IMDb user comments for
Vanity Fair (2004) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 14:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

131 comments in total

---

110 out of 138 people found the following comment useful :-
A novel without a hero becomes a film without any bite, 15 September 2004

Author: anhedonia from Planet Earth

If Becky Sharp, Georgian England's conniving, calculating social climber, had a contemporary equivalent, it surely would be Tracy Flick, the deliciously ambitious high school student played delightfully by Reese Witherspoon in the acerbic comedy, "Election" (1999).

Director Mira Nair has said what made Witherspoon the ideal Becky Sharp was the actress' "American energy and sassiness." Fair enough. But why did Nair then tame that energy and sass? We see none of it in Witherspoon's Becky. This isn't the feisty actress who proved she could play edgy and biting in "Election" and "Freeway" (1996). This is Elle Woods as Becky, thanks to Nair's misguided decision to turn Becky into an appealing feminist.

I'm not averse to directors stamping their distinct styles on literary works, mixing film styles or modernizing old works. But you don't change the work's crucial essence. You don't transform Goneril and Regan into caring daughters, for instance.

That's where Nair's take on William Makepeace Thackeray fails miserably.

She and Oscar-winning screenwriter Julian Fellowes - the two other credited writers, Matthew Faulk and Mark Skeet, reportedly disowned the film alleging the shooting script bore no resemblance to their work - have stripped Becky of all her viciousness and cunning. They've declawed her in a ridiculous attempt to make her likable.

In interviews, Nair and Witherspoon insist they didn't want to make a typical "bonnet" film. Fine. But you also shouldn't make a film that doesn't know what it wants to be and lacks emotional resonance. And that's what Nair's film is.

It sparkles for about a half-hour or so as we see a young Becky, played pluckily by Angelica Mandy; then, the older Becky (Witherspoon) leaving school with her friend, Amelia (Romola Garai), and meeting, among others, Dobbin (Rhys Ifans) and George Osborne (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers). Later, Becky becomes Sir Pitt Crawley's (Bob Hoskins) governess and meets her future husband Rawdon (James Purefoy) and Matilda (Eileen Atkins).

But once Becky heads to London, the film screeches to a halt. With no one seemingly knowing what the emotional tone should be and the story's harshness and satiric edge excised, the film grinds at a snail's pace, the actors slowly sapping all the energy out of it. A scene between Becky and George at the piano should be tart, their words should sting. Instead, the two actors labor with the dialogue and make the moment as sharp as a dull razor.

Adapting Thackeray's massive novel into a feature film was never going to be easy. But Nair gets more wrong than right. With the exception of the children, none of the characters age. Gabriel Byrne looks the same at the end of the film as he did in the beginning, which takes place 40 years earlier. Witherspoon, Garai, Hoskins, Ifans, Purefoy and Rhys-Meyers also show no hint of aging. And in an attempt to condense the story, important characters - Amelia and Dobbin, for instance - disappear for long periods and show up solely to wrap up subplots.

The highlights are Declan Quinn's striking cinematography, performances by Hoskins and Atkins, the only two who seem to be having any fun, and a superbly restrained Ifans, playing convincingly against type.

Much has been made about the Indian influence in Nair's story. There's nothing wrong with them being in the film. Thackeray was born in Calcutta and the colony's impact was evinced in Georgian English society. Not only do Nair's Indian touches make the film seem more vibrant, but the peacocks, parrots and Indian musicians, costumes and servants also make provocative statements about the exploitation of India and how the British Empire amassed its wealth. However, no matter how exotic it seems, Becky's dance just doesn't work and seems like nothing more than an imprudent attempt to add a foreign film style into this period piece.

Witherspoon, whose English accent falters occasionally, works commendably, but ultimately remains unconvincing through no fault of her own, really. You don't take someone who quips, "Revenge may be wicked, but it's perfectly natural," and turn her into a sweet, amiable victim. Witherspoon isn't even remotely as devious as Nair would want us to believe.

