The Catholic News Service breaks out of the gate early with this review of Mira Nair's first film since the marvelous Monsoon Wedding.

Thanks for posting this. Other than Hero, this is my most-anticipated film in the near future. And this article helps explain why the commercial I saw yesterday made it clear that this Becky won't be so easily vilified, that she's just basically a strong woman with clear goals who wonders, "why should the men have all the fun?" I'll have to check my knowledge of the book at the door; I remember Becky as a conniving and unsympathetic schemer (an oversimplification, most likely).

I've seen the preview for this one twice now, and thought it looked intriguing, but this review sounds promising. I've come to trust Mira Nair, generally, so I was hoping she wouldn't disappoint with a project of this style & scope. We'll see, though.

I wasn't too convinced by the trailer - and it seems like my fears of a watered down Becky Sharp have some foundation (a pity as the recent BBC adaptation managed to retain a lot of the original character and still make her sympathetic) but I like the sound of a slightly grittier production design and the fact that the Sharp character might find her strength from being surrounded by people much worse than she. Reminds me of Shekar Kupor's take on period film-making when he directed Elizabeth. And that was a *terrific* piece of work. So I'm edging towards quietly interested...

Phil.

This headline, minus a story, just appeared at Movie City News:
Mira Nair Still Considering An Offer To Direct Harry Potter 5

Why would a goddess choose to frolic with the insects?

-s.

Both Ebert and Roeper really liked it ... listen to the audio here -- Ebert & Roeper

The trailer didn't really intrigue me either ... might have to check it out though ... period pieces like this aren't usually my bag.

I can't listen to fun stuff like Ebert and Roeper's review here at work, but I'm glad they liked it. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 44% right now. My biggest fears are: 1. That the story will get a revisionist feminist spin (which works great for audiences today but betrays the source material), and 2. That the sweet and honorable Amelia (Romola Gairi) will come off as a completly vapid idiot next to Reese's wit and sparkle, thereby causing the audience to cheer for the schemer and jeer the innocent. We'll see. I love Monsoon Wedding, am still planning to see this, am thrilled that Nair's directing, but I have my doubts. I'd probably feel better if I'd never read the book.

Sorry, Stef.

What a shame.

Saw Vanity Fair last night. It's a magnificent catastrophe. If the film had been an hour longer, had allowed the characters to breathe, had smoothed over transitions instead of hitting them like a car accelerating over speedbumps, and had somehow toned down Reese Witherspoon so she didn't stand out in technicolor relevant to the rest of the characters (most of whom are more interesting than her)... it might have worked.

Oh, it's well worth seeing, because the cast is extraordinary, and there are some wonderful scenes.

Above all, Romola Garai as Amelia is... how can I say this... enchanting. Every time she arrives onscreen, I breathe a sigh of relief to turn my attention away from the caustic little Witherspoon and focus on an actress who knows how to disappear into a character. Unfortunately, the script doesn't allow her to shine the way she did in I Capture the Castle, but she's so good that she steals every scene she's in. She's the beating heart of Vanity Fair. Thus, it really hurts the film when she disappears for long sections, and when she returns it's always after an "eight years later," or "13 years later," and we've lost touch with her and her situation.

And, in spite of her performance, Romola Garai is also given the worst moment in the film... a moment of epiphany that rings so false and happens so abruptly that Croaker and I just burst out laughing in disbelief.

It's too bad, because she's the closest thing to a sympathetic character in the film. Rhys Ifans is actually quite noble and endearing, but we see so little of him that, at the end, when the film suddenly decides to take a sincere interest in him, it's too late. He gets a few big melodramatic moments that, because they come out of the clear blue, feel more like a parody of British drama than real British drama. (He also appears in increasingly laughable costumes, culminating in a hilarious British-aristocrat-in-India costume and then a laugh-out-loud pose in bright blue pants right at the ending, when we're supposed to be crying for him.)

That's a problem with the whole film. There are SO MANY characters and contexts, and just when we start to get our bearings, the film leaps ahead into some other place, some other time, and we have to scramble to figure out what's happened, who's who, how they relate, and who we even care about.

As for the concerns of those who have read the book, I suspect you'll find that Becky Sharp has been fashioned a bit to become a more sympathetic character. I haven't read the book, but it felt awkward to me. She spends most of the film in a power-hungry climb up the ladder of social status, and then, once in a while, the film gives her a moment of heartbreak as if the filmmakers assume we will weep for her and for the way the world is treating her. It doesn't work for me at all. I'm much more drawn to Amelia, who is delusional in her blind love for her foolish husband (the creepy-as-always Johnathan Rhys-Meyers), but who at least has a conscience and admirable ideals.

There is admirable supporting work from Bob Hoskins, Jim Broadbent, and an especially slimy Gabriel Byrne, half of the cast of Gosford Park, and above all Eileen Atkins in the role that usually would have gone to Maggie Smith. Atkins may well earn a Best Supporting Actress nomination for this (and it would be about time!).

