(2013-05-12 10:43:08)

Great movie

This review is from: Ideal Husband [VHS] (VHS Tape) I dont watch much tv and less movies but this was an exceptional exception. A fuuny, witty, romantic and intrigueful movie, I laughed throughout, and have seen it three times. It is addicting as it is welcome relief from the usual romantic [stuff] out there, this is romance with brains and wit, not for the simple minded.

nickjg

(2013-05-11 17:15:46)

Another 'modernisation' goes wrong.

One of the principal sources of humour in Wilde's plays comes frompricking at the inflated egos, pious humbug and ignorance of the upperclasses. There is always a Wildean character to reverse a clicheedexpression or invert conventional 'wisdom.' Unfortunately, by strippingmost of his characters of their stiff formality and rigid social code,the writer and director have removed the butt of the joke and Wilde'scomments on absurdity are left without a punchline. The attempt to workin anachronistic social relevance leaves us with a set of feeblecharacters who fall in love with each other for no obvious reason.Because Wilde's language has been sterilised the actors have to usemugging to express the personalities Wilde created. Result, a charmlessand dated 'political' drama as credible as a Jeffery Archer novel.Gertrude is insecure and fretful where she should be smug and priggish-Mabel is arch where she should be caustic- Poor Oscar - gets no'Oscar'!

sissoed

(2013-05-03 15:03:03)

Good, not great

I've seen three video/film versions (the 1969 Jeremy Brett, the 1998'contemporary', and this 1999 Blanchette/Everett), and read theoriginal play. Each video/film version is good, with differentstrengths and weaknesses, but of the three I have the biggest problemswith this one. First, Rupert Everett plays Lord Goring very low-key,like a man tired of life, which makes the early part of the film slow.Jeremy Brett in the 1969 version (categorized on IMDb under "Play ofthe Month" season 4, episode 9) was much better, full of life and witand energy and imagination. Second, this version, unlike the other two, omits the business withMrs. Cheveley's broach/ bracelet. I can understand why directors mightwant to cut it, since it can seem contrived, but cutting it requirescoming up with an alternative method by which Goring gets Cheveley tosurrender Sir Robert's incriminating letter, and it also costs Goringone of his character-defining lines. In Wilde's original, and in the1969 and 1998 versions, during the scene between Goring and Cheveley inGoring's rooms, Goring condemns Cheveley most for what he saw asCheveley's deliberate visit to Lady Chiltern "to try to degrade herhusband in her eyes, to try and kill her love for him, to put poison inher heart, and bitterness in her soul, and break her idol, and, it maybe, spoil her soul. That I cannot forgive you." In the original, and inthe other two versions, Cheverley did not in fact go to Lady Chiltern'sto do this -- to the contrary, she explains, she went to find her lostbroach, and it was Lady Chiltern's insults to Cheveley that causedCheveley to expose Sir Robert to his wife. That admission clues inGoring that Cheveley was the one who had the broach, and this leads tohis trapping her with it and extorting Sir Robert's letter from her.But in this version, Cheveley actually is guilty of going to LadyChiltern for the purpose of destroying her love for her husband, yetGoring does NOT deliver the crucial denunciation of that act. Instead,Goring kisses and fondles Cheveley in an attempt to get the letter fromher, and then engages in a bet whereby he agrees to marry her if SirRobert supports the Argentine canal scheme. These changes transformGoring from a man who honors marriage to one who treats it as somethingto be wagered -- making him a fundamentally different character. Furthermore, this version changes the order in which characters enterGoring's apartment during these scenes, also in a way that changesGoring's character. In the original and in the 1969 and 1998 versions,Goring arrives; finds Lady Chiltern's letter that says she is coming;Goring's father shows up unexpectedly; Goring tells his butler a ladyis coming who is to be shown into a particular room; Cheveley shows up,butler shows her in; Goring, who never saw her, thinks it is LadyChiltern; then Sir Robert shows up just as Goring's father is leaving,and Sir Robert forces his way in against Goring's wishes. Thus Goringnever intended that Sir Robert and his wife be there at the same time,in different rooms. In this version, by contrast, Sir Robert shows upbefore the lady, and thus, when Goring tells the butler to put the ladyin the other room, he is planning that both Mr. and Mrs. Chiltern willbe in his apartment simultaneously, only in different rooms. ThusGoring is taking a terrible risk with her reputation, if Sir Robertdiscovers her -- as apparently happens. The last major change is that Cheveley sends Sir Robert not only hiswife's letter, but also the envelope it came in -- addressed to Goring.Moreover, this version adds a line to the letter -- that her love is"destroyed" -- which is not in Wilde's original or the other versions.Thus Sir Robert takes it as Cheveley intended, as a love-letter fromhis apparently unfaithful wife to Goring. Lady Chiltern, Goring, andMabel then all engage in a series of quick-thinking lies to make SirRobert think the letter was meant for him. This changes the charactersof Goring and Mabel, and not for the better, in order to get a bit offarce into the show. Then, a little later, all three confess their liesto Sir Robert, and he apparently casually forgives and forgets it all.This is neither believable, nor does it show any real insight intohuman nature or the importance of love, which Wilde's original makesthe most important point of the play. The 1998 version with James Wilby(Sir Robert) and Trevyn McDowell (Lady Chiltern) handles this moreeffectively and with more psychological insight. (The 1969 versionavoids the whole issue by ending the play early, with Sir Robert underthe impression the letter was meant for him, and with Sir Robertdeciding to leave public life).In sum, this version is very entertaining, but it lacks the deeperemotional impact that Wilde's original and the 1998 version sought toattain, and it lacks the sparkling, witty Goring of the 1969 JeremyBrett version.

