Rating: 
Summary: This is not Oscar Wilde!
Review: This movie is a travesty - Wilde must be turning in his grave. Presumeably slanted - and mercilessly edited - for modern American audiences, it has lost all of its intended Victorian upper-class humor, innuendo, and devastating put-downs. What is so sad is that Dame Judi Dench is totally out of her depth - she seems to be struggling lamely in the shadow of Edith Evans, not knowing quite how to treat the role of Lady Bracknell, and losing the struggle in the process. The rest of the cast are quite inconsequential. Comparisons may be unfair, but perhaps inevitable, and to my mind quite justifiable in this case.
Rating: 
Summary: Where did the charitable gentleman...find you?
Review: Oscar Wilde's comedic play, which largely pokes fun at the pretensions of society, is a sure winner in most any setting. This latest film version does not fail but it falls a bit short, especially by comparison with the 1952 movie of the same name.Bachelor gentlemen John Worthing and Algernon Moncrief are both less than earnest in representing their identities and activities to those who know them. Their double dealing naturally gets them in a pickle, in particular, as they attempt to woo certain young ladies. This masterful comedy is full of one surprise after another, leading to a climax that resolves certain mysteries of identity that occur early in the story. The 1952 film version of "Earnest," with Michael Redgrave and an outrageously funny Edith Evans as Lady Bracknell, is a classic rendition of this play that shouldn't be missed. The present version adds certain settings and devices, apparently designed to appeal to a contemporary audience, none which improve the original. For example, there is tatooing, kissing, burlesque dancing and impromptu musical performances by Worthing and Moncrief. None of these events were in the play and they all seem out of place in a Victorian setting--serving, in the end, only to diminish the humor that arises when the script is set in contrast with a straight-laced background. The present film leaves out great lines by Miss Fairfax to Worthing where she suggests that gentlemen practice proposing. It also changes a piece of the climax when Worthing searches for General Moncrief's name in the military records. The ladies hats are not silly as they are in the original film and the timing of the lines seems a bit off. This film is worth seeing on its own; but I highly recommend the 1952 version as a much superior version.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Movie
Review: Although I don't usually enjoy independent films, this movie was one of the best I have seen in years. The writing is witty and layered, the acting is top-notch and the production is excellent-not what you might expect from an independent film. This movie is well-worth your time.
Rating: 
Summary: pretty good version
Review: all things considered this is a typical hollywood embellishment of a classic play. i went primarily to see colin firth because there isn't enough film out there with him in it. i thought rupert everett looked ghastly-too much makeup-and he appears to play the same role over and over, a waste of his talent. he'll end up like hugh grant-no range. reese witherspoon seemed to be sleepwalking in the role and judi dench was also repeating herself. i expected better from the cast and filmakers but i loved colin firth. by the way, where do these guys get off playing young gents in their thirties?
Rating:
Summary: God-Awful.
Review: Watching this short film was the most unfulfilling experience I've had since Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. The actors managed to pull off the dialogue without a scintilla of charm or wit. I realise these actors must have had little time preparation, but there was no chemistry or flair in any of them. Even Rupert Everett played the very same part much better in An Ideal Husband. And Reese Witherspoon, who can usually bring something to a film, came off as bland and full of blonde cheer. Colin Firth was obviously a bad choice. Firth played the role the same way he played his character in Bridget Jones's Diary, but instead of seeming subtle with a promise of charm again...in Importance, he came off as dull and colourless. The hour and and 20 minutes is not worth the price of a ticket. You'll want them to pay you for watching.
Rating:
Summary: The Importance of "Seeing" Earnest
Review: Since I have not read the play by Oscar Wilde nor seen any previous performances of this work, I came into this movie completely unprejudiced, and left utterly delighted. I thought the film was hilarious; in particular the interplay between the two male leads, Colin Firth (Jack)and Rupert Everett (Algy). Judi Dench, as the austure Lady Bracknell, is of course perfection, and although less impressive, yet still quite good, are the two romantic interests of the gentlemen: Francis O'Connor (Gwendolyn) and Reese Witherspoon (Cecily). The tangled webs woven by our two heroes lead to some wonderful moments for Firth and Everett, especially when Algy shows up at Jack's manor to woo the fair Cecily. The scenes where Jack takes matters into his own hands had the audience roaring, and it was a treat to see Mr. Firth in a more playful role then is his usual.
