User Reviews

Lines like that are what really made me fall in love with "Impromptu". It is a movie that incorporates an array of delightful characters (and actors) that just suck you into the story. Though "Impromptu" is a period piece, it still has this certain modern air that other movies in this genre just don't have. The dialogue is superb in this, the character of George Sand (portrayed by an amazing Judy Davis) is one of the best I've ever had the pleasure of watching. Of course, this movie isn't going to be for everyone, but if you're interested in watching a different type of romance/comedy/drama, I truly recommend this. It is unique, it is real, it is wonderful.

I came to this movie looking for a glimpse into the lives of the four artists: Chopin, Sand, Delacroix and my favourite Liszt and got much more than I bargained for.

The setting is Paris of the 1830s, where the kids play "Cowboys & Indians" as "Revolutionaries & Noblemen", where hysterical aristocrats are back to hosting soirees and honourable men are fighting the last of the duels. Obviously no possibility of spoilers, with the narrative based on actual events, so most of the entertainment arrives in the form of fabulous performances, a terrific cast and of course gorgeous piano notes.

But the biggest surprise is the humour. Ranging from subtle to farcical, it serves to gulp down the dose of human emotions and failings nicely. Watch it if you like literature or art or classical music or history, but watch it if you like subtle entertainment on a Sunday afternoon.

Impromptu (1991),a very enjoyable period romance/biotic/dramedy based on the real events, portrays truly famous and even legendary figures of 19th Century culture such as George Sand, nee Aurora Dupin, Frederick Chopin, Franz Listz, Eugene Delacroix, and Alfred De Musset. The main heroine (or the hero) of the film is George Sand, who is equally known for her Romantic novels and her quite scandalous at the time way of life. For a young woman from the upper-class society, to leave her husband, take two children with her, make a living with her writing, and especially to show up in public wearing men clothing and openly smocking - it was shocking. To act like a man when it comes to love affairs - taking lovers when she felt like it and leaving them when the affair bored her was simply outrageous by the rules of the society. George Sand did not care; she had a strong personality and followed her own rules. Her contemporary, the Russian ex-patriot, famous novelist Ivan Turgenev said about her "What a brave man she was, and what a good woman." That's exactly who Judy Davis is playing in the little known but witty, intelligent, charmingly silly and believe it or not historically accurate movie called "Impromptu". It tells the story of the romance between strong and full of life George Sand and very talented romantic composer, Frederic Chopin whose music made her fall in love with him even before they met in person. It is difficult to imagine together two people more different than a delicate fragile Chopin who died young at the age of 39 from the lung illness and fiercely independent, notorious and unorthodox George/Aurora but their romance which was the union of two lovers, close friends, and eventually more like mother - son relationship is the historical fact. Hugh Grant in one of his earlier roles as young Polish composer and virtuoso piano-player is refined, well-mannered and very attractive. Actually all cast of the movie is delightful, Mandy Patinkin (Alfred de Musset), Jules Sands (Franz Listz), Bernadette Peters (Countess D'Agout, Listz lover, muse, and mother of his children who believed she could be even better muse for Chopin), and fabulous Emma Thompson who brought much appreciated comedy as Duchess D'Antan, rich aristocrat who sees herself as a patron of Art and the friend of the Artists. What the artists think of her is the different story.

Needless to say that the film is filled with the captivating music, charming costumes, and gorgeous locations. It is a hidden treasure and I am glad to have finally discovered it.

I first saw this film courtesy of "Masterpiece Theater", a weekly program presented by PBS -- had it not been for the good taste of one PBS program manager out there, I might never have seen this charming and provocative film.

Yes, it's a period piece. Yes, there are flounces and top hats and castles and duels. But the core of "Impromptu" explores love, jealousy, and the process of artistic creation in ways that keep the film captivating for the most jaded modern viewer.

Judy Davis capably assumes the mantle of convention-bucking authoress George Sand, providing a fiery counterpart to Hugh Grant's self-deprecating (and effective) Chopin. Mandy Patinkin shines as one of Sand's many jilted ex-lovers, and Bernadette Peters is maliciously admirable as Sand's "friend" who wants Chopin for herself. Emma Thompson's hilarious cameo as a dense provincial duchess itself provides almost enough reason to watch the film.

