Rating: 
Summary: The saddest role played by Gillian Anderson.
Review: The House of Mirth is the first time Gillian Anderson made me forget about Scully, because she was totally transformed in this tearjerker period piece. I had never imagine her in such a difficult role and she gave a multi-layered and powerful performance. With a superb supporting cast, she still managed to carried the film all the way to the end.
Anderson plays a high society single-lady in search of a healthy husband, because she grew up in proverty, and dued to her gambling addiction and bad investment with Dan Arkroy who scammed her money, she was going through bankruptcy. Her aunt rejected her, her friend(Laura Linney) walked away on her, and she rejected her only true suitor(Anthony Lapilliga). She ended up having to work in a factory, and got fired dued to her poor skill. The last person she could turn to was a man(Eric Stolce) who really loved her, but she didn't want to burden him.
She had reached the point of no return and her life was at a deadend, and she made her final choice.....
I was told by a friend of mine that the title of this movie is inappropriate, because there was no mirth in it. It's full of pain, sadness, and chaos. It must be an irony. Gillian Anderson sure made it more enjoyable to watch this depressing film. It's the ultimate anti-Xfiles performance she's ever done, and she deserved the best actress award that she won in Brittan!
Rating: 
Summary: Wow!
Review: I had no idea that Gillian Anderson was such a fine actress. Her performance was on the level of a great. I do mean a "great." Gosh it has been a heart wish since the 50's for a "great" to emerge. Meryl Strep has been a contender but that winner is Gillian Anderson.
No one is watching the movie for the movie in my opinion. The movie itself is a little pressed for time and has some disjointed jolts. It is to watch a magnificent performance by Gillian Anderson.
Who could have known that under all that X-Files goofiness was a great? She's a great. I'll go to my grave swearing that. You see it here. A classical great!
Rating:
Summary: Fine Adaptation of Wharton's "The House of Mirth"
Review: Director Terence Davies and a brilliant cast headed by Gillian Anderson - best known for her work on the popular science fiction television series "The X-Files" - offer a mesmerizing look at the dark underside of Edwardian New York City high society in this faithful adaptation of Edith Wharton's novel "The House of Mirth". Gillian Anderson offers the performance of her career in her absorbing portrayal of the ill-fated Lily Bart. Eric Stoltz is equally impressive as her would-be lover of modest financial means, and both Anthony La Paglia and Dan Aykroyd offer splendid performances too. Aside from Gillian Anderson, the most impressive actress in the cast is Laura Linney, portraying Bart's best "friend". Glasgow, Scotland is an effective substitute for New York City's long-vanished Victorian architecture. Without question, this is a fine film worth seeing not only for Gillian Anderson's triumphant performance.
Rating:
Summary: Heartbreaking
Review: It doesn't seem to matter how good a story is, and The house of Mirth is good, casting the right players makes the difference between great and dismal. Dan Akroyd seems to be reading his lines off a nearby wall. Gillian Anderson is beautiful but doesn't elicit sympathy for her role as 'heroine led astray'. Eric Stoltz is a fantastic actor but even he seems to struggle. The movie has sumptuous wardrobe and settings done with meticulous detail. Even so,it's hard to watch without wincing at Akroyd's embarrassing performance or hoping that the heroine falls in the mud.
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Effort
Review: This film version of Edith Wharton's "The House of Mirth" should be commended as a good attempt to bring the classic 1900's novel of manners to the big screen. However, while the director makes a laudable effort to adhere to the text, there are too many missing pieces to encompass the entirety of the tragedy that is Lily Bart. The removal of key sequences and themes - her parental influences, the irony of charity, her personal fear of filth and dinginess, Selden's role as a spectator and Lily's art, and the final scene with Netty's baby - leaves us with a separated, disjointed view of Lily. In short, the lack of setting and background means that if you have not read the book, you will not like this film. It leaves too much to the imagination.While Gillian Anderson gives a good portrayal of Lily, the other actors hardly do their characters justice. Dan Aykroyd should stick to "Ghostbusters" or "My Girl" rather than attempting Gus Trenor; he simply doesn't fit this role. Elizabeth McGovern is blunt and leaves me cold, when her written character has far more heart than we are given in this interpretation. Eric Stoltz's portrayal of Selden is perhaps the most divergent from the character we know in the novel, but apart from a bad interpretation of the character the actor himself comes across as insincere - he is not Wharton's Lawrence Selden. Overall, the film is good, but it lacks the emotion, the background, and the establishment of setting that would have made it great. Granted, the two hour time of the film would have been far longer if the things I have pointed out were to be included, but maybe someday the BBC or A&E will take on the project and do it the full justice it deserves. But until then, do yourself a favour and read the book - and leave this film on the shelf until you do.
Rating:
Summary: Uneven performance
Review: The biggest flaw to this movie is the uneven performance put up by Anderson. She is great in the first half an hour, but her performance degenerates into pity (much like the character she plays) and unconvincing for the rest of the film. Aykroyd just looks and acts ridiculous as the married seducer, probably the worst cast role in the film. For some reason I never developed a full sympathy for Lily Bart. It could have been a great film, but the rather theatrical direction leave the film cold.
|