There is also a sort of side plot involving the vicar (Tom Wilkinson)and Cecily's tutor (Anna Massey) which is also quite entertaining, and both actors display their humourous sides most credibly. All in all, a wonderful movie. I thought it was a shame, however, that the studio saw fit to release it only as a limited engagement. I, myself, had to drive nearly 200 miles to view this gem(well worth the trip, I might add), yet the lack of accessability disturbed me as it seemed to assume that only those in "larger metropolitan areas" would make the effort. Well, not only did I make the effort, I fully intend to purchase the DVD when it is released, and am looking forward to that date with relish, so that I may watch Firth and Everett over and over and over....
Rating:
Summary: The Importance of Being Earnest
Review: Great cast who do an excellent job with the script. I have read the play, and the way Parker opened it up was, in my opinion, essential (in the main) in modernizing what is a rather dated plot. Wonderful bon mots and epigrams still
have their punch as delivered by a very talented and well chosen cast. Enjoyable and fun. Will see it again, and hope it will open in more theatres. I'll definitely buy it when it comes out on DVD or Video. Both thumbs up!
Rating:
Summary: Worth seeing (and hearing) for Colin & Rupert's duet!
Review: I did enjoy seeing this film - but I'm disappointed with some of the additions, inclusions & exclusions. What's with the dancing girls? And why was the tattoo on the bum part INcluded and some of the best dialogue EXcluded? Even so, the dialogue was quite true to the original script, but the time period seemed more like the early 20th century - style of music & costumes, a motor car - than the late 19th. It was kind of strange to see Colin Firth almost giddy, but in any case, it was fun to watch and I enjoyed the duet of Colin & Rupert.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining, diverting, but average
Review: This film has been compared to the recent An Ideal Husband, but unfairly. It lacks the wit, charm, and dazzle of An Ideal Husband. The casting is not quite right. Judi Dench is marvellous as the sour dowager, but then she always is and maybe a more atypical actress would have lent some energy since Dench's character is not only so intrinsic but also, in comparison to how the others are watered-down or stereotyped, more important. Still, you're thankful when she is on the screen because you know you'll see some good acting. This is no criticism of Colin Firth. He does a good job, although he gives a somewhat uneven performance, not sure if he should be rakish or conservative, comedic or serious. Rupert Everett is overcast -- he plays his only character, a drawling rakish ne'er-do-well, once more in this film like he has in all his others. It's getting trite. Too, he never quite brings the comedy of his character out, giving us a rather bland performance as if he too is bored with seeing himself in this type of role once again. His character spends a lot of time running through the streets of London pursued by his creditors, which gets annoying pretty quickly. The woman playing Gwendolyn is just too too much -- very desperate and aggressive in shall we say a romantic sense, reminding one of a nympho. It goes too far, so comedy and absurdity is lost to silliness and overacting. Reese Witherspoon is all right but is frankly far too old to be playing an 18-year old ingenue. She has a surprisingly good English accent, however. Some scenes based on Witherspoon's character's romantic fantasies are silly too, like dressing Everett in a suit of armor, for instance, and putting him on a white horse to come do some rescuing. Again, too trite. The cast doesn't work together all that well -- performances are choppy within the ensemble and what should be the high comedic points are toned down as if they didn't know what to do with them. One gets the sense that there weren't enough rehearsals. The costumes are pretty but made of modern fabrics, detracting from the period piece, and the sets are overly ornate so that often the actors disappear into them. Some of the lines are funny, but most are not -- Wilde's play has changed significantly in the hands of the filmmakers, and what was joyful and caustic is now rather bland. I started looking at my watch about halfway through. Of course, you do get nearly two hours of Colin Firth, who has never looked better. I'm not a big fan of his, but I believe that the cost of the ticket was worth that.
