Vanity Fair Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
In a time of social climbers, Becky Sharp is a mountaineer.
All's fair in love & war.
On September 1st, a heroine will rise.
The British Empire flowers; exotic India colors English imaginations. Becky Sharp, the orphaned daughter of a painter and a singer, leaves a home for girls to be a governess, armed with pluck, a keen wit, good looks, fluent French, and an eye for social advancement. Society tries its best to keep her from climbing. An episodic narrative follows her for 20 years, through marriage, Napoleonic wars, a child, loyalty to a school friend, the vicissitudes of the family whose daughters she instructed, and attention from a bored marquess who collected her father's paintings. Honesty tempers her schemes. No aristocrat she, nor bourgeois, just spirited, intelligent, and irrepressible.
| Gabriel Byrne | The Marquess of Steyne |
| Angelica Mandy | Young Becky Sharp |
| Roger Lloyd-Pack | Francis Sharp |
| Ruth Sheen | Miss Pinkerton |
| Kate Fleetwood | Miss Pinkerton's Crone |
| Reese Witherspoon | Becky Sharp |
| Lillete Dubey | Ms. Green |
| Romola Garai | Amelia Sedley |
| Tony Maudsley | Joseph Sedley |
| Deborah Findlay | Mrs. Mary Sedley |
| John Franklyn-Robbins | Mr. Sedley |
| Paul Bazely | Biju |
| Rhys Ifans | William Dobbin |
| Jonathan Rhys Meyers | George Osborne |
| Charlie Beall | Gambler |
| Mira Nair |
6.20 out of 10 (7302 votes)
Visitor Reviews
The former version is superior
posted on 06 Jul 2009This is supposedly the updated version. The Former version with Natasha Little as Becky, in my opinion, as a clinical psychologist, is vastly superior. She only gets a bit part in this production. The Natasha version captures dramatically and precisely a classical psychopathic personality. Reese is more scintillating, but really does not get at the heart of it. I think Fellowes blew it - he should have recast Little. Witherspoon has more box-office appeal, but it ends there, Also, the personality and story have been recast, at some loss in my view. I would recommend the previous version for students studying psychopathy--that was a perfect textbook case - this isn't.
Old England Meets Bollywood
posted on 29 May 2009"Vanity Fair" is the latest of several film adaptations of the novel by William Makepeace Thackery. It is directed by Indian director Mira Nair, and stars Reese Witherspoon as Becky Sharp, the ambitious heroine. Witherspoon turns in a decent performance, playing a woman ahead of her time, doing whatever she can to get ahead. Other standout performances came from Bob Hoskins, Jim Broadbent and Eileen Atkins. Nair takes this project, and adds a little touch of her native India. One example of this is the Eastern dance number headed by Witherspoon. While there is a lot of great imagery in the movie, the story leaves a bit to be desired. You really have to be into this kind of movie or literature to enjoy "Vanity Fair."
Long and dull; pretty.
posted on 23 Apr 2009I saw this movie last night at the local cheap theatre (still $9 a ticket, but I guess that's cheap these days.) I went in with mixed feelings; on the one hand, I love period pieces and Rhys Ifans, but on the other, the movie itself didn't seem to appealing. I assumed that I would be settling down to watch maybe an hour and a half to two hours of dull Miss Reese Witherspoon climbing the social ladder. Not true. I found it to be an overly complex, slow, and way-too-long film whose only saving graces were good performances by Rhys Ifans, Romola Garai, the ever-attractive James Purefoy *swoon*, as well as amazing sets and costumes.I found the continuity to be poor, and the much of the plot to be arbitrary and unlikely. Like many period pieces of its nature, there were way too many characters that all looked alike. All in all, I think the makers of this film could have explained things better, cut off at least a half an hour, and put someone else in the role of Becky Sharp. I think even Kiera Knightly would have done a better job and Witherspoon did.5/10.
