I may be in the minority here, but I thought this a lovely calm slow study of character, and my whole family was quite taken with it.
Gillian Anderson was clearly the MAN of the piece, Eric Stoltz the WOMAN of the piece- an interesting twist certainly for the 1800's. The lack of music, lack of quick cuts, lack of PLOT PLOT PLOT forced us to live with these people for two hours, and I was emotionally devastated.
We say worth the effort. If you don't like slow and steady, rent TRANSFORMERS.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A study in wrong choices
Added 9/12/2009
The film is represents the characters and concepts of the book fairly well. The protagonist, Lily, seems unable to make rational decisions, though she is reasonably intelligent. She's hampered by the conventions of her time as well as the shallow ideas inculcated by her mother. She's generally valued for her beauty and uses that as currency for entre into the level of society she's been taught to value.Unfortunately, at the point of success (marriage to a wealthy man), she undermines herself by doing something stupid. She never quite understands her own motives and learns introspection and self-realization too late.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
An entertaining, though heavy-handed, period piece
Added 8/18/2009
Edith Wharton's story of a socialite's downfall is a finely nuanced tale of societal expectations, the soul-deadening roles assigned to women and the perils of beauty.
Some of this nuance is lost in this movie adaptation. I didn't get from the script that Lily Bart is not as wealthy as the crowd she runs with, so is a sort of professional houseguest, with unspoken duties that eventually contribute to her downfall. The way her debts are presented in the movie (and debts are the hinge of the story), it seems to be her own fault that she has gambled away money in card games, rather than the result of a system that expects her to participate in the entertainments of the social class to which she aspires, despite her inability to keep up financially. Not understanding this unenviable position, viewers don't have as much sympathy for Lily as they could as the tale spins itself out onscreen.
Even so, the viewer still can sympathize greatly with Lily. Who can blame her for turning down any of the men who might have been her financial salvation through marriage? They're all icky, even her great love Lawrence after a while. It was a sick system that forced women into marriages that demolished their inner lives and sense of self, and punished them for not complying.
This is a beautiful movie to watch. Who doesn't like the opulence of this period and social class? But I found some -- perhaps most -- of the roles overplayed, and therefore a bit laughable (especially Dan Ackroyd!). But the title role, played by Gillian Anderson, will keep you going to the end. Hers is the face I'll see the next time I read the book.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
This Movie Is Why "0 Stars" Should Be an Option
Added 7/19/2009
My wife and I agree that this is one of the worst movies we have ever seen - a complete waste of 2.5 hours!
1 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
Bad casting, again
Added 6/8/2009
A glorious failure, gillian anderson is too old, eric stolz hardly man enough, dan ackroyd out of place and terrible, lapaglia not slimy enough for the creepy rosedale. While gorgeous to look at, none of these actors are believable. BAD CASTING AGAIN
3 out of 7 people found this helpful.
|
A "must see!"
Added 5/29/2009
I am a guy, and I must admit that I have difficulty reading books written by a woman. Please, I am not sexist, but I am not familiar with women's descriptions of fabrics, fragrances, and emotions. But I did read, and thoroughly enjoy, Edith Wharton's "House of Mirth." It was a bit complicated so I read it again. THEN I watched the movie on a movie channel. THEN I ordered a DVD. Wharton is a genius so the best way to enjoy the movie is to read the book first! "House of Mirth" is a classic!
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
A study in wrong choices
Added 9/12/2009
The film is represents the characters and concepts of the book fairly well. The protagonist, Lily, seems unable to make rational decisions, though she is reasonably intelligent. She's hampered by the conventions of her time as well as the shallow ideas inculcated by her mother. She's generally valued for her beauty and uses that as currency for entre into the level of society she's been taught to value.Unfortunately, at the point of success (marriage to a wealthy man), she undermines herself by doing something stupid. She never quite understands her own motives and learns introspection and self-realization too late.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
An entertaining, though heavy-handed, period piece
Added 8/18/2009
Edith Wharton's story of a socialite's downfall is a finely nuanced tale of societal expectations, the soul-deadening roles assigned to women and the perils of beauty.
Some of this nuance is lost in this movie adaptation. I didn't get from the script that Lily Bart is not as wealthy as the crowd she runs with, so is a sort of professional houseguest, with unspoken duties that eventually contribute to her downfall. The way her debts are presented in the movie (and debts are the hinge of the story), it seems to be her own fault that she has gambled away money in card games, rather than the result of a system that expects her to participate in the entertainments of the social class to which she aspires, despite her inability to keep up financially. Not understanding this unenviable position, viewers don't have as much sympathy for Lily as they could as the tale spins itself out onscreen.
Even so, the viewer still can sympathize greatly with Lily. Who can blame her for turning down any of the men who might have been her financial salvation through marriage? They're all icky, even her great love Lawrence after a while. It was a sick system that forced women into marriages that demolished their inner lives and sense of self, and punished them for not complying.
This is a beautiful movie to watch. Who doesn't like the opulence of this period and social class? But I found some -- perhaps most -- of the roles overplayed, and therefore a bit laughable (especially Dan Ackroyd!). But the title role, played by Gillian Anderson, will keep you going to the end. Hers is the face I'll see the next time I read the book.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