"Impromptu" boasts a great ensemble cast, witty dialogue, balanced humor and pathos, luscious period costumes and scenery, and the music of Chopin playing all the while -- what more could one want? "Impromptu" unfolds like a 19th-century soap opera, with arresting characters and meditations on art saving it from the banality of a typical romance...or a typical period piece.

This one's worth the flounces.

I saw this movie when it first came out 21 years ago and really liked it. On second viewing it didn't hold up so well, though. The sets and costumes are beautiful, such as you find in the best Merchant/Ivory films. The actors are all first rate. The problem is that the script is often either clichéd or silly - an adjective I don't think I've used in several decades. It's as if Merchant/Ivory left the writing of the script to the Woody Allen of Midnight in Paris. The various historical characters are all likable enough, and George Sand gets more fully developed as the movie progresses. Chopin comes off as a comical caricature, though, as does Musset - though he was probably rather like that in life. In fact, several of the Romantic artists who figure in this film probably did no little posing in their day, and may well have come off equally silly in real life.

There's no reason why a movie like this should provide uniformly serious or realistic portrayals of the artists involved. It's a feature film, after all, and not a documentary. And as a feature film it is wonderful to look at and often entertaining to watch.

For me, it would have been even more entertaining had it been a little less clichéd.

This excellently written, splendidly acted, marvellously sound-tracked and beautifully filmed picture is most probably the best film ever made on Chopin and Sand, that subject most difficult to approach without crashing into drab sentimentality. The film is a comedy solidly anchored in historical and biographical data and impregnated with a deep love for Chopin's music as well as an understanding of the complex relationship between him and Sand. Through its apparently light touch, the film manages to convey deep sorrow, longing, extatic joy and true sensuality (the scene where the relationship between Chopin and Sand becomes physical is a master example of how such scenes should be made: Sand's naked shoulder speaks more than hours and hours of steamy make-believe, because it is the spectator who fills in the experience in his mind). Anybody who has made music will recognise the excitement and satisfaction in the scene where Chopin and Liszt play à quatre mains and manage to find JUST the right note at JUST the right second. Witty, almost farcical comedy alternates with most delicate, expressive, sober dialogue - witness Judy Davis' face when Sand tells Chopin what the reality behind her free love propaganda is. Hugh Grant shows himself once again to be the good actor that he is when working with a good director - compare this film with "Maurice", "The Remains of the Day", "An Awfully Big Adventure". It is as if this film were an enchanted one, not a single element being amiss. And last but not least, it makes you fall in love with Chopin's music, in case for some reason it hadn't happened to you before.

Of the two Chopin biopics seen in the past month, Impromptu was the (much) better of the two. The other was 2002's Desire of Love, which looked and sound good but was tedious, disjointed and read of very badly written and done soap-opera. Impromptu could have been better, the ending was abrupt, the transition from Chopin's avoiding of Sand to loving her was rather rushed and underplayed and Lapine's direction was a mix of over-eager and stodgy at times, not always knowing what to do with the story. Impromptu is exquisite to look at though, it is so beautifully photographed and the sets, scenery and costumes are accurate and so lovingly rendered. You won't be disappointed by the music either, Chopin wrote some of the most beautiful and soul-searching of any composer and it is placed and played in Impromptu in a way that those involved know that. The writing has humour and pathos, there are some funny situations(the farce-play, you have to love Emma Thompson's facial expression when she realises it's about her) and doesn't forget to explore some of the social themes and oddities. The story is witty and charming on the most part and the characters are engaging and not too distorted in personality(though admittedly Chopin and Liszt are not quite as complex as they actually were), Georges Sand's character is the most interesting and Mandy Patinkin's character was so much fun that you wish there was more of him. Hugh Grant gives a nuanced performance as Chopin(if at times too healthy), while Emma Thompson is alluring and hilarious and Bernadette Peters gleefully portrays a character that is very easy to hate. Mandy Patinkin has some of the best lines and brings a huge deal of charm to whenever he appears, but the acting honours go to Judy Davis who is brilliant here, one of her best performances but sadly one of her lesser-known ones too. In conclusion, could have been better but it was good, at its best very good, and is the superior of the two Chopin biopics personally seen. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Whenever I get tired of the typical summer movie featuring highly evolved apes, genetically engineered dinosaurs, and other such foolishness, I pull out my (well-used) copy of "Impromptu," and all my blues go away. Far from an expensive, smug, carefully marketed blockbuster, "Impromptu" is a thinking person's film. The plot is cleverly constructed, the costumes are lovely, and most important: What A Cast!!! Any film that puts Bernadette Peters and Mandy Patinkin together is a winner in my book (those of us who are theatre junkies are aware of their previous marvellous collaborations), but this film manages to include Emma Thompson, Judy Davis, Julian Sands, and Hugh Grant. What fun!!!