lastliberal

(2013-05-03 12:37:20)

To love oneself is the beginning of a lifelong romance.

Oscar Wilde's play has been made into movies many times. There was evenone made one year before this version. I can't comment on the otherversions, but Oliver Parker certainly adapted the play with and verygood screenplay and excellent direction to give us a glimpse of 19thcentury British aristocracy with a magnificent cast to boot.Jeremy Northam (Gosford Park, Emma) was excellent as a man who had aterrible secret in his past that was to be brought to the light of dayby Julianne Moore (The Hours, Boogie Nights), who was looking to getrich. He had thought that no one knew, and his political career, andeven his marriage to Cate Blanchett (The Aviator, Notes on a Scandal)was to come to a crashing end.But, Sidney Carlton to the rescue, as his best friend, Rupert Everett(My Best Friend's Wedding) got himself another Golden Globe nominationas a friend that would risk all for another.The repartee in this film is what makes it so special, and you cannothelp by laugh at all the great lines delivered by the principals,including the ever lovely Minnie Driver (Good Will Hunting).Outstanding costumes and makeup in the period piece that is worthwatching more than once for the hilarious lines.

Monika-5

(2013-04-26 21:17:06)

Very good

This is a very good adaption of the Oscar Wilde play. Beautiful sets, music,and costumes are a great backdrop to the action. Rupert Everett is, asalways, very good, and Julianne Moore almost single-handedly stole everyscene she was in. The other actors, particularly Cate Blanchett, are alsoexcellent. Another fine British comedy.

wildebeest-2

(2013-04-26 11:01:04)

Delicious

Supremely cultured comedy of the highest order. I think this filmsimultaneously cherishes and pokes fun at the characteristics of Englishsociety 100 years ago. The settings are so lavish and the actors uniformlylovely, it is a feast for the eyes. It is also a feast for the mind, as yousort out the insults from the love scenes, almost all of them delivered inthe same polite and cultured tones, which only adds to the hilarity. Iparticularly love the scripting and the acting of Miss Mabel and LordGoring, they are absolutely delicious...!

vitaleralphlouis

(2013-04-26 14:59:19)

Scarce Entertainment for the Grown-Ups

Here was a chance not just to see a movie aimed at grown-ups but to seeCATE BLANCHETT as well. Truthfully, I enjoy more contemporary settingsfor English movies and Cate was certainly more appealing covered withwestern grit and grime in THE MISSING than covered from head to toe informal clothes. This Oscar Wilde comedy did not yield so much as achuckle, but as a story it was moderately interesting. I had to keep inmind their excesses and mannerisms were part of the alleged comedy.When my mind wandered away from the inadequate storyline, I wasthinking that the England and the English upper class pictured hereinwere not much to my liking, but it was people like this that ran theEmpire at the time when England ruled most of the world. Both Iran andIraq, as well as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, were under British control ---and life was more peaceful for us all.