It's unlikely another actress, say Kate Winslet or Kate Beckinsale, would have fared any better for she'd have worked with the same script and Nair's foolhardy direction, which includes inexplicably asking Geraldine McEwan to not so much speak her lines as to squeal them high-pitched, making the veteran actress' Lady Southdown needlessly irritating.

This film remains so emotionally lackadaisical that when Becky finally breaks down before Rawdon, it seems more like a "For Your Oscar-Consideration" moment for Witherspoon than anything else. By softening Becky, making her more alluring than calculating, Nair destroyed the story's spirit. She and Fellowes also tacked on a ludicrous ending.

As botched film adaptations of literary works go, "Vanity Fair" isn't nearly as execrable as Roland Joffé's "The Scarlet Letter" (1995). But I'm confounded as to how the skilled storyteller of "Salaam Bombay!" (1988) and "Monsoon Wedding" (2001) could have gone so horridly wrong.

---

57 out of 66 people found the following comment useful :-
Great film, if you haven't read the book, 6 October 2004

Author: William J. Fickling (wjfickling@earthlink.net) from Columbia, South Carolina, USA

This is an entertaining movie that goes over two hours, but I really don't understand why it was made. Sprawling stories spanning several decades with several subplots involving dozens of characters are totally defensible on the printed page, where we can always go back and remind ourselves which character is which and how this character is related to that one. But this type of thing makes no sense whatsoever in a film. Unless a viewer has a phenomenal memory, such a story on film invariably leads to confusion and to my asking myself, "now wait a minute, whose brother is this, and whose son?"

So that is one of the principal problems with this film.

There are several other problems as well. Reese Witherspoon is badly miscast. She simply lacks Becky Sharp's bite. In fact, the whole film lacks Thackeray's bite. Reese does a good job with the British accent, but it just doesn't work. She is just too American for the role. Weren't there any British actresses available, or were the producers just relying on Reese's star power? Reese is just too nice to play Becky.

It has often been said that Becky Sharp was the model for Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone With the Wind," although Margaret Mitchell denied this. Even so, I kept visualizing Vivien Leigh in this role and imagining how perfect she would have been. I think Mira Nair was thinking of GWTW as well, because there are several scenes in the film that are obvious homages to it. First there are the battle scenes during the Battle of Waterloo, followed by a panoramic view of the carnage following the battle, complete with corpses strewn all over the battlefield. This was an obvious homage to the crane shot over Atlanta in GWTW. The final fight between Becky and her husband reminded me of the final fight between Scarlett and Rhett in GWTW. I half expected the husband to say "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Another flaw involves the Indian director Nair's inability to resist bringing in some Bollywood type scenes, particularly one involving Becky leading an Indian type dance, with Indian music, before the king, no less, and to thunderous applause.

And yet another thing: this film spans at least twenty, maybe twenty-five or thirty, years in Becky's life after she graduates from finishing school--I am not counting the one scene of her as a child--yet the character never ages. Neither do any of the other characters. Maybe the makeup staff went on strike?

But most of these problems won't even be noted by someone who hasn't read the book, so if you haven't, go ahead and see it; you'll probably be entertained. And if you are someone like me who loves the book, you may not be able to resist seeing it anyway. But Thackeray was never so soft.

---

44 out of 50 people found the following comment useful :-
Thackery goes Hollywood, 2 February 2005

Author: George Parker from Orange County, CA USA

"Vanity Fair" (2004) is an acceptable but abbreviated version of the classic Thackery Victorian period novel which tells of Becky Sharp (Witherspoon), who uses artifice and charm to climb from lowly governess to aristocrat, always able to find a suitable family of peerage or property to use as a rung in her ladder to the top in spite of the tribulations of the time. At just over two hours, this film cannot deal in depth with the many characters in the story and has to content itself with hitting the high points which make for a very condensed telling suited to those who only wish the flavor of the story. Those with a particular interest in Victorian pulp fiction or more expansive dramas should turn to the BBC's 1998 six hour miniseries which offers greater character depth, a presentation much more true to the period, and a very much better cast. (B-)