This movie is about a George Sand, a woman with enough testosterone for two men, trying to seduce Chopin, a gay man with tuberculosis. His appeal to her is his fame and artistic ability. Because he is gay, he represents a challenge. Sand, had she been born today, would have been a transsexual.

Judy Davis brings tremendous energy to the Sand role. I'm surprised she is not already as famous as Glenda Jackson or Judy Dench.

I was quite disappointed in Hugh Grant's portrayal. His Chopin was as bland and dull a raw pork chop. He did not recoil at Sand's physical advances. Then of course with one kiss, he turned into a heterosexual. What nonsense! It would not have been anything like that. I can tell you from personal experience as a gay who has been in similar circumstances. But that's the writer's failure, not Grant's.

It is a movie about silly spoiled artists who abuse their wealthy patrons. It even makes you burst out laughing at a man getting shot.

The costumes and settings are so lush, you might just watch it for that.

With such a stellar cast and interesting subject (not to mention high marks on this site), it seemed this picture would be a delight and a treasure. Instead the plot is very short, tediously dragged out by the repetition of the same scenes over time: The Publisher's Room, The Ex-Lover, The Duel, The Come-On, The Visit. The best part of the film, where Emma Thompson delights as a daffy duchess, has no relationship to the rest of the picture. Themes are begun but never finished, and as the end credits ran, I cried out loud, "That's *it*?" I was willing to put up with the repetition in the hopes that the ending would somehow tie up the loose ends or show character development, but instead it was just plot, plot, plot. The actors played their parts well (I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of Grant's performance) but this is a film of no texture or depth. Definitely no reason to see it again.

This film is a little different than most "period" films in that its characters, although known historical figures, are real people and certainly not above swearing, throwing fits, drinking, smoking or carousing. A wonderful comedy romance with an outstanding performance by Judy Davis as George Sands.

It is also interesting to note how closely the plot of this movie resembles that of Renoir's classic "Rules of the Game": 1) group of romantically and socially inbred cityfolk go to the country, 2) romantic and social inbreeding continue in the country, 3) people slipping from room to room, 4) mistaken identity, 5) hunting in the woods, 6) big hunting scene, 7) gender-bending, 8) poking fun at the upper classes, and 9) climactic theater performance chock full of satire and causing some conflict. This similarity can be no accident.

On the face of it, this is quite a good movie. Judy Davis puts in an entertaining performance as the eccentric and lovelorn George Sand, Emma Thompson amuses herself, and us, as the slightly mad Duchess D'Antan along with Anton Rodgers as her lovably gruff and occasionally outraged husband. Mandy Patinkin, Julian Sands and Anna Massey all turn up for work with a zesty delight, hamming it up like nobody's business.

So far so very good. Everything rattles along charmingly, all and sundry delivering the amusingly droll script with great gusto and professionalism.

And then just as we settle down for 90 minutes of above average entertainment, Hugh Grant turns up and sinks the entire ship with all hands.

If I say that Hugh struggles manfully with an abysmal script, I would be lying. If I say that he presents us with a thoughtful portrayal of the tortured and sickly composer, rising to the challenge like the great actor he is (in some people's estimation), I would be guilty of gross misrepresentation. If I said that our highly regarded (at least by some people I know)and under talented leading man spends the entire movie looking like a terrified rabbit caught in the headlights of a speeding juggernaut, cowering with fear every time someone speaks to him and almost expiring with blind panic whenever George Sand is in the same room, my integrity and reputation as an honest man would be beyond doubt.

