The Importance Of Being Earnest Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Everybody Loves Ernest... But Nobody's Quite Sure Who He Really Is.
Two young gentlemen living in 1890's England have taken to bending the truth in order to put some excitement into their lives. Jack Worthing (Colin Firth) has invented a brother, Earnest, whom he uses as an excuse to leave his dull country life behind to visit the ravishing Gwendolyn (Frances O'Connor). Algy Montcrieff (Rupert Everett) decided to take the name 'Earnest' when visiting Worthing's young and beautiful ward, Cecily (Reese Witherspoon) at the country manor. Things start to go awry when they end up together in country and their deceptions are discovered - threatening to spoil their romantic pursuits.
| Rupert Everett | Algernon 'Algy' Moncrieff |
| Colin Firth | John 'Jack' Worthing |
| Frances O'Connor | Gwendolen Fairfax |
| Reese Witherspoon | Cecily Cardew |
| Judi Dench | Lady Augusta Bracknell |
| Tom Wilkinson | Dr. Frederick Chasuble |
| Anna Massey | Miss Laetitia Prism |
| Edward Fox | Lane, Algy's Butler |
| Patrick Godfrey | Merriman |
| Charles Kay | Gribsby |
| Cyril Shaps | Pew Opener |
| Marsha Fitzalan | Dowager |
| Finty Williams | Young Augusta Bracknell |
| Guy Bensley | Young Lord Bracknell |
| Christina Robert | Duchess of Devonshire |
| Oliver Parker |
6.70 out of 10 (7674 votes)
Visitor Reviews
If you know the play you'll be disappointed; if you don't, you might be amused
posted on 11 Jul 2009The new movie of "Important of Being Earnest" reminded me of a story about Walt Disney and Igor Stravinsky. Before a screening of "Fantasia," Disney handed Stravinsky a score to "The Rite of Spring," used as the basis of the origin of life sequence in the movie. Stravinsky was confused; he knew the piece from memory. Why did he need a score? Ah, but what was in "Fantasia" had only a remote connection to the music he wrote. In short, "The Importance of Being Earnest" is that sort of movie: loosely based on the original, cut, rearranged and entirely rethought. In the process of opening up Wilde's play for film and updating it for imagined 21st-century sensibilities, Parker has created backstories for characters, invented locations, inserted fantasy sequences, and changed the ending. Wilde is either spinning in his grave or having a good laugh in whichever segment of the afterlife he found himself in. Around basically good performances by the mostly English cast, Parker has attached a collection of hyperenergetic bits and bobs seemingly to improve upon Wilde's original. One must have expected something like this, but not to the degree to which it's been done. I mean, Gwendolyn getting a tattoo? That's rethinking the character taken to the Luhrmannesque extreme. I guess this is what young folks want these days, and who else goes to the movies? For the rest of us, my suggestion is to either wait for the DVD so you can fast forward through the "extra bits" or find the 1952 film, finally available on tape and DVD in the U.S.
Dam good movie.
posted on 09 Jul 2009If you like The Scarlet Pimpernel, you'll LOVE this. If you like Tom Jones, you Like this. If you like Terminator...well, lets just say this movie might not be your type...Unless you like all categories of Movie-Making, then you'll think this movie is AMAZINGLY-AMAZING!...If you like Douglas Adams, you might like this (The wittiness in the movie is great!).*Spoiler.......well, not really* =P It's a very good movie and you'll like it very much, I'm sure. If you don't like romantic comedies, mixed with good music, wittiness, and people called Earnest (How could you not LOVE a man called, 'Earnest'......), then don't even bother to continue.
Very entertaining and funny
posted on 23 Jun 2009Despite reading some very negative reviews of this film, I still wanted to see it. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I found it funny, fast paced and rather whacky, unlike some older versions I have seen. I thought Colin Firth was brilliant, and all the acting was of a high standard.
Importance of Being Earnest is Much Ado About Nothing 1/2*
posted on 26 Apr 2009Simply awful version of the Oscar Wilde tale.Only Dame Judi Bench's performance gives a drop of light to this hopeless story.It's a story of conventional manners and goings on in England.Rupert Everett and Colin Firth are given writing material and a story which isn't worth much. It centers around 2 guys searching for their identity while they have found the loves of their lives.Dench's question period to see if Firth is suitable for her daughter is memorable. Everything goes all right until there is a hint of illegitimacy attached to Firth's birth history. O my,that was a no-no in British society so many years ago.As a pastor, Tom Wilkinson is a nerd at best. As far as finding romance with the elderly looking Anna Massey, forget it. He could have gotten more excitement from a spinster-like high school school marm than from the frigid-looking Massey.A totally boring film with forgettable characters.