(2013-04-26 11:12:28)

Good laugh!

I love this adaptation and so do my students everytime I recomend it to them after discussing the play. I only miss one part, SPOILERSit's the affair of the missing brooch. Besides this, Everett is the kind of bon vivant we all love and his character is my view of an ideal husband.

audrey meredith

(2013-04-24 03:33:00)

Essence of Wilde not realised. Costumes slovenly and horrible.

`An Ideal Husband` is one of Wilde`s lesser efforts but nevertheless, itrequires an understanding of the comedy of manners to succeed in any medium.Unfortunately the director did not seem to grasp that the Wildean scene isvery important to the truth of the piece. The costumes were dreadful. Lookfor Mrs. Cheveley`s left breast on her first appearance - it`s not there!Look at the puffing out of the waistcoat of Lord Goring when he is on thecouch with Mrs. Cheveley. Look at the dreadful changes in Mrs. Chiltern`shairdo and the hats were hideous throughout. Whoever cut the movie did sowith a pinking shears. Little `ladies of the night` and glimpses of stockingare not Wildean - they are vulgar and Wilde HATED vulgarity.The whole character of the delightful Mabel was of course ruined by theknowing grimaces of Minnie Driver and I counted Rupert Everett`s poresseveral times. His stove pipe hat did nothing for his allure nor did hiscrooked cravat.Then the blurbs - riotously funny - side splitting etc.Wilde was not written for belly laughs or amateur dressmakers who chose allthe wrong colours for the characters and the period.The Ballygobackwards Amateur Dramatic Society in Ireland could have donebetter.When I went to see the movie in London there were 14 women and one man inthe audience and he left half way through. And what was a Lord doing in theHouse of COMMONS?????Look at Glynis Johns to see the real Mabel Chiltern and weep for thisversion.

(2013-04-23 16:31:03)

An ideal movie!

This review is from: An Ideal Husband (DVD) One of Oscar Wilde's best plays has been made into a fantastic movie with a truly great cast. Rupert Everett as Lord Goring is particularly entertaining. Excellent!

Bjork

(2013-04-13 05:41:00)

I want to see it again

"To love oneself is the beginning of a lifelong romance." I loved thismovie! Rupert Everett is perfectly cast as Lord Goring, who, at 36, seemshopelessly adrift in the highest circles of 1895 London society. Will heget married? To whom? Who is cuter, Rupert or Jeremy Northam? Thequestions go on and on. (It's Jeremy, in my book.) Great writing, courtesyof Oscar Wilde and director/screenwriter Oliver Parker; spirited, funperformances from everyone, especially Everett and Julianne Moore, and thesplendid production design make this movie one of my favorites of '99 sofar. See it today!

Lil'Girl

(2013-04-12 20:22:06)

A Witty Deal

Lord Goring... yes, the real hero of the play. A brilliant wit... mostcertainly. An ideal husband... perhaps. Although I enjoy the sparklingrepartee in the film, the mischievous discourse about husbands and wivesrunning through the original play seems to have gone astray. In the end, itwas more a showcase for Wildean wit and Everett's abilities. 'Tis a shamereally... Wilde had a lot of interesting things to say about men and women.(Better than some of the self-help literature we're so fond of reading)Perhaps some of which will not sit too well in our politically correcttimes.