I don't know who Hugh Grant based his performance on, or if he even took the trouble to research his character, but what he ends up showing us is a kind of consumptive, cowering, idiot who could no more compose, or indeed play, some of the most exquisitely ethereal and beautiful music known to man than I could eat the Eiffel Tower. I doubt whether this preposterous character could play a triangle without quivering in fear, let alone a piano.

But never mind.

The movie is actually an entertaining take on the famous love story, presented by a who's who of (mostly) British actors in a beautifully designed and photographed period piece to a soundtrack of heavenly music. And an unintentionally laughable piano player.

Anyway, it's nice to see Hugh Grant in yet another comedy role.

Any other actor would have portrayed Chopin as a sensitive, soulful and talented composer.

It can be a disconcerting experience watching determined feminist George Sand pursuing such an insecure object of desire after the freethinking French author goes weak in the knees for the heavenly music of young Frederick Chopin. Judy Davis gets plenty of mileage out of Sand's confident iconoclasm (ignoring the low moment when she tries to win the composer's attention by exchanging her trademark trousers for a lacy dress patterned after the Polish flag), and her lively performance goes a long way toward overcoming the inadequacies of a script that is less witty than it would have us believe. For everyone else in the cast it's simply a costume party, and director James Lapine leaves them free to indulge in some shameless overacting (Emma Thompson, in particular, gives a rare irritating performance). The whole thing doesn't amount to anything more than a shallow, highbrow romantic comedy, but at least the music is good, and if nothing else the film helped support the costume design industry for several weeks.

When I saw this during its theatrical release, it was one of the few films for which I hadn't prepared myself by reading printed reviews and checking out available TV commentators. Therefore my enjoyment was, perhaps, a little keener than it might have been otherwise. I wasn't expecting the definitive biographical treatment of the various famous artists depicted and I'm sure that wasn't the intention of the film-makers. Instead it looks like they achieved exactly what they intended, enabled by a gifted cast (especially the marvelous Judy Davis), a witty script and quite adequate (though not luxurious) production values. I suppose the ultra-demanding can complain about virtually everything in this production, but, my goodness!, it's far and away more entertaining and adult than nearly 100% of the big special effects extravaganzas pandering to today's sensation-seeking audiences.

NOT worth owning - which for me is one big criteria. There are good actors, the acting is barely ok. The story is a bit boring, the characters try very hard to act the famous artists but are so alike that it gets boring. And the main part of the story, namely George Sand pursuing Chopin, almost takes a second seat - and then when it comes to a conclusion we have The End. Missing out on the super-dull like Sand and Chopin had in Spain, until Chopin was brought back to Poland by his sister, wrote and played passionate powerful music again, and died. I guess this would have been to much for a movie that only wanted to be calm, mildly entertaining, middle-of-the-road.

Again, DON'T buy the DVD, renting it is plenty (and I'd be surprised you'd want to rent it again).

Antoine

Recently re-watched this movie and I am going to buy some of Chopin's music. I just loved the story and the acting-I thought Judy Davis and Hugh Grant were fantastic. It is the kind of a story that remains in the back of your mind and need to watch it over again--that is my mark of a great movie!

I saw this in the cinema back in 1993 and I'm not surprised to hear snoring from one of the patrons. Perhaps if I saw it again I would be thrilled by seeing Hugh Grant before he became Hugh Grant. I know I'll cop flack for this, but the pace was rather languid. I didn't expect Keanu Reeves to pop up, but I think a reboot should be directed by Michael Mann please and starring Danny Dyer.

It doesn't happen often that one knows the portrayed characters better than the cast, however star studded this production is.

And it is amazing what they all achieve ! These great actors really come close of BEING the Sand, Liszt, d'Agoult & Chopin you think you know after reading and listening as much as possible about them.

It's a costume drama which is nicely tuned down, no need for grand sets when the principal & supporting cast is so flamboyant and magnificent.

Of course, the music for the soundtrack is a pure delight too. Is all truly marvelous then ? Well, alright, the accents of Chopin & especially Liszt were ludicrous. Liszt was raised speaking French, and never managed to utter more then one sentence in his 'native' Hungarian. Stylized Chopin was brought up in the aristocratic circles of Poland, knowing the French language better then his 'own' tongue.

Silly, but forgivable, since it is the only flaw in this wonderful film. Thank you Judy Davis, Bernadette Peters, Julian Sands, Hugh Grant, Randy Patinkin; and of course Sand, Liszt, d'Agoult, Chopin, Delacroix...