Well-acted
posted on 20 Apr 2009I didn't like the new, added dialogue (Gwendolyn getting a tatoo, Lady Bracknell having been a musical hall dancer). However, the film is well-paced, has some very funny scenes (Algy and Jack's musical number, for example) and is well-acted. Frances O'Connor (Gwendolyn) and Rupert Everett (Algy) are wonderful, and Reese Witherspoon (Cecily) pulls off a passable English accent. Anna Massey and Edward Fox are superb as supporting characters Miss Prism and Lane the butler.
Most depressing remake of a classic I've seen
posted on 21 Mar 2009I don't have very much to add to the various reviews that slammed this deplorable hash of a movie, so I'm going to concentrate on what I find really disturbing: 1) the fact that Oliver Parker believed he could get away with this limp travesty of a great play, and 2) that he did. Instead of people staying away in droves, young things who get all their education from television seem to think it's "quite cute." Essentially, the film becomes a vehicle for the "dreamy" Colin Firth, who looked to me as if he'd been kicked hard in the goolies just before the camera got to him. And what was Rupert Everett doing playing an evil, wasp-waisted Regency buck in a sinister moustache? He's supposed to be an effete upper-class type, not something between Rhett Butler and the Marquis De Sade! This was the most depressing and disturbing remake I've ever seen. Somehow, I believe that one can't do very much damage to Jane Austen or Henry James by making their novels into films (and some of the film versions have been quite decent). Those who love their books will simply ignore the bad films. But Wilde! To think that we (or at least Parker and his vulgarising minions) can do this to Wilde! You would imagine that Wilde would transfer brilliantly to the screen, in 2002, with all the high-tech possibilities of modern cinema. But no. It makes me sad to think that many people who have never read Wilde will go away from this thinking that he was fascinated by hot-air balloons, tattoos, motor-cars, cameras, and funny looking creditors. Oh yes, and he wrote some mildly funny lines too. Could have got a job doing dialogue for Bond movies if he'd been alive.
Song is good.
posted on 23 Feb 2009The song that Jack and Algy sing is the best (only good) part of the movie. That is, if you're sober and watching this movie. I'm fully convinced that Judi Dench should be shot for doing Bracknell so poorly. Colin Firth, however, was a single bright star among other dead ones.
I vote YES!!
posted on 22 Jan 2009I loved this movie. I thought it was so funny. It was excellently cast as well. I loved Rupart Everett and Reece Witherspoon the most. They added a certain charm to the film. Truly, there was very little that I didn't like. I thought that the plot was very clever and that the actors seemed to know exactly how to portray the events. I liked the subplot with Reece's character, and liked the flashbacks in the memories of the characters. I thought that was very well done. The spectacle in the movie was impressive as well. The homes, the clothing and the countryside all stayed true to the time period and setting the the film took place in. Accents, also, were great. Many times in a British film the American accents are awful and not rehearsed. I was impressed with the quality of the accents. I've always loved the book, and I thought the movie did it justice. This movie is a must-see for people of all ages. It's very charming, cute, sincere, witty and SO hilarious!
"Women usually call each other by lots of different names before they call each other 'sister'!" ~ Algy (Rupert Everett)
posted on 06 Jan 2009It's hard to criticize a film that was such fun to watch! As far as film mechanics go, the movie is definitely not flawless but with Mr. Wilde delivering one witticism after another, you are not really paying attention (at least not all the time!) to things that could have been done better, you are thinking "Damn..I need to write these down!" Colin Firth is excellent as always but not as vulnerable as he was in Bridget and Rupert Everett is good too, not to mention Dame Judy Dench and the brilliant Tom Wilkinson. Whether this play should ever have been adapted for a movie is a fact certainly worth arguing over...but in any event it was probably the most entertaining hour and half I have spent at theaters this year..hmmm, well there was Queen of the Damned...
Charming comedy of manners played to the hilt by a wonderful cast...
posted on 02 Jan 2009I can't quibble with those who say this departs from the original material in some respects, because I never saw the original. All I know is I watched it tonight for the first time and found it completely charming, easy to watch, easy to enjoy and easy to love.RUPERT EVERETT was the standout for me, excellent flair for light tongue-in-cheek comedy and COLIN FIRTH and REESE WITHERSPOON came in second with delightful performances. In fact, I can't find any fault with any of the cast members. It was all done exactly in the manner this kind of material calls for--and on top of that, the costumes, settings, photography, music--everything was pitch perfect.Or it could be that I was just in the mood to enjoy some light diversion after all the barrage of news on the cable channels and needed some relief from "real life" for awhile.At any rate, enjoyed the dialog between the two women, the two brothers, and, of course, with JUDI DENCH giving an imposing performance as the starch-collared Aunt Agatha who sees everything through the prism of class distinction.Very enjoyable film--sorry if Oscar Wilde purists couldn't get past a few subtle changes. Some very funny lines recited so earnestly with straight faces that it reminded me what a witty man Oscar Wilde must have been.
