handful of servants are thrown into the plot and then given almost nothing to do either within or apart from it.
Nor does director Clare Peploe help her case much. Several scenes consist of choppy, distracting cuts--and not even cuts from different angles, but cuts from the same angle, giving the impression of a bargain-basement film cobbled together with the only pieces of film that were usable. Images of a "modern-day" audience peeking in on the action add nothing to the procedings, and are introduced in such a way as to feel like an intrusion on the film, rather than a part of it.
For a much richer experience in this genre, I recommend the recent adaptation of Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night." Like "Triumph of Love," it features a cross-dressing heroine, romantic entanglements and misunderstandings, comical servants, and a good turn by Ben Kingsley in a supporting role. But it also contains infectuous life and energy and a story that dances merrily on its way rather than walking sedately. Also Imogen Stubbs, as the gender-defying central character, makes a much more convincing man than Mira Sorvino.
ben, fiona, mira and more
cht10826 January 2004
the first 20 minutes, i too was skeptical but the film does blossom. don't be scared off by negative reviews; you have 108 minutes to spare. fiona shaw and ben kingsley both falling hard for mira is enough for anyone! hilarious and lovely.
Yeah. Whatever.
=G=31 October 2002
"Triumph of Love" is a silly little comedy about a woman (Sorvino) who dresses like a man to woo a woman and reveals her true sex to two men to woo them. The plot and her motives are elsewhere on this site. Having done that, she continues the scam on and on, engaging the trio of hapless would-be love interests over and over until the plot wears down to a nub. "Triumph..." is theater on film; a fact of which we're reminded by shots of an audience cloistered among the garden shrubs...an annoying interjection. A clumsy adaptation of theater for film, "Triumph..." will likely be of interest by only the most ardent aficionados of period plays. (C+)
Slow but still worthy of a watch
violetpassion26 November 2002
A "free" DVD loan from the library, Kingsley and Sorvino are the reasons to see this film.
TxMike14 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
THE TRIUMPH OF LOVE is a film based on a 1732 story, and has a Shakespeare feel to it. The critic Ebert has a very good, complete review. By today's standards the story is implausible, but the acting of Mira Sorvino as the young lady dressed up as a young man, and Ben Kingsley as the old philosopher, are reasons to see this film all the way through. If one can get past the implausibility, and just watch it for the performances, it can be an entertaining 106 minutes.
some SPOILERS follow ...
The sole objective of Sorvino's character, the usurper of the crown, is to get accepted at the home of the philosopher and his spinster sister, to get close to Agis the rightful heir whose parents had been killed. He was being trained to hate the princess, and his archery target practice was into the heart of a likeness of the princess. To further her objective, she successively convinces the sister, then the philosopher, then Agis that she (or he) wants to marry each. The whole film presents one of these stories where you wonder how she will get out of the current deception, and she always does.
In the end, "love triumphs", as the title indicates.
some SPOILERS follow ...
The sole objective of Sorvino's character, the usurper of the crown, is to get accepted at the home of the philosopher and his spinster sister, to get close to Agis the rightful heir whose parents had been killed. He was being trained to hate the princess, and his archery target practice was into the heart of a likeness of the princess. To further her objective, she successively convinces the sister, then the philosopher, then Agis that she (or he) wants to marry each. The whole film presents one of these stories where you wonder how she will get out of the current deception, and she always does.
In the end, "love triumphs", as the title indicates.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