But Witherspoon fails for me in that I never once become aware of anything more than REESE WITHERSPOON. She unmistakably a Movie Star, giving one of those unmistakable Oscar-Worthy Performances that never lets you forget just how Arresting she is. Thus, she sticks out like a sore thumb, brighter, whiter, and careening from one extreme of emotion to another.

If I were in this film, I would have whisked Amelia into my carriage and driven as far away from the rest of the characters in this film as possible.

(See Diane walk up to the ticket counter, pause a moment, and buy a ticket to see Hero again instead.)

Well, well, well...sounds like it's just about what I feared. I've always had a hard time picturing Witherspoon in the role because, um, I've come to associate her with flicks like Legally Blonde and Sweet Home Alabama. And I'd rather not have that sort of baggage mixed up with my Thackeray, thank you very much. But anyway, yeah, I'd figured the film was going to be totally her vehicle. Too bad.

Jeffrey, what did you think of the Bollywood-type number? Looks like it would make an interesting scene...just not in this paticular film.

David Poland has similar sentiments. "Feels like the reels are out of order."

By the way, I'm looking for someone to review this film for my site. If anyone's interested, drop me a PM and we'll chat.

Complete and utter disappointment. Too many agree. I probably won't go either. Darn.

-s.

My review is up.

Well at least you were nice about it.

Very very bad news for the Fallen Angel Nair at IMDB. You people weren't kidding. The apocalypse is NOW.

Reese is working the talk show circuit and it seems like she is also promoting her next movie, Walk The Line, where she wil play June Carter Cash opposite Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny.

That's good. Cash deserves someone with flair. I don't remember Phoenix in Gladiator, but I wasn't paying too much attention to the movie--I just had it on for noise. And I should probably put a heavy emphasis on my 'possibly' re: Witherspoon. I liked Sweet Home Alabama and Legally Blond, and try to give her a chance when possible.

Finally saw this one today. And I agree with everything you posted here, Jeff. I have never seen I Capture the Castle, but if Amelia was in that film, then I now WANT to see it.

And I had real respect for the Rhys Ifans character -- real, real respect -- until the film started lurching fitfully ahead in the chronology and putting him in dumb costumes.

Diane and stef, did you ever get around to seeing this? We rented it last week and it's well worth seeing, I think, even if I end up agreeing that it is disappointing. There are too many ellipsis and too much compression, which I suspect are simply the symptoms of adapting such a big-plotted book into a film of conventional length. But there are also some pretty interesting aesthetic choices, including some real ambivalence created concerning Becky's character and a neat way of springing marriages on the viewer.

Sorry for the delay in answering, Russ. Yes, I saw this a month or two ago. I found it very disappointing, most likely because I've read the book and am too much of a purist to appreciate Nair's reworking of Becky's character. Thackeray prefaced the novel by saying it was "a novel without a hero," and Becky is clearly not worthy of any admiration (case in point: in the book, [spoiler]Becky is certainly not attacked by the Marquess of Steyne; in fact, she is more than willing to entertain his advances in return for money, and she is most likely having an affair with him[/spoiler]). But I feel that Nair intended Becky to be viewed as an early feminist. Witherspoon described her character that way, anyway.

Maybe it's unfair to compare the book to the film, but there you go. I will admit that the look of the film was quite lovely, but other than that, it just didn't offer me much.

Ali's reading it now. She had to go to some effort to find a new copy that didn't feature Witherspoon's face on the cover. I'll let you know if she has the same sort of reaction to the book as a book and the film as a film.

Still haven't seen it, Russ. I imagine by the time Nair has a few more films out, I'll have seen it by then.

-s.

Mira Nair and Reese Witherspoon are brilliant (I almost said "geniuses," but that would be OTT). I know going in that Thackeray wrote Becky Sharp as a conniving wench, certainly less admirable and/or sympathetic than Scarlet O'Hara (to whom commentators repeatedly compare her), but this movie still makes me kinda like her and [spoiler]not mind much when she gets the almost completely undeserved happy ending. What?![/spoiler]

And yes, not only was the Bollywood number completely gratuitous (and everyone knows how I love Bollywood), it seemed highly unlikely. ALTHOUGH a few real women of the era did participate in some scandalous entertainments, their reputations were devastated--e.g., Lady Caroline Lamb.

Amelia was correspondingly demoted to seem much sillier and more pathetic than in the 1998 BBC/A&E mini-series, which is all I have to compare her with. Rhys Ifans was so admirable as Dobbin and Jonathan Rhys Meyers so exceedly dastardly as George that their triangle seemed just a travesty.

Others have noted additional problems. And yet, I couldn't stop watching.

Thackeray is spinning in his grave. It was visually arresting, and engaging in spite of its flaws, but add this movie to the "worst literary adaptations" list.