Am I the only one who thought this sucked? ...

Rating: Null/10 (17 March 2001)

... I swear I must be.
This is one of those movies where they show you then end at the beginning of the movie then (in this case) spend over 3 hours showing you how the characters got there. That tactic only works when the end teases you (this one doesn't), and the movie isn't so long that you are praying for people to die so the film will finally stop. I swear I just didn't care about any character by the end of the movie.
Other comments: Willem Defoe's (a great actor in my opinion) character was odd, out of place, and never fully explained. My thought is that initially his role was much more prominent and when the first cut went 5 hours, they decided to trim his screen time. The result? His character adds nothing, causes too many questions and frustrates people like me who get irritated when characters swoop in and out of a film irrationally.
Re: costuming... Lovely and totally unrealistic. I got really tired of seeing people in perfectly-pressed Banana Republic linen after spending days in sand storms (don't even get me started on the perfect make up and hair).
Finally, plot basis: Is anyone else bothered by the fact that most current romantic movies are based on adultery? This one is no different. Now I am no prude, but I was having a REAL problem wishing for Finnes and Scott Thomas to get it on, because she is married. I don't care if her husband is an ass. I also found it improbable that her hubby would be so blantantly adulterous given the time era, and uncomfortable that she kept putting herself in improper situations (like travelling with another man).
All in all, it was a pretty flick, but in no way worthy of such an indulgent length, and certainly not of Best Picture status.
Postscript: Binoche is fantastic in this film and definitely the hightlight.