The only character worth watching is Tom Wilkinson. All the rest miss the mark. This was supposed to be a romp a farce and a commedy. The 2002 production forgot that. Rent the earlier version from the 1950's.
all the funny lines are funny all the homosexual innuendo is identifiable and funny.
Have to agree that the 1952 version is far superior. I wonder sometimes why they bother with remakes when they don't come anywhere near the original. The '52 cast, including Joan Greenwood, Dame Edith Evans, Margaret Rutherford and Miles Malleson, are unique, outstanding talents who bring their own sparkling charms to the film.
Colin Firth and Rupert Everett are both 43-ish and Reese 26 playing 18. They are all too old for their parts. Reese is too "modern" to be playing an innocent English country girl. She was cast simply to bring in an American audience for this film.
Dame Judi, while justly praised for her acting excellence, hasn't a patch on Edith Evans's iconic portrayal of Lady Bracknell. No one should even TRY to recreate that part; they only come up looking like a very pale imitation.
2002: Good colour and costumes – and possibly introducing Wilde to a new audience – that's about it.
This isnt a remake of the 1950s film.
Both are adaptations of the play.
While i agree with everything said about Edith Evans and the ages of the actors, i thought the acting was good.
Why not introduce the play to a new audience? i have no problem with them making this film.
[deleted]
Thanks, a lone voice of reason in the "remake" wilderness! Although Edith Evans' performance was iconic true, I enjoyed the new adaptation and it did introduce a new audience to Oscar Wilde's wonderful farcical plays.
Why do people always have to harp on about "remakes" and reinterpretations. And calling it incorrectly a remake of the 1952 movie as well. Saw the same hooha and absurd claims and comments on the "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" forum...
I agree the 1952 version is much better. Though even in that version, Michael Redgrave is a bit too old to be playing earnest, who is only supposed to be in his late 20s. and Edith Evans and judi Dench are both too old to be playing the mother of a young girl. I saw Judi Dench play the part in 1982, when she was about the right age. But this film is an absolute shambles.
shareIt gets annoying, reading all these disparaging comments about the 2002 adaptation of Wilde's play. Annoying, because these all appear to be knee-jerk comments, reacting to its differences from the excellent 1952 version. Yes, I've seen both.
Sure enough, the Oliver Parker adaptation of The Importance of Being Earnest is different. It is SUPPOSED TO BE.
Parker's idea was to "open up" the famous Oscar Wilde play, in a way that has never been done before. In that, he certainly succeeded. Gone are the stage-bound scenes that confine all the action to one or two rooms. In their place, Parker gives us scenes of the English countryside, fantasy tableaux that represent Cecily's imagination, an evening inside a British music hall -- in all, a truly cinematic look at Wilde's play. Those who criticize this approach don't seem to "get it." Parker wasn't corrupting Wilde's creation, he was expanding it.
And I've read some comments here, violently criticizing the scene involving Gwendolyn's tattoo. No, of course that is not in Wilde's original. Parker was using cinematic license to present some visual wit to go with Wilde's literary wit. Please note that we do not actually SEE the tattoo that reads: "Ernest" until AFTER Gwendolyn learns that her lover's name is not Ernest after all. That visual is seen only at that fateful moment, and not before.
(Of course, as everyone knows, we learn that her fiancé really IS named Ernest in the final scene... so, all ends happily.)
As for the comments about Dame Judi Dench not playing Lady Bracknell as well as another Dame, Edith Evans, it's all a matter of taste. Nobody can disparage Dame Judi's acting talent; she has an Oscar and two Golden Globes, and has been nominated for both awards numerous times. So it isn't that she did not play Lady Bracknell well, it's simply that her execution was different than Dame Edith's. I found it delightful.
In all, I think the title of this thread -- "Terrible adaptation" -- is terribly wrong. The 2002 Earnest is splendid cinematic fare, and delivers an Oscar Wilde opus in a more cinematic form than ever before.
Cheers,
Dan
English subtitles are a MUST on all DVD releases!
Can't agree with you Dan, this adaptation was terrible. There are no laughs in it for me, and having seen both the play and the 1952 film, this version simply doesn't compare. It's not as bad as Parker's "Dorian Gray", but not far off as a cinematic failure. It simply never lifts-off and takes form, and what jokes are in there are lifeless and induce more eye rolling than chuckles.
I don't think Oscar would be thrilled by it, and that's what I kept thinking while watching it last night. I felt pretty cheated really.
---
He left a note. He left a simple little note that said "I've gone out the window."
I disagree with you comparing Parker's Dorian Gray to his Importance of Being Earnest adaptation.
I've read both Wilde's works before seeing the films and loved the adaptation of Earnest, but not Dorian Gray.
I personally loved this adaption of Earnest. I know I am biased because it has some well known and much beloved actors from my era, wheras other people feel sentimental about the 1950s version.
It made me laugh a great deal because it does use Wilde's witticisms but the movement allows the audience to stay interested and keep up with the fiascos. The irony and farcity of it completely leaps at you - especially in the costumes. I thought the characters were well represented and Dame Judi Dench's Lady Bracknell as on top form.
I think Wilde would probably be laughing at anyone who ever took anything he wrote or said too seriously.
:)
Fully agreed Dan! It was fun, pretty to look at, had loads of laughs for me, the acting was good and frankly, although nobody can say for certain of course, I think Oscar Wilde would have loved it.
shareI thought it was a great film, and very funny. But I guess my expectations were not that high as I haven't seen the 1952 version. All the better for me, I guess, because I enjoyed this version.
shareThis is an excellent remake!!
How movie reviews have become (and IMDB has a role in it) one's exhibition of intellect than express how much one enjoyed/moved by it.
That said, I respect your view as your own. I personally loved it having been a big fan of the play! :)
I watched this FTFT last night. Laughed a lot, liked it a lot, will likely watch it several more times. I like Judi Dench, Colin Firth and Reese Witherspoon in about anything they do. Sorry you didn't like it...your loss, not mine.
share[deleted]
I was not wild about this adaptation, something was off.
Its that man again!!
[deleted]