saving some other poor soul the misery
posted on 19 Apr 2009"Vanity Fair is a beautiful mess." Sadly I missed this comment before TRYING to watch the movie.I didn't read the book, I didn't know it was total pulp. Obviously I should have read it if I wished to have any comprehension and understanding of the movie or it's plot.Doesn't continuity have any significance? Didn't someone other than an egotistical director get paid to see some continuity came of this? If not in the plot, at least of the characters? Shame shame! Is there no pride in making movies? Dumb and Dumber followed through on its purpose better than this."Accomplished Film Director"? what happened? I see I am no good judge. Needless to say I was disappointed.I love costume dramas and period pieces, hoping at least for a glimpse of good costumes and of history. Neither, of any significance came of this.All of this is in hopes of saving some other poor soul the misery of fast forwarding through it. I should have.As of today anyway, the comment that follows this informs me this movie was about India, among other bits of confusion, except for the Elephant, I missed that too.
Made me want to read the book
posted on 19 Apr 2009I don't really know where to start with this film. At the outset, I suppose that I should make it known that I have not read the Thackeray novel upon which the film is based, and that may explain why I had some problems following along with the story. There is one sequence, in which Ms. Witherspoon and James Purefoy discuss getting married, and then - poof - they are married. That is all good and fine, but it did not come across clearly, and so this jump cut in the story forced me out of the film, and I then felt that I had to play catch up with the material. BUT, the film did make me run to the nearest book store to pick up a copy of the novel, and any film that can do that can't be all bad!8/10 stars
Unimaginative film saved by Reese Witherspoon
posted on 28 Mar 2009Mira Nair's interpretation contains nothing of social satire of the novel. Instead she has the actors making a 'soap opera' so the result is entirely flat. She misses the point of the novel. She gets a 'D' in English Literature. There is none of the wit and brilliance of the novel.On the other hand, Reese Witherspoon plays the main character reasonably well considering the circumstances. She demonstrates that she is an acting talent with potential. So Mira Nair strikes out here too. She could have made Academy Award headlines with Reese's talent, but she was unable to use her talented main role actress.I hope Reese gets more opportunities. Mira needs to go back to school.
and Never the Twain Shall Meet
posted on 20 Mar 2009Mira Nair's long film version of Vanity Fair, based on the 1847 novel by William Makepeace Thackeray, is a stinker. The direction of awful, the casting bizarre, and the direction she aims Thackeray's great novel misses the target by miles. Where does Nair get the balls to inject several "Indian" episodes into a novel about the Napoleonic Wars? This is not a Bollywood film, nor should it ever have been one. We get three lengthy Indian interludes, including an Indian party, and Indian "entertainment" which is ludicrous, and an Indian ending. Rubbish.The casting of Reese Witherspoon is also rubbish. The role of Becky Sharp is far beyond her meager acting abilities. Witherspoon reduces Becky to a petulant mall rat. She is apparently the only American in the large cast. What's the point?Several good actors have glints of goodness, but they all sink in the elephantine mire Nair creates. Eileen Atkins (hilarious), Bob Hoskins, and Geraldine McEwan come off best. Gabriel Byrne, James Purefoy, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, Rhys Ifans, and Jim Broadbent less so. Romola Garai is god-awful as Amelia. This long (2 hours 20 minutes) and dull film creates none of the sparks that the novel did. This long film doesn't come close to capturing the era or the true character of Becky as the 1935 film version did in less than 90 minutes. And Miriam Hopkins was a great Becky compared to the limp Witherspoon creation. For that matter Frances Dee was a marvel as Amelia compared to Gaarai. The novel has so many plots and subplots going on that interweave perfectly to create tensions and reasons for actions. The Nair version plods along in a linear fashion that simply drops in various subplots without any context or followup. Vanity Fair cries out for James Ivory or Martin Scorsese but we get the clueless Nair. The script need a Ruth Prawer Jhabvala but we get Julian Fellowes (Gosford Park), who seems to have no feel for the period. The entire movie seems to be shot in subcontinent hues of reds and golds. Yet despite the clueless direction and lousy acting, the two basic faults are the ending (I certainly don't remember Becky running off with Joseph Sedley to a happy ending in India) and the totally preposterous Bollywood in Mayfair dance act Witherspoon does for a party at Lord Steyne's.