---

61 out of 84 people found the following comment useful :-
Vanity Fair without the Vanita, Vanitatas, 8 March 2005

Author: wassailwo from United States

I was very disappointed with this adaptation of Thackeray's masterpiece. When this movie first came out I was very excited to see it and read the book in preparation. Now I wish I had just left it at the novel. Mira Nair's vision of Becky Sharp and the hypocrisy of Regency Britain is so far off the mark, she should be ashamed of herself for even using the title 'Vanity Fair.' All of Becky's backstabbing guiles have been down-graded to a form of pluckiness that completely fails to hit any mark of truth or irony... the two pillars of the original work. It saddens me to know that a generation of young people will watch this film and assume that Nair's vision of the story is a correct one. It also upsets me that several of the most entertaining scenes in the novel were altered or completely left out for the sake of forcing us to endure Reese Witherspoon's mediocre lip syncing in at least three separate musical numbers. Sure, in the novel, Becky could sing... but she was also a heartless sociopath who would do anything to get ahead. Out of the two personality traits, I believe Thackeray would rather us know the latter instead of the former. 'Vanity Fair,' the novel, is a sharp and often hilarious social commentary. 'Vanity Fair,' the 2004 movie, is a dull and often intellectually insulting piece of weepie dreck. Trust me, folks, spend your money on the book, or at least check out the far superior BBC version, which is twice as long but never quite as plodding as this mock-up of an adaptation.

---

49 out of 76 people found the following comment useful :-
Vanity Fair Tries In Vain, 24 October 2004

Author: katydid4819 from ABQ

Vanity Fair is a beautiful mess. It combines the beauty of elegant costumes, sets and people with the disaster that is Mira Nair's adaptation of William Makepeace Thackery's novel. Not only is the adaptation bad but also so is what Nair has done with it. If you read the book, the movie will break your heart. It has completely ripped to shreds the pages of the classic story.

If you haven't read the book and intend to waste your money on the film, I would recommend that first you read a couple of plot summaries of the novel. Otherwise, you may be very lost through no fault of your own but because there is no defining plot in the film. There are no central conflicts presented and it's not until about two thirds of the way through that you have at least an idea of what is trying to be done here. Even then, it is unclear. Reese Witherspoon plays Becky Sharp, a social climber. Vanity Fair is supposed to be her story but instead, it is crowded by a confusing and unnecessary cast of supporting characters. I suppose Vanity Fair is a story about love but also about how the social class system can create a barrier between people. If this was the intended idea the supporting cast would be needed but Vanity Fair is supposed to be about Becky Sharp and the movie is far too much of an ensemble piece for that to be the case.

Mira Nair's direction is too present. She throws in too much of herself with the scenes about India and actually in India. Where the hell is the point? There just seem to be times when Nair thought it was okay to throw in another shot of an elephant's ass or belly dancers or India food.

Speaking of unwanted, Reese's second child was not credited in the closing credits but is in every scene Reese is. Witherspoon and the crew seemed to think they could hide the fact that she was pregnant by putting her in big clothes but that didn't work. She still looks pregnant and it ruins the effect the clothes should have had. It also puts the movie out of sequence. In one scene Reese is very large and in the next you can only see her belly if you look for it.

Vanity Fair could have been brilliant. The material is there, Reese bring to the table the range that we have come to expect from her and a performance that could have taken her places if it had been used better. But the fact remains that there are too many moments where ends just don't meet and the audience is confused to the point where the film can't rely on its pretty scenery to distract from its larger flaws. *1/2 out of *****

---

33 out of 47 people found the following comment useful :-
Disappointing, if not disastrous, 4 June 2005

Author: StarDragyn from USA

Believe it or not, I am under the age of 20 and have read this novel purely out of interest and found it to be an amazing piece of work. Thackeray's unique writing style in "Vanity Fair" is captivating. I saw the movie only a week after finishing the book, with the details fresh in my mind, to be immensely displeased. I have read a number of excellent comments that go into detail of the faults of the movie, so I plan to keep this brief for those wanting a shorter critique.