Zounds!!!™
posted on 27 Dec 2008Zounds!!!™ Have just seen the first page of these critiques...where it would some actually had a clue!! This film works on a number of levels...and for me the cachet is Judy Dench. This was Wilde at his best...a delicious biting satire of society ( how much has changed?) and it's inherent hypocrisy. I love the whimsy of 'Lady Come Down'..it sums up the film beautifully...mayhaps a little less shock horror Terminator nonsense and a bit more introspection re the human condition before some see fit to opine? LOL!!! It is also a wonderful introduction to Wilde and pays due homage to someone so viciously maligned by that very same society.
A Play is a Play; A Movie is a Movie
posted on 25 Dec 2008I saw a marvelous performance of the play at the Utah Shakespeare Festival. Now I've seen the movie. The screenwriter was not Oscar Wilde. The Director in opening up the play dropped the pacing, crucial to the verbal humor that made Wilde a great playwright. The acting was passable, but remember film acting is nothing like playacting. I give the play a 10 and the movie a 5. In so doing, I'm stretching generosity like spandex on a portly man's derrier. Incidentally, screenwriter, how dare you drop some of Wilde's wittiest dialog. Aren't we fortunate that the theater doesn't have a cutting room floor.
enjoyable watch!
posted on 23 Nov 2008this movie was by far the most fun i have watched this year. it made me want to go out and buy the book. each actor suited their role to perfection. as always firth and everett were perfect, and complemented each other perfectly. great fun to watch with a friend, so go out and rent it!
I never thought "Ernest" was such a sexy name...
posted on 18 Oct 2008but I once had a crush on a boy by such name in my childhood. But that wasn't the reason why I watched this movie.Oliver Parker's adaptation was, for most part, pretty close to the original play. However, it was much better acted than a normal stageplay and far funnier with the inclusion of certain other elements. Having to shoot the film in such lush locations (English countryside) helped as well.I found Colin Firth's "Jack/Ernest" character to be quite hysterical. He portrayed the up tight guardian/playboy socialite very well. Since I'm so used to seeing him in Mr. Darcy (Pride & Prejudice) or Mark Darcy (Bridget Jones's Diary) character, it was nice to see him play something different. By portraying Ernest, he was poking fun at not only the character of Jack he is back home, but also of all the other roles he's had in the past.Alongside Firth, Everett, Witherspoon, Dench, etc., acted superbly. The plot revolved primarily around Firth's character, but each and everyone of them did a fabulous job. O'Connor's feistiness matched quite well with Firth and Witherspoon's dreamy innocence was a hit with the social rogue Everett.I highly suggest people watch this movie. At least once.
quality acting, problem script
posted on 18 Sep 2008The acting is as fine as anyone could expect. The immediate problem for anyone already acquainted with Oscar Wilde's original script, is that all of the changes made for this film version are not only unnecessary, but also quite damaging to what was in fact a perfectly self-contained and concise dialogue.Several omissions leave key set-up lines wasted, and all the additions seem both floundering and inadequate. Plot continuity takes a skip as Lady Bracknell appears, with no attempt at explanation, at Jack's house in the country.The occasional meanderings into visual and musical fantasy are annoyingly distracting.All round it's a `6 of 10' film and all of those points are due entirely to the quality of the actors.If Oscar Wilde's script was left in tact it could have been worth 8 or 9.
I loved it!
posted on 25 Aug 2008There do seem to be some scathing reviews here, but I have to say that I loved it!I first started by reading the play, then watching the 1952 version, and then this latest reworking. The cast were absolutely stellar, though I'd go along with the criticism that they were just a little too deadpan in places. The sheer quantity of wit and wordplay in this script make it difficult to keep up, and it's often only in a reading that you realise that just about every other line is a hilarious gag.I really can't understand an earlier criticism that a viewer couldn't make out any of the dialogue. I though it was wonderfully recorded with crystal clear diction throughout, but maybe that's an international difference. I'm lucky to make out about one third of anything the children say in 'To Kill a Mockingbird'.Anyway - it was well filmed, great locations, and wonderful wit delivered by beautiful people. I loved it.
An absolute abomination!
posted on 30 Jun 2008Forewarned by the generally abysmal reviews this remake garnered during its theatrical release, I avoided it during its run on the big screen. But I succumbed to temptation and recently watched a letterboxed TV broadcast and was, to put it frankly, appalled. In contrast the wonderful 1952 British version with its impeccable cast is one of the all-time masterpieces of world cinema.This one is much more expensively mounted but its many anachronisms and unfortunate "openings-up" inventions are monumental miscalculations. Virtually ever one of the talented cast members is criminally misused, with the possible sole exception of Anna Massey as Miss Prism (though she could hardly be more different from the wonderful Margaret Rutherford in the same role in the 1952 production).In sum, had Oscar Wilde's play been this badly presented when it was first mounted, it would have been justifiably booed off the stage. I rarely find almost nothing to praise in a film, but this is an exception that more than deserves all the opprobrium that can be leveled against it.