Elle Woods redecorating Sir Pitt's place...with a little Moulin Rouge dance thrown in for good measure
posted on 16 Mar 2009First, let's get the nice stuff out of the way. The costumes, the sets, the Indian influence, the cinematography, all nice stuff. Now...I spent the first 1/2 hour trying to guess at the actually plot, you know, what is the situation? What are we trying to get to? What is the story? I grabbed a bottle of wine and settled down to what I realized was going to be a "telling" with no real storyline. This is not Valmont or Dangerous Liaisons. Or even Desiree.I tried to see Reese Witherspoon with different eyes. Between the wine and the suspension of disbelief, it worked a little, until she gave the Elle Woods smile and bright eyes when Sir Pitt saw what she had done with his castle. Oh my! I even dreamt that stupid face Elle Woods face and screamed. It took a while to get over that and try to buy into the film again, and I met with some success when she gave some interesting looks that were obviously in the right character. So Reese is capable, just not consistent, and obviously true to her Elle Woods character. I would love this film to get redone, even with Reese and all the other characters intact, but just a refilming to see if we can't weed out the plot issues and character presentation flaws of the portrayal of Becky. I bet the second time around, Reese would do great.For every possibly bad Becky act came a legitimate explanation for her "bad behaviour". I think what best illustrates this problem is every time someone says that she is awful, destroys things in her path, I couldn't find anything in her or what she did that backed those statements up. This was very, very disconcerting. I kept feeling as if I fell asleep and missed something! And that dance, that dance. Oh Reese, ow. Shades of Moulin Rouge anyone? Most of the movie I spent looking for her pregnancy and how they were covering it up. I hate when stars are pregnant when making a movie that concentrates on the costumes and such. I feel ripped off - much like in Chicago when Catherine Zeta-Jones was pregnant, and frankly, she didn't look great in Chicago at all. She looked overweight and paunchy, not like she looks now. That isn't fair to the movie goers. I want escapism, not to be reminded of the very real condition of the stars. Almost like the stars supersede the characters. No integrity in that.At first, I thought of Gone with the Wind set in the 1800's, and I was angry because I thought this was a blatant copy. Then I realized that Vanity Fair came first and I now I am disappointed in Margaret Mitchell as it seems like she almost plagiarized Vanity Fair to come up with GWTW.I am very very disappointed with the film. Is there nothing original out there anymore? Is everything done to death - even the needless dance scene from Moulin Rouge? Did the director simply subconsciously do the same shots, or was it a conscious act? Did the Director not realize that Reese was giving the innocent Elle Woods face without even trying to allow Reese to show some evilness in the smile - just some flicker of ulterior motive? I give the film a 5 for prettiness, but that's it.
Too long and too much to stick to the wall
posted on 16 Mar 2009Can a movie ever benefit from a lack of marketing? I wondered this to myself as I sat in the theatre about 40 minutes before Vanity Fair was about to be viewed. As the audience began trickling in, I could not help but notice the age of the paying parties. On average, Joe-Q public consisted on this day of mostly teenage girls anywhere from 13-16 years of age. I knew what to expect in Vanity Fair before the curtains rolled up, so it fueled my query as I wondered if those hard earned teenage dollars knew that they were about to sit through a period piece set in London in early 19th century. I think not. The lack of television overexposure and the fact that corset-wearing aristocrats were not on a Burger King soda cup had me believe that the audience was there (primarily) due to Reese Witherspoon's name which appeared above the title. I did not question any of the patrons at the conclusion of the screening. I did not hide in the lobby to hear their comments. But based on my observations during the dimmed light phase, I think that the movie was generally not what was expected. I base this solely on the number of times these teenage girls left the theatre, either in singles or in hunting packs, for periods of time that was anywhere from a moment to what might end up being a couple of chapters on a DVD. They seemed restless no matter which clique they belonged. They did not get the few but poignant humorous scenes. And when the credits began to show at the films conclusion, they remained in their seats speechless like a child who opens a big box at Christmas only to find a neatly folded sweater sitting at its bottom.Can't blame them really. Directed by