Brocko

(2013-04-09 04:14:21)

The plot's the thing

If only Oscar Wilde were still around to write more! Don't leave your mindat the door.Not just a love story, this is more than a romantic comedy, with evenaspects of farce. An interplay of sometimes-devious characters, in ahistorical setting, full of intrigue sufficiently modern to be immediatelyunderstood. The plot has enough subtleties to engage and intrigue.The leading character (Goreing) keeps his balance, despite beingcontinuallywrong-footed by turns of events. If hereditary peers are that much moreablethan elected politicians, perhaps the House of Lords had better stayunreformed. Following his plans, actions and emotions as the story unfoldsprovides enough mental exercise to ensure entertainment, without being toomuch to hold in the head.I'll accept Goreing is in love with Mabel despite no apparent motivationbeyond his father's instructions. (Not that she isn't beautiful!) I'llsuspend my disbelief for the geography of the parliamentary scene. (Wereallthe non-MPs supposed to be in the Strangers' Gallery? Perhaps it was biggerthen?) I'll accept Lord Chiltern wore his hat inside the House of Commons.For the sake of the plot I'll happily accept the contrived horseback andopen-carriage meetings, and in fact almost anything. The plot is definitelythe thing.I like having a puzzle weaved (How will he get out of it? We all know hemust!) and then solved by sleight of hand before my very eyes. Reminiscentmore of Dornford Yates than of Conan Doyle, this is ideal escapist stuff.Nosleaze here: the political intrigue is really just forfun.So what was wrong? I don't know, but this didn't quite hit greatness forme.Pretty costumes, good lines, strong actors, a corking plot, but somethingwas missing. I'm not sure what. Perhaps the pace was slow - but I wasgripped by the plot. Perhaps it is the origin of the piece as a stage play.AN IDEAL HUSBAND was merely very enjoyable. I wish we could have more greatintelligent amusing movies, but - if we can't - let's have more good oneslike this!

(2013-04-08 19:28:42)

An almost ideal husband

Everybody likes Oscar Wilde. Some even feel sorry for him. But he doesn't need our pity: we need his wise and witty insight.Oliver Parker really likes Oscar Wilde. He's done An Ideal Husband in 1999 (director, screenplay, and plays a character called Bunbury); The Importance of Being Ernest in 2002, (director and screenplay); and is working on his version of Dorian Gray which will be released in 2009. This is a look at the 1999 film.It's probable that the big screen treatment and some well known actors will bring an audience to Wilde's plays that would never attend a theatre performance of them, let alone read them (the texts are available as a free download at www.manybooks.com). But a cinematic treatment must in some sense be an adaptation, not merely a performance, so something is gained and something is lost.Oscar Wilde turned from prose to theatre in 1891 and after writing some lesser plays, in 1895 produced his two best works, An Ideal Husband and The Importance of Being Ernest. Then he was attacked because of his homosexuality (probably bisexuality) tried (there were three trials and two acquittals before the prosecution succeeded), sent to prison, bankrupted, separated from his family and driven, ill, into exile, where he soon died. The punishment is a landmark of legal injustice. Before his destruction Wilde created a theatre that excelled that of Congreve and Sheridan. He exhibited a mastery of construction and a brilliance in dialogue that have never been excelled in English dramatic literature. He also revealed, beneath the surface brilliance, an astonishing understanding of human nature. These two plays are characterised by witty insight and entertaining wisdom.Adapting such precisely constructed works is like disassembling a watch and putting the parts in a wall clock. Each of the parts might well work, but the clock may not tell the right time. Before looking at Parker's adaption it is worth noting how An Ideal Husband has been treated by other film makers. Alexander Korda's 1947 version with Paulette Goddard as Cheveley is an adaptation that remains poised between film and stage and succeeds as neither. Rudolph Cartier directed a version for the BBC in 1969 with Jeremy Brett and Margaret Leighton. This version managed to bring out both the drama and the comedy of the play (Wilde as successfully merges genres as does Shakespeare) and is a stage version with the only filmic contribution the fluid camera movement. This version is probably the best acted one. The 1998 version directed by Bill Cartlidge, with Jonathan Firth and Prunella Scales, is much too static to be successful, though some performances are very good.Parker's 1999 version stars Cate Blanchett and Jeremy Northam as the Chilterns, Minnie Driver as Mabel, Rupert Everett as Goring and Julianne Moore as Cheveley. Parker rewrites the script, leaving out episodes and putting in several of his own. His film includes extensive location shots and very effective use of the sets and costumes available. Two things emerge from Parker's rewrite. Firstly, he's not nearly as good a dramatist as Wilde. Some Parker episodes, such as Sir Robert's speech before Parliament or Lady Chiltern's admission of having told a lie, I found embarrassingly awkward. Insertion of location shots I thought sometimes ruined the pace of an episode, with more than once a street or countryside scene interrupting a fast paced dialogue.Secondly, Parker is turning what is originally a witty and exciting drama into a romantic comedy. Marketing, I suppose.What concerned me more was the actor's delivery of their lines. Avoiding the over precise, clipped enunciation common in Wilde meant to tell us we are hearing epigrams, the actors in this film frequently murmur or whisper to one another and just as frequently speak without moving their lips. I don't want to have the play stop while an actor delivers a witty line but I do want to hear the remark.These things have been done to get away from theatre (Errgh!) and present the audience with something they are familiar with in the cinema. By and large it works, largely by effective acting. All of the principals are good, though I don't agree with some of the direction they get. This is a good introduction to Wilde. I think anyone who likes it will like the BBC version (now available on DVD) better . And the plays are good to read. Parker's Ernest suffers from the same pros and cons as his Husband. Again, the BBC version is the one I prefer. Directed by Stuart Burge in 1986, it stars Joan Plowright as Bracknell, Paul McGann as Worthing and Rupert Frazer as Algernon Moncrieff. This in my view excels the famous Anthony Asquith 1952 version with Edith Evans and Michael Redgrave. Both of these last two are filmed plays and the films work very well, the groundwork having been done for the directors by Wilde's masterly construction.