At least half of the characters were misrepresented. I believe the only two relatively-accurate main characters were Jos Sedley and Rawdon Crawley. Becky was completely dismantled into something with scarcely a semblance of what she is portrayed as in the book. The character Dobbin was undefined; George Osborne was snobbish instead of cocky; his rigid father suddenly became sympathetic (way too early and much too far); not to mention troves of other discrepancies. I understand the goal may have been to come up with a more abridged version, but there were changes made that had nothing to do with shortening the screenplay. Besides, there were a number of musical pieces that could have been cut in order to use the time more beneficially by preserving some of the integrity of the film.

Thackeray would have been appalled at this hack job.

Were it not for my love for time period films, and the possibility of enjoying this movie as something very separate from the book, I would not care to see it again. At least the filming was impressive, though that hardly makes up for the rest. The theatrical trailer is the best part of the movie.

---

23 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
Social climbing, 12 January 2006

Author: jotix100 from New York

William Thackerey's "Vanity Fair" has been adapted for the screen and television in numerous occasions. It is almost an impossible task to get a coherent take on a narrative that spans a lot of years and in which a lot happens.

This adaptation of the book by Mira Nair with the adaptation by Julian Fellowes, is sumptuously photographed by Declan Quinn, who captures the Regency period in the England at the beginning of the XIX century. Ms. Nair's touch is evident in the way the costumes have an Indian flair as they were brilliantly executed by designer Beatrix Aruna Pasztor. Maria Djurkovic's wonderful production design is also an asset.

If anything, this reincarnation of the Thackerey's novel is a joy for the eyes. The rich period in which the action takes place comes alive in the screen as a feast of colors, which in a way, compensate for the failings on the story and in the way Ms. Nair conceived the way she wanted to tell this tale about an ambitious young woman who is the epitome of social climbing. As a character puts in the film, Becky Sharp would be a perfect mountaineer.

Part of what is wrong with the film is Reese Witherspoon in the central role. Not that her interpretation is wrong, it's that she doesn't project the character of Becky Sharp with an intensity that another actress might have brought to the role. In part, this might not have been Ms. Witherspoon's fault, but the director's, in the way she guided the key performance.

The other failure of the film lies in the last scenes in which one finds Becky in Baden-Baden. Becky, Amelia, and Dobbins, haven't aged one iota. For the sake of realism, a bit of old age makeup should have been applied to these actors, or else, one might believe in the curative waters of that German spa. If it was true, we should be taking the next flight to Germany. After all, if that were the case, it would be the end of plastic surgery as we know it!

Some of the best actors of the English stage and screen are seen in various roles. Bob Hoskins, Eileen Atkins, Jim Broadbent, Gabriel Byrne, Barbara Leigh-Hunt, Rhys Ifan, Romola Garai, Jonathan Rhys-Meyer, James Purefoy, just to name a few, do an excellent job in the portrayal of their characters.

This "Vanity Fair", although flawed, is not a total failure. Mira Nair shows an amazing talent for being in command of such a large project.

