I am struggling with this review more than usual because there is a lot to like about this film and I don't want to dismiss it too quickly or tell you not to see it. No, my advice is to see it but understand its limitations and try to look past them.

This basic story is that of "Madame Bovary"--which, coincidentally, I watched just a week ago. Like Bovary, the main character in "Ryan's Daughter" (Sarah Miles) is a rather immature and emotionally shallow lady who ruins her life with an affair. But, there are many, many changes from the original tale--the least of which is relocating the tale to Northern Ireland during WWI. Instead of the somewhat moralistic and depressing ending, "Ryan's Daughter" has an oddly vague ending where no one at all dies! Yet, in Bovary (at least the book), practically everyone is dead by the time the book is complete! The biggest change, however, is that David Lean has managed to stretch this story--making it very, very long and rather slow-paced. This isn't all bad--as the film is a delight to the senses with its amazing cinematography and scenery. Despite criticism by reviewers at the time about the pacing, I don't think this is THAT serious a problem. Yes, it's too slow, but made so beautifully that I could easily look past this.

So what, then, are the more serious problems? Well, the number one problem is the exact same one you'll find in Bovary--there really are no likable characters in the tale. The title character and her father (Leo McKern) are, frankly, 100% awful and easy to hate. Even the wronged husband (Robert Mitchum) is easy to dislike after a while because he's such a flaccid jerk--no man is THAT long-suffering unless he's an idiot! Less serious, but still a problem, is the seriously confusing character of the Priest (Trevor Howard). He is so inconsistent and much of what he says and does seems as if it was drawn from a hat--especially the ending where he admonishes the husband NOT to divorce his slutty wife! Why?! A real priest might have admonished the man not to murder her, perhaps! The third problem is the music. While at times it's wonderful, too often it's used inappropriately--practically destroying scenes by dominating the film. It's used, at times, like a sledgehammer.

Now despite these serious story problems, see this film. I nearly gave it an 8 but after thinking it over, I realized that serious plot problems can't be ignored...not when they are that important to the story. What did I like? Well, other than the amazing cinematography, I thought the acting was almost universally exceptional. While some complain about Mitchum's accent, I thought he was just fine--even if he played way against type (a typical Mitchum character would have kicked butt, that's for sure). Sarah Miles was great. I was not bowled over by John Mills' performance to understand why he got an Oscar--but he was still very good. Leo McKern was fantastic. But why Christopher Jones?! First, they had to dub him. Second, he and his character were totally wooden (no this is not meant as an innuendo but a comment about his leg). You could NOT understand why Miles fell for such a man...a man with almost no discernible personality. I did like the townspeople and their reaction to the revelations about the adultery was exciting and savage. And so, despite flaws, there is so much to admire about the film--and I'm glad I saw it.

A final word of caution. The film is about adultery and features some adult sex scenes--think about this before letting young kids watch it.