The cinematography is off the charts, the settings are extraordinary and the wardrobe folks get serious kudos, but there is simply no story worth anything at all.
You get a feeling it is going somewhere, but it never does. What a cluster...
I am glad I m not alone in my impression!
I just watched it and felt it got worse and worse by minute. Very predictable. You could tell the ending within the first 15-20 minutes.
This is clearly made for an American audience, and unfortunately, only for such dimwits as my sister-in-law. She would love that, I am sure. So simple, even she would understand it. And that constant kissing! Right up her aisle, I would think. (I don't like to watch other people kissing, I don't want to see that!)
All non-Americans in this movie (which are basically all except one) are (of course) presented as idiots. This whole presentation is fluffy and shallow. An empty box with really nothing in it.
I should have listened to my inner voice when I saw this in the "new arrival" shelf in the local Blockbuster store. I was hesitant, but then I went for it, as we were out of ideas of what to rent. We get 5 free store movies per month and extras for their multiple (online) errors lately (as appologies), and sometimes we are running out of ideas of what to rent next. Strictly avoiding all Hollywood crap, concentrating on european films. How did I get this then? I must have been fooled by the Englishness.
I really thought it was English, but now am getting the impression I have been fooled. This looks very Hollywoodesque. At least it was free. But still, I think I wasted 2 hours.
[deleted]
No, it was Easy Virtue indeed.
No doubt about that.
And who would be King Ralph?
Of course I am not claiming I would know all previous and current kings of all european kingdoms of all times and eras ever, but I have never heard of any king with the name Ralph. I don't even think Ralph is a royal name at all.
Well, since you suggest that is what I saw, there must be a movie with that title. I will look it up then. Thanks for the tipp!
Not that I would rent that. Just to learn about that unknown king.
Thank you very much.
you may have rented "King Ralph" by mistake.Brilliant comparison!!! The two are interchangeable (at least in quality).
All non-Americans in this movie (which are basically all except one) are (of course) presented as idiots.
That comes from the Noel Coward play on which this movie was based, as the non-Americans in the play are also presented as idiots.
I really thought it was English, but now am getting the impression I have been fooled. This looks very Hollywoodesque.
I don't think one can get more English than Noel Coward. And the movie, directed by an Australian, was made by an English studio (Ealing). Don't blame this one on Hollywood.
Thank you for the informations. I am German and not so familiar with those details. I guess I have just followed my gut feeling, which seemed to suggest only Hollywood itself would show non-Americans as fools. ("Not one of us")
I must admit that I have never heard of Noel Coward. I am well read though, but not so much in english. Now I guess I look like a dummy.
All non-Americans in this movie (which are basically all except one) are (of course) presented as idiots.
That comes from the Noel Coward play on which this movie was based, as the non-Americans in the play are also presented as idiots.
Wow - this description seems like a different story then! Why did they make it into this other version in the movie then? I would have liked THAT version (which you described) so much more! And the movie would have been better, deeper also.
And yes, having the woman being close to 40 makes so much more sense in the story. Somewhere I read (maybe here in another thread?) that the chosen actress is actually a bit younger than the acotor playing her younger partner. The story makes no real sense with that. But if he were like 23 and she 38, that would make it much more believable.
So why would the american filmmakers (see how I avoid the name Hollywod now?) choose this young actress for that role? Don't they have any actreesses left in their late 30s? Are all of them botoxed and lifted? Really all? Not one left with natural lines and a few gray hairs?
It has been a long time since I read the play, so I don't really remember if Larita's nationality is actually mentioned, only that she was an "outsider". There are on-line sources that say she is an American, but I can't vouch for their reliability and don't have time to reread the play now to be certain one way or another. But that isn't really the point. The point is that the poster I originally responded to wondered why all the characters except the American were presented as idiots, and wondered if it was a Hollywood movie. My response was to not blame Hollywood (or Americans) if you didn't like the movie, or how the movie represented any of the characters. The movie was based on a play written by an Englishman, the screenplay was written by two Australians; it was directed by an Australian, produced by an English studio, and filmed in England. There is nothing American or Hollywood about it, with the exception of Jessica Biel as Larita.
As for whether the characters are presented as idiots, in the play or movie, it partially depends upon your definition of idiot. I think in the play, at least, they all acted foolishly (idiotically) at one time or another. The director/screenwriter said that one of the reasons for the changes he made in the movie was that none of the characters in the play were very sympathetic, and I agree with him. While I thought the movie could have been a lot better than it was, it was still better than the play, in my opinion.
As for whether the characters are presented as idiots, in the play or movie, it partially depends upon your definition of idiot.In the movie at least, there was no need to parse and compare varying definitions of "idiot". share
Glad I'm not the only one who didn't like it. A complete waste of money to rent it.
shareI think people were maybe expecting a light comedy but I think a lot of people aren't bothering to look beneath the surface of this film. And I also think people might have a knee-jerk reaction to some of its quirky comedic flourishes. This movie is going to last, mark my words, and I think people might just need to watch it again and pay a little more attention this time.
shareAs an avid Colin Firth fan, I finally saw this movie last night. I liked it but didn't love it, although I felt Colin and KST's performances were fantastic. I did find the story lacking a bit. As far as films in that genre are concerned, I would much rather watch My Life So Far or The Importance Of Being Earnest, both well made, fun and quirky, AND starring Colin Firth, with other great actors.
I have a plan... It's a plan so cunning, you could stick a nose on it, and call it a fox
I loved it. I thought it was a gorgeous movie and it seemed perfectly Coward-esque to me. Nothing lacking there. It sounds like half of you have read the play and would be disappointed with anything other than the exact play, and the other half don't know who Noel Coward is and expected a period rom com...
shareOnly reason I watched it to start with is that I am a Noel Coward fan. Yes, Coward's plots are just there to string together his oh-so-exceptional banter, but the diologue in this film just left me trying to figure out why it was not like the Coward plays I have seen.
Was it the acting? Did they alter the orignial words? Did they truncate? I just don't know, but this Coward fan was extraordinarily sad when the credits rolled.
After the first 15-20 minutes, I had to force myself to keep watching, but I don't know why I did, either. The ending made the whole experience especially irritating.