User reviews

Two storylines (past + present) CAN work in films but it's a delicate balance. Honestly, the present day romance should have dropped and the 1960s story should have been the focus. As it were, the present day story tried to be a rom-com which wasn't very funny and the 1960s got shortchanged with too many montage sequences to tell the story instead of actual scenes. Montages don't build feelings for the characters! Cinematography and costumes and lighting in the 1960s story was gorgeous. A lot of potential here, but it should have been a limited series instead of a movie in order to do the book justice.

It's 1965 London. Jennifer Stirling (Shailene Woodley) returns home to her husband Laurence (Joe Alwyn) after a stay in the hospital. They're wealthy from the stuffy upper crust of society. It's a loveless and childless marriage. He's controlling and she's pining for escape. The couple goes on vacation. Reporter Anthony O'Hare (Callum Turner) arrives to interview Laurence. In modern day London, Ellie Haworth (Felicity Jones) is a dissatisfied single gal. She's been assigned to write a bio for a former editor of her paper. She had recently died and left her archival material with the paper. Ellie finds a mysterious love letter which intrigues her to investigate further.

I like the start. It has good potential although the back and forth in time period always held a danger to the narrative flow. One side or the other could falter and stall the entire movie. To me, the emotional high point is the dinner early in the movie. This is a movie about Jennifer seeking independence from Laurence more than about a love story between Jennifer and Anthony. On top of that, they do the Love Affair turn going to meet on top of the Empire State Building. I'm disappointed that they're doing this old trope. Quite frankly, I'd rather have him die and she has to find independence by herself. The other side has a smaller issue for me. I want Rory to be more. They try to do the combative meet-cute between Ellie and Rory but he doesn't hold up his side of the bargain. He's too weak to fight back. This is an old style romance and there is nothing wrong with that. It's simply not anything more than passable.

As always, the book is by far better than the movie. The casting felt off, chemistry between actors wrong, and the changes made to accommodate a movie version were unfortunate. Overall, without the book it's a fine movie...I'd say skip the movie, read the book!

It was, in general, a good film. However, the story was very much changed from the original one and that prevented me from enjoying it completely.

3 out of 5 stars.

Fair romantic drama film which has a similar to premise from other romantic films. Sweet cast ensemble. Cute drama story. The direction is dull with the present story.

The Last Letter from Your Lover is a movie that starts it's presentation by throwing a concept at you that takes time to digest in your mind. Right in the very few minutes of the movie it takes time for the audience to completely blend in with the environment, but once it's done you find a river of elements flowing at soothing speed. The two main focus of the movie Shailene Woodley and Felicity Jones gave quite an unique performance that perfectly gets mixed with everything else. The screenplay could have shined more with a little bit more polish. The story itself brings many questions to us about what's gonna happen next or how it's gonna end etc. Though because of some predecessors it gets quite predictable to the audience but thanks to the direction and presentation, even with all that we stay intrigued about how the final act will drop before the curtains get closed. Overall it's a movie you can definitely suggest someone to enjoy on their weekend. In terms of watching it stands as a movie that you wanna watch for once only and keep the memory of it instead of going back to it for many more times.

This is the Hollywood version of Veer Zaara! Given the 6 stars only for the acting!

The story was quite moving and had very nice cinematography. Most of the acting was quite good except for Shailene Woodley. If not for her, I would have given it 8 stars.

Secret love letters from 1965? The aristocracy of NYC and across the pond? Old books and archives at a newspaper? Oh yeah, we're making a cliché romance drama, but in a surprising twist for Netflix, it ends well. Perhaps because it's based on a book, but if you like Soaps, need a good cry, or just like cliché romance stories, this is for you.

I love Shailene Woolley, but this wasn't her best acting. Specifically, I sort of hated how she was speaking, while reading her love letters in the background...it just felt very forced. Perhaps that's how the letters in the book were written, but they could have changed those a bit to make it sound less stuffy. I mean who writes like that? I can tell you that my grandparents certainly didn't.

These aren't great letters, they aren't really dynamic characters, but the actors weren't terrible, so that was a saving grace. I liked Felicity Jones for the role of kitschy journalist/investigator. Somewhat flat on character development, but for what it was, it's a watch for a rainy day. I watched it to revel in the 1960's crème de la crème, so if that's your thing, you too might relish the background scenery - boats, cars, European vacation homes circa 1960. They must have had a nice budget to do this film :-)

Summary

The film is a kind of epistolary novel that effectively combines and articulates romantic melodrama and comedy to tell us two stories that take place in two different eras and to get in tune with them.

Review:

While undertaking a journalistic investigation, Ellie (Felicity Jones) finds a romantic letter from an enigmatic man in the 1960s to Jennifer, a married woman. With the help of Rory, the archivist of the newspaper where she works (Nabhaan Rizwan), she tries to find more letters to reconstruct the story of those two lovers.

The film basically develops two timelines. In the 60s (which is not linear), we see Jennifer married to Laurence (Joe Alwyn), an English millionaire businessman. While they are both on vacation on the Côte d'Azur, she meets her lover, Anthony, a journalist (Callum Turner). The other line, in principle secondary, is the one corresponding to Ellie and Rory.

Deliberately, director Augustine Frizzell uses two different registers for both narrative lines. For Jennifer, the romantic and glamorous melodrama, supported by a beautiful reconstruction of the period. I say glamorous because Jennifer's is a wealthy marriage and her wardrobe, the Côte d'Azur locations and the luxurious English house where she lives give her that character. This tone may seem somewhat anachronistic to some, but there is no doubt that this chronicle of lovers, with their dilemmas and disagreements, refers to a lot of cinema from that time (and earlier) and that is why the film adopts it, although without overflowing.

The current history record is obviously more modern, with Ellie as a professional, independent woman and little affect on commitments, in a subplot that shows that disagreement sometimes transcends technologies. However, we will understand that her interest in the letters written by Anthony is not accidental. On the other hand, the articulation of both lines and styles through the letters that appear introduces the story to the field of the epistolary novel.

It is interesting to note which of the two narrative registers will finally prevail when both stories somehow converge, in a film that will not generate passions but that is well constructed.

If you like Felicity Jones, then see "Last Letter." Felicity Jones is smokin hot!!