Mira Nair (Monsoon Wedding), Vanity Fair was something of a miss. Starring Witherspoon as Becky Sharp, a daughter of a starving artist who seems to fight and claw her way up the social ladder by either being in the right place at the right time or aligning herself with the appropriate aristocrats to push her one step closer to the perch of societal acceptance, Vanity Fair tries to hard for too long to be something that it is not. Possibly wanting to be a softer Dangerous Liaisons, we watch as Becky leaves school, becomes a firecracker of knowledge, marries a gambler, gets propositioned by the Marquess and eventually gives birth to a child that she gives up without argue. Throw in many subplots consisting of overbearing fathers, a love not realized and major characters getting killed in wars throughout Europe, and it might seem like too much for just one film. Nope.Clocking in at 137 minutes, Nair takes her time in having the movie methodically move like molasses going the wrong way on an on-ramp. We jump ahead in time at random (once going 12 years later) in a tired attempt at throwing everything to a wall and hoping that more than a few things stick.Witherspoon will survive. Her comedic wit and attraction to the younger audiences will ensure another hit before long. Whom I feel for is the always-misused Gabriel Byrne. In 1990's Miller's Crossing and again in 1995's The Usual Suspects, Byrne showed us what he could do with good material. As the Marquess of Steyne, he rises above the mediocre role and shines as the helpful but with motive art enthusiast that takes a liking to the young Sharp. His screen time, however, is so long in coming and so surrounded by uninteresting characters and dialogue, that even he can't lift the film an extra half star. So now that it is over, I don't know who was better off – the teenagers who got something that they could probably see in school in a few months or someone like me who went in hoping to see Reese rise to the top of her craft in a career move that seemed timed just right. I think the teens got off easy.www.gregsrants.com
Pretty awesome film for the most part, that surprised me by how engrossing it was, with an excellent story, only problem is it's a bit long in the tooth
posted on 10 Feb 2009This is a pretty awesome film for the most part, that surprised me by how engrossing it was, with an excellent story, only problem is it's a bit long in the tooth. All the characters are awesome, and it's also quite funny at times as well, plus Reese Witherspoon is simply incredible in this!. I haven't read the book yet, so I didn't mind the change in the characters, and I thought the costumes were so lavish and wonderful looking, plus it's very well made and written as well. This is one of Reese's best performances, as she proves her awesome versatility once again, and there is one extremely powerful scene involving Gabriel Byrne, Reese and James Purefoy, I won't spoil it for you, plus It's full of great humor and Romance as well. I really loved the ending, and Reese's accent was really good in my opinion, plus all the characters are extremely likable for the most part. I really enjoyed the music, and this film will not be for everybody, plus the dialog was really good as well. This is a pretty awesome film for the most part, that surprised me by how engrossing it was, with an excellent story, only problem is it's a bit long in the tooth, and I say it's a must see!. The Direction is awesome. Mira Nair does an awesome job here, with fantastic camera work, excellent angles giving the film a great atmosphere, good set pieces and keeping the film at an engrossing pace.The Acting is wonderful!. Reese Witherspoon is amazing as always and is incredible here, she is extremely likable, incredibly gorgeous, had great chemistry with James Purefoy, had an awesome accent (in my opinion), had a powerful breakdown scene near the end, and convinced me 100%, this is one of her best performances in my opinion! (Reese Rules!!!!!!!!!!). Romola Garai is wonderful as Ameilia, she was very likable, pretty and I felt sorry for her character, I liked her lots. James Purefoy is fantastic as Rawdon, he was very charismatic, had very good screen presence, had great chemistry with Reese, and was just fantastic overall I loved him. Rhys Ifans is excellent as Dobbin this guy is a fascinating actor that I always enjoy watching, here is no different, I really liked him. Bob Hoskins is good as Sir Pitt, he was intense as always, and did a very good job. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is good as George, somewhat of a weasel, but he played his character well. Gabriel Byrne is very creepy in his role, you can't take your eyes off him when this guy is on screen, he has a small role, but gives a very powerful performances. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall a must see!. **** out of 5
Another Reese Witherspoon gem.