---

32 out of 48 people found the following comment useful :-
Fairly Vain, 21 October 2004
Author: kealbertson

Elegant costumes, beautiful scenery, and piano playing in excess all add to the sights and sounds of Mira Nair's film 'Vanity Fair.' Her 2004 version is one of over ten tries to put William Makepeace Thackeray's novel onto the big screen. Most attempts failed miserably, lacking the magic of today's movies and failing to grasp the themes of the novel. Nair's version, with its visual and audible pleasures, has the potential to become one of the few successful attempts. With humble beginnings as a poor child with a starving artist as her father, Becky (Reese Witherspoon) was determined to overcome her circumstance. She managed to work her way into a governess position in a down-on-his-luck aristocrat. New opportunities arise, and she hastily abandons her post to become the companion to a wealthy woman known only as Miss Crawley (Eileen Atkins). Much to Miss Crawley's displeasure, Becky wastes no time in her quest to climb the social ladder and marries into the family. Becky's new husband, Crawley's nephew, is soon sent off to war. Returning after the battle of Waterloo, their marriage is rocky due to his gambling debts and her never-ending quest to raise her social status. Meeting a man who collected her late father's art, she uses his money and his influence to continue her rise in the social hierarchy, causing more distress to their marriage. Nair attempted to bring something new to the film, using her fantastic creative talents in the costuming and scenery. Her musical choices weren't overwhelming and accented the film rather than hiding behind its beautiful visual aspects. She tried to cover the expanse of the novel, but ending up making a summary of the story and leaving the characters bland and undeveloped. Nair intentionally portrays Becky as a victim of the social system, showing her as merely taking advantage of circumstantial events. This contradicts harshly with Thackeray's Becky, who is manipulative and cunning, turning circumstantial events into anything that will benefit her rise up the social ladder. This movie is beautifully made and had the potential to become something great, but Nair's overly eager attempt leaves it as nothing more than another mediocre film. Had she paid as much attention to the plot and the characters as she did to the audio and visual aspects, this would definitely be the best film of the year. But she didn't, so don't waste your seven dollars to see it in the theater. Wait for the video, or better yet, wait for that one Friday night when you are home alone and it comes on cable.

---

30 out of 46 people found the following comment useful :-
Both a visual feast and a well-told, heartbreaking story, 6 September 2004

Author: Andrew DiMonte (ThatIsNoArrow) from My House, Canada

'Vanity Fair' is the perfect title for this story, showing us a world of cold characters with impersonal motives; a world where marriage is just another move in a chess game where the opponent is poverty and, perhaps more importantly, unpopularity. At the center of this movie is Becky Sharp (Reese Witherspoon), a beautiful blonde from a terribly poor family (her father was a talented but poor artist). We meet her first when she is a young girl, and we see that she is already stubborn and manipulative, when she demands ten guineas for a portrait of her mother that is being sold to a wealthy aristocrat (Gabriel Byrne) for four. He agrees, probably not because he thinks it's worth it, but because he admires the fire and spirit in the young girl. He'll come into play later.

We see her next after completing finishing school and being sent off to be a governess for Sir Pitt Crawley (Bob Hoskins), a scruffy old man who's just barely getting by, with a dusty mansion and rude servants. She leaves for Pitt with her friend Amelia (Romola Garai), who is engaged to an officer George Osborne (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers). Amelia's engagement does not stop her from talking to Becky about the benefits of marrying a wealthy man, and it is here that we first see the mindset of most of the women in the film. Since they don't have many promising career prospects (those were for the men) they want to seduce a rich man to gain wealth, and popularity, and happiness too, I guess.

And Becky is great at playing the game. When she stays with Amelia's family in London before going to the Crawleys, she meets Amelia's awkward (and heavy) brother (Tony Maudsley), a wealthy man from India, and starts a seduction that is in a way kind of obvious, but she knows that the insecure Joseph couldn't possibly see through it. And he doesn't, he wants to marry her, and she wants that, but it's George who talks him out of it.

So, Becky is finished with her detour and moves to the Crawley's, where she teaches his kids perfect French and even cleans up the mansion when his wealthy sister Matilde (Eileen Atkins) arrives. Matilde is an undeniable snob who claims to have a romantic heart, but with mean put-downs ready for everyone in the house. She takes a liking to Becky for her own cleverness and invites her to live with her and her nephew Rawdon Crawley (James Purefoy) in London. Becky accepts, of course, it's another step up.

