Vanity Fair (2004)

The Worst Film Ever

Lack of good storyline.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

A Masterpiece!

I didn't read the book before watching this film. Still after going through the 2 hours I can say that this film looks beautiful with exquisite period costumes and settings but the main characters don't come to life. The film concentrates on the exploits of Becky, a girl coming from a poor family climbs her way through the social ladder. As interpreted by Reese Witherspoon or as written on script, Becky's character feels flat and unnatural and so much is hinged on this character in the film. Either Reese was out of her depths in this or the director/script writers didn't get the feel of how a conniving, calculating but bewitching person could be. or feel. Rosella O Hara in Gone with the Wind springs to mind and VIvian Leigh nailed down the part. That made the whole film spring to life despite the many goings and comings of different characters. Unfortunately Vanity Fair fails in this and most of the characters have a disposable feel to them with a few exceptions The film still stuns in the visual department with the rich costumes, interiors, colours and delightful gardens being shown. That I enjoyed

In 1802 London, the Marquess of Steyne (Gabriel Byrne) buys the last picture of young Becky Sharp's mother. After her painter father's death, she is left orphaned. Becky (Reese Witherspoon) grows up to be a country governess. Her best friend Amelia Sedley (Romola Garai) has a self-obsessed boyfriend Captain George Osborne (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) and a secret admirer in his best friend Captain William Dobbin (Rhys Ifans). Amelia's brother Jos is taken with Becky but George convinces him to not pursue the commoner. Becky starts work for the crude Sir Pitt Crawley (Bob Hoskins). He has two sons, awkward Pitt and dashing Captain Rawdon Crawley (James Purefoy). She brings the rundown mansion back to a high class standard. The older Pitt is visited by his wealthy half-sister Miss Matilda Crawley (Eileen Atkins) who takes Becky with her back to London. Becky discovers that the Marquess of Steyne is her new neighbor. She marries Rawdon and gets thrown out.I'm not familiar with the book and won't make any comparisons. Director Mira Nair fills this with a luscious flirty beauty. Witherspoon is a charismatic lead. There is a lot of story with many characters to fit into a movie even with its over two hours running time. This may fit better as a mini-series which could accentuate the ups and downs. The cast is good throughout. This is a fine production.

Yes, ''Vanity Fair'' is a good movie, but sadly it's not very much faithful to the novel, which is one of my favorite novels.Just see the differences: are there any similarities between the Becky of the novel and the Becky of the movie? In the novel, we start to hate Becky Sharp. Again in the novel, Becky is presented with a selfish and wicked character, a character WITHOUT a soul. But in the movie--- she has emotions and she is a good person despite her wicked dreams.If you don't read the novel but only watch the movie, then you will like this movie. In fact, I also like this movie very much, but I'm sad because of it's lack of faithfulness towards the novel.And now, the songs are truly wonderful. Take an example of ''Now Sleeps the Crimson Petal'' and ''She Walks in Beauty''. Aren't these songs wonderful? The musical effects of the film is very good.And the casting: it's excellent!!! I like the performances of all of them: Reese Witherspoon, James Purefoy, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Romola Garai, Rhys Ifans, Bob Hoskins, Gabriel Byrne, Jim Broadbent and others.In short, the whole movie is good but is not much faithful to the novel. Yes, it's faithful, but some elements in the movie truly disappointed me.

None of the reviews I have read thus far would seem to have commented on the music & dance sequence towards the latter part of the film. The sequence depicted 'native' dancers performing an 'ethnic' dance to some equally 'ethnic' music. Both the choreography and the music seemed to draw from a wide variety of styles, i.e. Latin- American, African, Arabic - styles which would simply not have existed in the early 19th century! How on earth could the director have got it so wrong? The sequence was laughable, almost Pythonesque in its absurdity. For me this was the final straw in a piece that had struggled from the start to hold itself together. Even the very talented Miss Witherspoon looked fairly clueless throughout most of the film.