I've watched a lot of bad movies in my time. I've even been laughed at for movies I thought were great- But this movie was just plain bad.
Previews looked funny, and that was definately the only high point- It is really too bad for such a talented group of actors. I cannot really fault them, it was poorly executed. With a good screenplay and direction, this MIGHT have been a decent movie.
No it was really good, one of the highlights of Christmas
sharethis MIGHT have been a decent movie
I love this movie. I usually find period dramas boring, but this one I could watch again and again.
shareWell max if Dirty Harry or similar is more to your liking, fair enough, it seems, though, as if you shouldn't watch this film then, because you clearly did not understand it.
It is a very nice little period drama, witty dialogues, good chemistry and, most of the time, outstanding acting. It does not try to be any more and stays rather true to the original novel.
Simply delightful!
I love period pieces, do not care for Dirty Harry movies and I know this movie is horrible, I just watched it. Jessica Biel was way out of her depth.
Too bad K. Scott Thomas & Colin Firth didn't realize how bad she was until they'd already cashed their checks & signed their contracts.
What a disappointment this flick turned out to be!
Childish and self-conscious efforts at wit and whimsy combined with 'over the top' attempts to capture the subtlety of Coward's humour made this a very uncomfortable film to watch.
The actors appeared to discover just how bad things were and rapdily plowed ahead to get done.
The editing looks like it was done in a high school film class....what an embarrassment.
First half better than the 2nd. There were a couple of laugh out loud points in the first half (involving the chihuahua and the can-can) but it got quite dull at the end. I didn't see any chemistry between the two leads either. But Kristen Scott-Thomas was excellent as the snobbish mother.
shareI found the film charming. I'm not what you'd call a Jessica Biel fan, but I was pleasantly surprised by her "Dolores Gray" delivery and stunning appearance. She portrayed an independent American woman without being an “ugly American” and in the process, held her own against noteworthy and established British actors.
I’ve never followed her career so I’m not sure what some people have against her. This is the first motion picture I’ve seen her in. I saw one episode of a television show she did a while back but didn’t continue only because I don’t watch much television.
If this film is an indication of her talents, I’d say she has a fine career ahead of her.
pfields-3, I completely agree with you!
This is a charming, satisfying film that is just too offbeat for those who critisize it.
..."just too offbeat for those who criticize it".
Weakest argument ever. Calling this movie misunderstood and eccentric is like saying "Dude where's my car" is misunderstood too. Everybody understood very well. This movie sucks. It's full of clichés about USA and UK. And Jessica Biel, well she's... I'm gonna stop right there.
[deleted]
I happened to really like this movie and thought it was hysterical. I bought it I like it so much.
share[deleted]
I agree with Reds. I quite enjoyed the witty lines and all the family members, butler included, of course. But Jessica Biel was utterly miscast. She had no depth, her character was unconvincing and I felt like I was watching a pretty puppet recite her lines. There was absolutely no feeling when she spoke. Maybe she was really trying, maybe she didn't care-=I have no way of knowing.
Kristin Scott Thomas and Colin Firth were spot on, as were the two sisters.
Too bad. I wonder who should have played her. Gynneth Paltrow comes to mind, but there's probably someone even better.
[deleted]
I think this movie is good. I've seen it several times. I can so identify with Jessica Biels Character. When my husband and I were 18 and 20, we lived with his mother for a while. It was poor hell. But, at least when I left he left with me.
shareI think people who don't 'get' Easy Virtue are probably immune to the style of Noel Coward (and maybe even Cole Porter's music) as well as the frothy witticism of 1920s-1930s comedies.
I've introduced several friends to it and they love it. But my friends wouldn't be the types to appreciate Sleepless in Seattle or similar pablum. ;)
Easy Virtue is well-acted and fun to listen to! The music is perfectly integrated into a touching plot. The ensemble cast each have wonderful moments.
Chris Brassington as Phillip stands out for me. What a delightful laugh he has!
http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/directory
Great to read such posts.
I can't get why people bother to write - "I hate, I don't get... don't understand" this or that film. Didn't get why they went to seen them at all. Lots of info nowadays.
Speaking about myself, I'd never was able to bore people with crap for example like... "I hate Sleepless in Seattle"... because frankly I never even tried to watch it.
But I saw "Easy virtue" and like it very much. Which doesn't mean it's flawless. I agree with what one of the posters said, that the way actors speak is often hurriedly crumpled, I may say.
I like actors making me take delight in well spoken dialogues.