Rating:
Summary: Displays signs of triviality -- and we're all the better for
Review: When I'd heard that director Oliver Parker had taken Oscar Wilde greatest play and fed it through a blender, adding ingredients of his own to the mixture, I wasn't amused. "Earnest", to me, is one of the most perfect confections in the history of English writing. Tampering with its greatness would only produce a dish more suited to the dog's bowl, I thought. Thankfully, I was wrong. Parker has opened-up the play, setting scenes, that used to take place merely in drawing rooms or country houses, in the streets of London, in pubs, and in brothels. He's added interpretations that enhance the more fantastic elements of the play (of note: Cecily imagining Algernon, literally, as her knight in shining armour). And he's even created new plot lines and new bits of dialogue that fit in perfectly with the ethos and style of Wilde. Fortunately, he's chosen to keep my two favourite lines from the play ("To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness" & "He seems to have had great confidence in the opinions of his physicians"; however, they are paraphrased in the film). They got some of the biggest laughs in the film, further proof that Oscar Wilde, while being definitely of his time, was a writer of pure timelessness. This is not your father's "The Importance of Being Earnest", and should never be mistaken with the authority that is the source material. But it is a fine introduction to Wilde for a modern audience. I do recommend that those who enjoy the movie don't stop here. Read the original play, and discover even more joys. The cast are all game for any changes Parker has thrown at them. It's a fun, riotous bunch that never forgets that, even though this is a period piece, it's still an Oscar Wilde period piece. And thus not to be taken too seriously. Colin Firth, who's played this kind of Darcy-fied character before, actually puts a new spin on Jack (a.k.a. Ernest) Worthing. He's got a glint of mischief in his eye that Jack never had on the page. And he even gets to play the amorous and playful fool at times, even before the climactic scene where this kind of behaviour would be expected. Rupert Everett, every bit Firth's equal, seems to have been born to play Algernon Moncrief. A boyish charm and a wild impish streak have pervaded most of the man's comic performances. But his Algernon is actually darker and more dangerous than other versions I've seen. It's an interesting spin on the character that gives the play some weight (possibly it's only flaw is its unabashed triviality; some weight does it good). Firth and Everett, two actors of vastly different styles, have nice chemistry together as a pair of "sibling" rivals. Reese Witherspoon is certainly pixyish and desirable enough to portray the qualities of every good Cecily. But there's a good dollop of Walter Mitty in her, as mentioned above. Witherspoon gets these dreamy qualities just right. And her English accent, a sore point for some as she is the only American in the cast, is good enough to pass muster, but just artificial enough to fit into Wilde's trivial world. Frances O'Conner is a revelation as Gwendolen Fairfax. My only previous exposure to her was in the wretched "A.I." Here she wipes away all my bad memories of her ineffective performance in that clunker, with a whimsical and fatuous turn as Jack Worthing's prospective bride. She is at her best in the scenes where she plays older sister to Witherspoon's Cecily, in an attempt to rebuff the advances of the men. Tom Wilkinson plays Dr. Chasuble. It's a much smaller role here than I'd remembered, and all Wilkinson gets to do is play flustered and stuffy. But his uncomfortable flirtations with Anne Massey's Miss Prism are quaint and dear. Judi Dench would seem to be the perfect actor to play a role as stately and buffoonish as Lady Bracknell. And she does a fine job, capturing all the pomp and bluster of the old bag. But somehow the sting of the part is lost, compared to other versions. Could it be that the part has been trimmed down too much? I think so. Lady Bracknell is supposed to lord over the proceedings with an iron fist; here she is just one of many wonderful secondary characters. (Alas, the role of Merriman, the butler, has been excised completely. One version of the play I saw used this character to great comic effect. It's a pity Parker couldn't find room for him somewhere.) Despite my reservations, "The Importance of Being Earnest" is a fun frolic. I've seen it performed several times on stage, and this production matches any of those performances for energy, verve, wit, and zeal. Most notably, the friend I saw this film with, a moviegoer more apt to be entertained by wild car chases rather than Wilde girl chases, was heard to remark upon exiting the theatre, "Gosh, they just don't write 'em like that anymore, do they? Pity." Possibly the best recommendation I can give for this frothy, but finely tuned adaptation.
|