(2013-04-08 11:24:24)

If you love good dialogue...

...This is the movie for you!!When people ask me what movies I love for just witty dialogue alone, this movie is always up there with Pulp Fiction, Out of Sight, and When Harry Met Sally. I love the language, the delivery, the exquisiteness of each word, each line in this movie! Every actor/actress delivers such grand performances and revels in the pure fun of the language! I made my fiancé sit down and watch it the other day and even though she had dubious concerns about why I was making her watch the movie, she absolutely loved it!A true screen gem!

Red"V"

(2013-04-07 22:55:23)

When wit was the only blunt instrument to fear...

Going into this with my girlfriend, I feared a chick flick. I was veryhappily surprised. This entertaining film is a well-needed change fromtheviolent, negative, simple-mindedly sarcastic fare that is the norm today.Jeremy Northam plays a similar role in another superbly crafted periodpiece, "The Winslow Boy," recently remade by David Mamet.

(2013-04-05 20:06:20)

An IDEAL British romp

This film is charming. All 4 of the main characters are a delight to watch, and Julianne Moore makes a lovely viallainess. I love the wit and saracasm that seems to merrily flit from scene to scene like just another character in the plot. Highly recommended!!

(2013-04-05 17:53:46)

Great Girls Night Movie

This review is from: An Ideal Husband (DVD) Fathers and sons will not like this movie very much. However, the ladies will love it! Good story line. At the very beginning there is a nude woman getting out of bed. I did not like that at all, but it only lasted a few seconds and there was nothing else objectionable for a christian to watch. Really liked the ending. Loved Minnie Driver. Fun movie to watch on a girls night.

(2013-03-30 02:58:58)

The Aspects of Searching for that Ideal Husband

I thought this movie was extremly funny and interesting. Minnie Driver and Rupert Evert form a wonderful couple full of chemistry and laughter. A great date movie.

furryguy

(2013-03-29 21:07:21)

disappointing

I was looking forward to Rupert Everett's performance. He has the looks asdoes Ms Driver. However that's all it is. All for show and beautifulcostumesand scenery. I didn't know whether this was suppossed to be a romanticcomedyor just another episode of masterpiece theater . All the fancy talk oflate19th century English accents delivered with dull results.Halfway through this film it got even worse as the copy of the filmdeveloped a green line running right down the center. This just added tomyboredom. Mr Everett and Ms Driver would do better to stick to roles bettersuited for them. They look pretty in this movie but their lines areboring.Go see My Best Friends Wedding and Good Will Hunting..they showcase MrEverett and Ms Driver's talents a lot better...