[deleted]
I think it's a good film - it would be difficult to be anything else with such a good cast. I didn't realize there was a Noel Coward play as the basis until I read the message boards so I wasn't looking for his touch as I watched it. I liked the clever mix of music, I thought Jessica Simpson was very good as was everyone else.
The only wrong note was the fate of the yappy dog - it just seemed like a klutzy plot device and didn't fit in with the rest of the story. Having just skimmed a synopsis of the play http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy_Virtue_%28play%29 I can see that it was nothing to do with the original though it's interesting how many scenes do match the play - after a little tinkering for cinematic presentation.
Not only the dog, but 90% of the film has nothing to do with the Coward's play.
Have you ever read the play?
Surely it's better to forget all about dog: it never existed, so never died.
Nope, I've never read the play. The synopsis I skimmed implied several for the scenes in the play did appear in the film is some form or another but I'll take your word for it that the film itself had little to do with the original. The point I was making is that as a film it worked very well - apart from the doggy demise scene which, for me, jarred as a piece of low comedy inserted into a different kind of film.
shareBut in stile.
There are many "low" tricks. Bare butt of a girl flashing to start with.
Killing scene makes sense. It's provocative. Larita adores animals, she makes great fuss against hunting, then rescuing a fox...
But in the same time she wears fur. Then she's killing the poor silly dog. I think the director made kind of revelation of many false cliche in modern world in this film. And of false treating animals above all. Making toys of them is the nowadays standard. But who told you they like to have life like that?
In fact no one likes the dog in the film. It's just a pet, no - toy, and no proper feeling the women of the House could express for him! False weeping and shouting, but obviously all of them are plainly glad to get a chance for abusing Larita - at last they've got something real against her.
None of it is in the play; the skeleton kind of preserved, but the ideas - abs. different.
The main idea of the Coward's play is very outdated: the reputation of divorced woman is ruined forever. The society would never believe she was not guilty. The people could be divorced by legal means much more easily then (than in previous century), but the society struggled against it by refusing to give forgiveness to divorced women. They really became outcasts from so called "good society".
Men... oh, of course for them it was OK.
For me, squashing the pooch was a scene from a borderline gross-out comedy of embarrassment film - a genre I dislike almost universally. The bare bum was funny - but perhaps that's a bias male point of view. A lot of the other jokes seemed standard British class based humour and reminiscent of a PG Wodehouse farce.
The is an inconsistency in wearing fur (chinchilla I think - a very cute little beast) and being against fox hunting but I'd argue that's a modern point of view and perhaps shouldn't be applied to a film set between the wars.
It's interesting that the original play was about societies refusal to accept a divorced woman on the assumption that she was the guilty party. I note from the synopsis that the original play had a middle class setting and I suspect that transposing it to the aristocracy would have weakened that - even if we modern folk would not have found it ridiculous anyway. I saw the film as a rejection of an outsider, someone who threatened the order of things and more importantly the plans of the mother. On reflection it was only the mother and the daughters who were so strongly against Larita - though eventually they pulled the son in to their sphere of influence. Just about everyone else found her admirable.
As I can see in the play the Whittakers are "wealthy upper-middle-class" actually, with a house, a garden and tennis-court... and there's a village nearby, and so on. Quite a mansion maybe. I mean in XX century middle class often was more wealthy than upper and tried to look maybe more aristocratic than the arisocracy itself.
shareYes, I agree that at that period there was a wealthy middle class that were often richer than the struggling older land owning upper class. But I believe it was also true that the middle class was more moralistic and judgmental and perhaps class-conscious than the upper classes (and indeed probably still are). So when you move the story from the middle to the upper class the stigma of being a divorced woman is perhaps lessened.
Not that it really matters that much if the film has drifted as far from the play as you said above.
Well I wouldn't ask you to recommend a movie to anyone I care for, that's for sure.
Anyway I really liked this one it was funny, sarcastic, weird, fun. Different.
I was going to write a reply when I hit on yours - you've done the job for me!
"funny, sarcastic, weird, fun. Different". The words sum up my feelings perfectly.
I also find it to be dismally underrated (in the parlance of these boards: "the most underrated film ever" [smile). Perhaps your description explains why this should be so.
Somebody mentioned "Sleepless in Seattle". I normally dislike comparing films, since each has its own framework and its own audience. But it really seems that this film is not for those whose ideal of a comedy is "S in S". And they seem to be in the majority.
Fully agreed! Exactly what I think of the movie too. I loved its off-beat, weird fun and dry humour.
shareYes, absolutely agree: waste of time. Liked the English castle though.
share