So, she is back in London and reunites with Amelia, George, and George's soldier friend William Dobbin (Rhys Ifans). She also recognizes Matilde's neighbor, Lord Steyne, the man who bought her mother's portrait all those years ago. She's back in the game, but she falls prey to her heart and elopes with Rawdon, angering Matilde enough to cut Rawdon out of her will (she loves romantic stories, she says, but not in real life!).

Becky hasn't been completely consumed by her love, though. She still has that cunning agenda of her own, which includes getting pregnant in hopes of gaining sympathy from Matilde, and attending all the major parties, shows and banquets in London despite her lower class.

But Rawdon is a gambler and their wealth and public image starts to drop significantly. This is when we see the extent of Becky's agenda, when she accepts Steyne as her mentor, despite his A) being a horrible man and B) clearly wanting Becky for his bedroom, not his student. But Steyne is seductive in his own right, and buys Becky the most expensive and beautiful jewelry, shows her to great parties and even casts her as the lead in a dance show he directed. Their relationship is one of the most intriguing points of the film, kind of similar to that of Fast Eddie Felson and Bert Gordon, and Laura Hunt and Waldo Lydecker.

Despite most of its characters being cunning and sinister, 'Vanity Fair' is a distinctly moral movie. Pitt Crawley Jr. (Douglas Hodge) is awkward and kind of dull, but his honesty and kindness gives him a stable, happy life, and Joseph's own earnestness pays off for him in the end. But the most important is the story of William Dobbin's undying love for Amelia, and how he's so gentlemanly about it. He doesn't urge her into adultery, and when she mistakes a piano he's bought for her for a present from George he doesn't correct her. I won't say how this story ends, but it'll most likely pull a tear from the girls in the audience. Ifans' is a fantastic, heartbreaking performance, the best of the movie.

Mira Nair's direction is awesome as well, what other director could make a passable (even good) glittery, belly-dancing scene in a Victorian drama. The Oscar for costume design will most certainly go to this, and its set design makes the best competition to 'The Terminal' so far this year.

As for acting Oscars, well, the way the movie switches from story to story doesn't quite let us get to know most of the characters, but some great performances can still be found here. Particularly Rhys Ifans, whose performance is so quiet and strong, and Eileen Atkins, who is perfect and hilarious, a true scene-stealer of her performance (and maybe even Byrne, too).

And then there's Witherspoon, in one of her best performances as Becky Sharp, the girl who, after learning her lesson by the end, is so stubborn that she's at it again, 7.5/10.

---

26 out of 40 people found the following comment useful :-
Ironically, 'Vanity Fair' is a very fitting title for this inexpressive and characterless remake of a true classic., 22 January 2005

Author: Darcie Healy from Ireland

I had the somewhat unfortunate job of accompanying two teenage girls to my viewing of Vanity Fair. As any cinema attendee will know, there is nothing more irritating then two talkative teens, with the attention span of goldfish, chatting throughout the entire film. All their interest was well gone by the time Gabriel Byrne strutted onto the screen, and although it pains me to admit it, my interest had slowly subsided with theirs.

Although beautiful shots, skillful performances and magnificently designed sets came bountiful, there was still one vast absence that was so dearly missed. This was the charm, the charisma and the fascination that connects the audience with the characters. The scenes didn't fuse well and felt shabbily thrown together. Acknowledged events came as surprises and characters lost their appeal and distinctiveness. Becky Sharp, played by Reese Witherspoon, became aggravating and tedious, and any sympathy, understanding or patience for that matter, was lost to a plot so drawn and witless, it made 'Charlie's angels' seem thought provoking.

The charm and the magic of the William Makepeace Thackeray novel were forgotten in this drawn and soulless remake of a classic. Worth the watch for the costumes and set alone, but expect nothing more.

---

---

Page 1 of 14:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history