More in-depth film festival coverage than any other website!
Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About 

Overall Rating

Awesome: 7.69%
Worth A Look: 11.54%
Average: 17.31%
Pretty Bad61.54%
Total Crap: 1.92%

6 reviews, 16 user ratings

Latest Reviews

Laplace's Witch by Jay Seaver

Eighth Grade by Peter Sobczynski

Unfriended: Dark Web by Peter Sobczynski

Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! by Peter Sobczynski

Boiled Angels: The Trial of Mike Diana by Jay Seaver

Buy Bust by Jay Seaver

Isle of Dogs by Rob Gonsalves

Room Laundering by Jay Seaver

Mega Time Squad by Jay Seaver

Profile by Jay Seaver

subscribe to this feed

Vanity Fair
[] Buy posters from this movie
by Jay Seaver

"Something is wrong here."
2 stars

Something is wrong here. How can such a brightly colored film with a fine cast and enough soap in the story to clean every grimy extra until they shine... Well, how can it be so dull?

Part of the problem is that there is a lot of story to be compressed into a movie. The original novel is about 900 pages long; the movie itself is about 140, which means each minute must cover six or seven pages. Clearly, something needs to be left out, but the filmmakers don't exactly cut with surgical precision. Perhaps the most peculiar choice, whether made in the screenplay or editing room, is when William Dobson (Rhys Ifans) receives a letter in India and says he must go back to England... and then isn't seen again until after a "12 years later" caption. It's not the only storyline to lead into a blind alley, although other situations spring up out of nowhere to compensate.

Even setting that sort of mess aside, though, this movie's got problems. The biggest is the way lead character Becky Sharp is portrayed. I love Reese Witherspoon, but she doesn't seem to be given much direction from Mira Nair on how to portray this character. She's too self-aware to be an ingenue, but even as she's given some good lines as a scheming social climber, the character doesn't seem to be much good at it. Her climb upward isn't as relentless as someone with her obvious intellect should be capable of, and we mostly linger on her failings. I found myself more interested in the downward path of her friend Amelia Sedley (Romola Garai), but she often disappears for long stretches.

There are numerous other issues. The casting of the movie gives us a lot of similar-looking characters, and I don't know whether it's an issue with the source material or the screenplay, but there are numerous points when it seems like characters could avoid a lot of trouble by speaking up when it would behoove them to do so. Sure, societal norms were different two hundred years ago, but it's the job of the movie to make that feel natural. Instead, it just feels arbitrary.

Visually, Ms. Nair does some nice work; I like Reese Witherspoon's bright red costumes (the extra weight from her pregnancy looks good on her); the smart military uniforms, though they contribute to the characters looking the same; and the unflinching look at the period's social stratification. Her visual skill doesn't absolve her of for where her storytelling lacks here.

A Vanity Fair movie just may not be a great idea in this day and age - the other versions on the IMDB indicate that the previous theatrical adaptation starred Myrna Loy, while the more recent versions have been TV mini-series, which seems like a better medium for the material - a recent 1998 version was over twice as long, for example, and it would be possible to insert natural breaks into this episodic story. Seventy years ago, it was more acceptable to make much more drastic cuts; today, there's more interest in a faithful adaptation, but not necessarily the time for it.

link directly to this review at
originally posted: 09/30/04 12:21:02
[printer] printer-friendly format  

User Comments

8/22/08 black_queen_marches Becky Sharpe was way too nice, unlike the book; that made it boring 3 stars
2/09/06 Riki Started Strong then...what happened? 3 stars
10/29/05 Jackeline Rodriguez Awesome, great, spectacular 5 stars
4/29/05 reptilesni Well done. Very interestingly told story. 4 stars
4/17/05 Crap Crap Biggest Crap of the Year 1 stars
3/29/05 alana klatt 4 stars
2/17/05 Kathleen4691 Not really my type of film, but better than I expected 4 stars
1/27/05 Graham A fine, imaginative adaptation that just needed more of a sting. 3 stars
10/25/04 me it was great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5 stars
9/24/04 vickel dimpson I enjoyed the movie very much. 5 stars
9/21/04 linda A gorgeous film, but 30 minutes too long; much of Thackery's irony and wit is missing. 4 stars
9/19/04 k bar uh...there was a parrot..that was good i guess..... 2 stars
9/10/04 m_graham Not the book, but not bad. Beauty/decay, virtue/vice, innocence/hypocrisy: a fine mixture. 4 stars
9/07/04 Heather Definitely one to look out for, and no, Reese is not "miscast" 5 stars
9/04/04 Ray Lame 2 stars
Note: Duplicate, 'planted,' or other obviously improper comments
will be deleted at our discretion. So don't bother posting 'em. Thanks!
Your Name:
Your Comments:
Your Location: (state/province/country)
Your Rating:

Discuss this movie in our forum

  01-Sep-2004 (PG-13)
  DVD: 01-Feb-2005



Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About Australia's Largest Movie Review Database.
Privacy Policy | HBS Inc. | |   

All data and site design copyright 1997-2017, HBS Entertainment, Inc.
Search for
reviews features movie title writer/director/cast