Reviews

If you strip away all the romantic trappings of destiny conspiring to bring two soul mates together, this remains a tawdry tale of adultery between an English architect and an American businesswoman. One is married for ten years and the other on the brink of her wedding. Jaglom does his best to garner sympathy for the two lovers. It is not their fault that they lie and cheat but fate that keeps throwing them together. Destiny's hand is revealed in a reoccurring theme song, numerous chance encounters, and a mysterious broach. For good measure, he even throws in a supernatural element. The lovers never seem to express any genuine guilt or skepticism. They are just in a constant state of amazement and are as dumbfounded as the audience at the ridiculousness of the movie's script. Just as one of the lovers begins to exhibit some misgivings, Vanessa Redgrave as the wise sage of "seize the day" theory gives a resounding speech about "jumping into the river of life."

Another false note was the dogma-style hand-held camera technique which gives a gritty realism that is jarring to the fairy tale like story the director so desperately wants to sell. By the end, instead of cheering on the lovers my sympathies were with their discarded partners.

Although the movie is named after the main character, Jude Law steals the show from Stephen Fry who plays the part with a nauseating understated, deadpan sincerity. I'm usually not a big fan of overacting but this is Oscar Wilde, a man infamous for his flamboyant personality and sparkling bon mots. "Do you want to know the great tragedy of my life?" he once said to Andre Gide. "I have put my genius into my life and only my talent into my works." Given the enormous stature of the latter, one can only imagine the immense flair and charm of the former. Unfortunately, Wilde's "genius" and larger than life personality which made him the toast of salon society where ever he went has gone AWOL in this film and in this void the viewer is left constantly wondering why all these gorgeous young men are love sick over him.

However, there is no wondering why Wilde, at the height of his career and fame, would risk it all by falling for Bosie and suing Bosie's father for libel as played by the stunning Jude Law. I'm a big fan of Jude Law and he can play a "homme fatale" like no one else. In a way, Bosie is similar to Dickie Greenleaf but Bosie is more childish and petulant than innately cruel and Jude plays him pitch perfect.

The other major fault of this film other than Stephen Fry's lackluster performance, is the trial itself. I simply can not forgive the director for leaving out the best line in the real court transcript. "I think people should be allowed to do what they want, as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses." Surprisingly, it was not uttered by Wilde but by the cleaning lady. Overall the film has a great supporting cast and kept my interest so I would recommend it.

This is the No. 1 romance tearjerker of all time. I love this movie and am always amazed that few people have seen it. It's a travesty that it's not on Imdb's top 50 romance list. Sure the plot is quite improbable but the fine acting makes it a riveting and believable experience. Greer Garson is most famous for her role as Mrs. Miniver but it is as Paula Ridgeway that she is at her most captivating. This movie is essential for any romance lover. They sure dont make them like they used to.

As a long time fan of Wharton's complex novel satirizing the hypocrisy of late Victorian upper class society as crystallized in the downfall of the central heroine, I was bitterly disappointed by this movie that reduces Lily Bart to a weak hapless teary eyed pathetic social climber. In the movie as in the novel, Lily makes a lot of mistakes but in the novel Lily is clearly shown to be a sympathetic and highly moral character brought down by a morally corrupt gilded age that only values surface appearance and outward trappings of money and power.

Gillian Anderson gives a brave performance in her role but unfortunately is misdirected and often falls into melodrama. Eric Stolz comes across as a weak one dimensional cardboard figure with none of the critical high-mindedness desperately needed for this role. Dan Akroyd thinks being in a period movie means walking through a scene as if wearing a back brace. Other characters come across as equally flat except for Elizabeth McGovern and Terry Kinney who give creditable performances. As for the director, he was absolutely absent.

For a more enjoyable look at Wharton's critique of the Gilded Age, stick with Scorsese's The Age of Innocence.

This film doesnt work for two reasons: Paltrow and Eckhart. Leave it to Hollywood arrogance to cast two americans for this British novel adaptation. It's painful to watch Eckhart who looks and acts like the archtypal frat jock playing a Victorian poetry researcher. Paltrow is not much better since you are constantly aware that she is a California beach girl acting like what she thinks a Brit should act. Her accent and button down British reserve are way over the top and not at all naturalistic. The irony is that Hollywood producers were afraid Americans would stay away without a big name American star on the marquee and ended up with a box office flop anyway. While they could have had someeone like Cate Blanchett play Maud and Ewan MacGregor as Roland and made everyone happy.

Kristin Scott Thomas gives an Oscar worthy performance full of nuances and subtleness in tune with a by gone Victorian era when nothing is outrightly spoken but always hinted at so unlike our lurid confessional age. Thomas can infuse a scene with a multiplicity of meaning through a movement of the wrist or a tilt of a head and trounces Emma Thompson's lauded performance of British reserve in "Remains of the Day". To appreciate this film you need an artist eye, others who dislike it would be better off getting whacked with a sledgehammer.