A misinterpretation
posted on 22 Jun 2008This is an inventive and artful production of Oscar Wilde's play, but I can confidently say that were Oscar Wilde alive today, he would be appalled at the misuse to which his play has been put. Indeed I think I feel the ground rumbling as he rolls over in his grave, and yes he is actually spinning in anguish.Oliver Parker, who directed and wrote the screen adaptation, simply misinterpreted the play. He focused on the "dashing young bachelors" when the real focus of the play is Lady Bracknell, the absurd and beautifully ironic representation of the Victorian mind who was then and has been for over a hundred years Wilde's singular creation and one of the great characters of English literature. She is supposed to steal every scene she is in and we are to double take everyone of her speeches as we feel that she is simultaneous absurd and exactly right. Instead Judi Dench's Lady Bracknell (and I don't blame Dench who is a fine actress) is harsh and stern and literal to the point of being a controlling matriarch when what Wilde had in mind was somebody who was both pompous and almost idiotic yet capable of a penetrating and cynical wisdom (so like the author's). Compared to Dane Edith Evans's brilliant performance in the celebrated cinematic production from 1952, Dench's Lady Bracknell is positively one-dimensional.The point of Wilde's play was to simultaneously delight and satirize the Victorian audience who came to watch the play. This is the genius of the play: the play-goer might view all of the values of bourgeois society upheld while at the same time they are being made fun of. Not an easy trick, but that is why The Importance of Being Earnest is considered one of the greatest plays ever written. This attempt turn it into a light entertainment for today's youthful audiences fails because this play is not a romantic comedy. It is more precisely a satire of a romantic comedy. Its point and Wilde's intent was to make fun of Victorian notions of romance and marrying well and to expose the mercantile nature of that society. It is probably impossible to "translate" the play for the contemporary film viewer since a satire of today's audiences and today's society would require an entirely different set of rapiers.Parker's additions to the play only amounted to distractions that diluted the essence of the play's incomparable wit. Most of Wilde's witticisms were lost in the glare of Parker's busy work. Recalling Lady Bracknell as a dance hall girl in her youth who became pregnant before being wed was ridiculous and not only added nothing, but misinterpreted her character. Lady Bracknell is not a hypocrite with a compromised past. She is everything she pretends to be and that is the joke. Showing Algernon actually running through the streets to escape creditors or being threatened with debtor's prison was silly and again missed the point. Algy was "hard up" true and in need of "ready money" but his bills would be paid. Gwendolyn in goggles and cap driving a motor car also added nothing and seemed to place the play some years after the fact.The big mistake movie directors often make when making a movie from a stage play is to feel compelled to get the play off the stage and out into the streets and countryside. Almost always these attempts are simply distractions. Some of the greatest adaptations--Elia Kazan's A Streetcar Named Desire from 1951 comes immediately to mind--played it straight and didn't try anything fancy. Here Parker seems obsessed with "dressing up" the play. What he does is obscure it.On the positive side the costumes were beautiful and Anna Massy was an indelible Miss Prism. Reese Witherspoon at least looked the part of Cecily and she obviously worked hard. Rupert Evertt had some moments in the beginning that resembled Wilde's Algernon, but he was not able to sustain the impersonation.My recommendation is that you not bother with this production and instead get the 1952 film starring, in addition to Edith Evans, Michael Redgrave and Margaret Rutherford. It is essentially true to the play as Wilde wrote it, and is a pure delight.
Hilarious, ironic! Brilliant adaption of the Oscar Wilde play!!
posted on 11 Jul 2009***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Part One: First of all: It's not true that both Jack and Algy fall in love with the same woman.... Sorry, but which movie have you seen???Jack Worthing is a rich Landlord who escapes his duties while using the fictional brother Earnest who always needs financial help being a rather unworthy person. He is unaware of his real origins because he was found as baby in a handbag at Victoria Station in London. Not a good basis to marry into society. He is madly in love with Gwendolen, the cousin of the other protagonistAlgy Moncrieff, nephew of Lady Bracknall. His escape route is a fictional friend Mr. Bunbury who pleasingly gets dramatically ill everytime Lady Bracknall tries to fix him up with an heiress to marry. Algy has nothing but debts and is always on the run from the pending debt-prison. He has befriended Jack but knows him only as Earnest. When he finds out that Earnest is in fact Jack and has a beautiful 18-year-old ward (Cecily = Reese Witherspoon) in the country he decides at once that it is again time to visit Mr. Bunburry.