Impromptu is ambitious like its protagonist Chopin but it looks average unlike him. A classical French drama presented in a contemporary light works on a leisurely script to attract today's audience. The comedy is a biography of the musical genius Chopin depicting him as an ebullient clown replacing the prevailing notion of him being a lonely personality that's been musing in his loss. There is a lovable side to Chopin's frugal lifestyle in the blissful country outside Paris with a gifted group of close friends. But that's where the problem could lie, our hero is intimidated by a busier than thou world as he creates an artificial space around him and that is moving.

The film has dedicated under acting but uses poor language and much could be done here given that the film is still working inside France. For the dark comedy it is there is no depth understandably, but it makes the film impersonal and estranged.

All this put together ends in a scary duel scene with Chopin having to fight for his ideas but this does not go too badly as we are treated with a happy ending.

The fatalism is not missing as we witness a pure opera with all its elation and scares created by the pathbreaking composer. The film makes a connection between the ordinary world and the higher and special genius of man and is able to achieve a level of trust here that's quite rare and worth lauding.

I am writing this because I've read 10 reviews and people seem to be taking this movie seriously. I don't understand. It's clearly a silly spoof of a film, not to be taken the least bit seriously. It's somewhat entertaining in that regard, though not particularly inspired. The acting is passable - though the more this is seen as intentionally silly, the better I would rate the acting. Whether it does the least bit of justice to George Sand, I'm not sure, but I hope not. Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant are pretty much wasted, since they are not especially comedic actors. Though as usual I enjoyed watching the sublime Mandy Patinkin, he can do no wrong in my eyes...

Anyway, just don't expect a serious drama here...

I absolutely loved this movie. It was really enjoyable. The other thing that i would have against it, was that no one ever called Chopin by his first name. Which was really unusual, as everyone else was addressed by their first name, and friends don't really call their friends by their last name. If only they had called Chopin, Frederic, then i wouldn't have a single thing to say against it. I thought that the acting was done very very well, and all of the actors portrayed very believable and at times very funny characters. Malfie certainly provided a lot of laughs, as did most of the other characters. I highly recommend this film to everyone, and i give it a 10/10.

The whole story revolves around the beguiling novelist, George Sand (Judy Davis) and the emotional fallout from her past and future romantic conquests. Past conquests being composer/pianist Franz Listz (Julian Sand), novelist Félicien Mallefille (Georges Corraface) and poet Alfred de Musset (Mandy Partinkin). Future conquests being one, composer/pianist Frederic Chopin (Hugh Grant).

Sand is presented as a femme fatale. Problem is ... she just isn't. The movie doesn't capture her supposed charms. I'm not sure I liked her, much less fell victim to her charms.

As for Chopin: Vanilla. Non descript. Absolutely no insight into his genius or motivations. He's the protagonist's love interest but he plays as a minor character. I'm not sure I liked him, much less felt convinced of his genius.

The movie starts as a romantic farce and seems to be going for a 'Start-the-Revolution-Without-Me' vibe (1970. Gene Wilder. Amazing. Rent it!) in which Duchess d'Antan (Emma Thompson) is presented as a dotty, but likable, fan girl. She seems important to this romantic farce but then - when the movie turns from romantic farce to just movie-of-the-week - she kinda just disappears.

Countess Marie d' Agoul (Bernadette Peters) is the unhappy, perpetually pregnant lover of Franz Liszt but no explanation is ever offered as to why they'd be together. She's tired, bored and without any stated talent or attraction. If not for Bernadette Peter's natural charisma, I wouldn't have bought this relationship at all. (Fun fact: when I Googled Agoul, I learned she had, in fact, been an author and historian. That was not communicated).

Like day-old soda, Impromptu promised a good time but, ultimately, fell flat.

I stumbled upon this movie last week and being a British acting fan tried to get into it. Alas, some twenty minutes after, I began to deliberate if it were a parody, a pastiche or some sort of deep-hidden irony. Hugh Grant being traditionally Hugh Grantish and in a ridiculous wig trying to convince us he is a tormented and terminally ill artist is beyond parody. I think he must be seriously ashamed of his input in the movie, and that goes for most of the cast.