posted on 07 Jan 2009This is not the first remake of the this movie, and probably it won't be the last. Be that as it may, this is a good movie, and for one reason: Ms. Reese Witherspoon. Ms. Witherspoon offers a wonderfully joyful and upbeat portrayal of the main character of the story, Becky Sharpe. She is absolutely wonderful. While all kinds of misadventures and problems befall her friends, Becky is there to provide support and encouragement, like the true friend that she is. It's apparent that this movie is a vehicle for showcasing Ms. Witherspoon, and she comes through with flying colors. If you're a Reese Witherspoon fan, then watch this movie. You won't be disappointed.
okay, okay...
posted on 05 Jan 2009So i'ts not a perfect reproduction of the book... has any movie ever been? The story and dialogue are still strong in this film. And the look is, while being believably period, refreshingly different from all those other films that try to be English and 19th century. And just because Reese Witherspoon is Hollywood -- and American -- she did, in my opinion, a very respectable job in the role. What's more, Thackery himself had Indian roots (he was born there), so surely he would have approved of the bit of Far Eastern spice the director added to the film.Purists, give it a rest. Snobs, put a sock in it.This film is worth seeing even if you HAVE read the book. If you don't go in demanding it to be a note for note reproduction, you'll enjoy it just fine.
Without dissecting it, I thought it was outstanding
posted on 01 Jan 2009So, I'm not a big fan of reality shows, maybe that's why I wasn't bothered if the characters weren't "raw" enough. Reading the other comments, I see that many expected more grit for their buck. I saw the movie at the theater several months ago and rented it yesterday. I watched it with and without the director's commentary. It was thoroughly enjoyable, albeit bittersweet. If it wasn't a success at the box office, it may be because not enough Americans are reading the classics, especially if they are 900 pages long, and didn't know anything about it. Maybe they thought it was a chick flick. Maybe it was. Regardless, I thought Reese Witherspoon and James Purefoy were wonderful together and watching their interaction was the main reason I enjoyed it so much. I know all the other actors added richness to the production and without naming them all each contributed their own uniqueness, too. I know many of them are famous in their own right and their high quality performances raised the bar on this film. The costumes, scenery and direction were first quality. I think this film will make up in DVD sales for what it didn't bring in at the box office. I will buy it and add it to my collection of movies that I enjoy watching over time. I didn't find it all that confusing, but I'm still wondering what Steyne gave Becky that she had locked in her desk. Was it a receipt or was it a check for £1000? I know Steyne said "keep it, you don't want them to come back tomorrow." So I thought it was a receipt. However, when Rawden saw it he said "1000 pounds. You could have spared me a hundred, Becky." Did he mean to bail him out of prison? No biggie, but I would like to know. I was gutted by that scene. So sad for them both. Makes no sense to me why his kind, wealthy brother and sister-in-law weren't giving them an allowance. I'm sure they couldn't live on a soldier's salary then anymore than a family can now.
Complete misfire
posted on 28 Dec 2008I saw this last night when it was premiered on network TV. I must admit that I knew next to nothing about the story of Vanity Fair not having read the book or seen a previous dramatisation. I do understand, however, that in the novel, the character of Becky Sharpe is not a likable one and that she uses her guile to help her climb the social ladder. Unfortunately, this just does not come across in this film at all. Becky is shown as a kind, caring and loving character who climbs the ladder because she is in the right place at the right time and is admired for her intelligence by the 'upper classes'. There is a half hearted attempt in the last half hour to make Becky seem a bit more 'wicked' but it just flops completely and some of the things she says / does is just completely out of sync with the character that has been shown for the rest of the film. The film drags quite a bit in places and I'm afraid I was not impressed at all. Britain is rightly famed for the quality of its classic period productions. Alas - this is an exception to the rule. I am tempted to read the book now, to see how it compares with this adaptation.
Vanity Fair Tries In Vain
posted on 20 Dec 2008Vanity 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 *****
All Cover, No Book
posted on 26 Nov 2008Spoilers herein.The story here is something of a cross between 'Gone with the Wind' (which in turn was based on the 1935 film of 'Vanity Fair,' the first color movie) and 'Barry Lyndon.' But never mind the story as it is so plodding, so bereft of motive and emotional linkage that it merely gives an excuse for the form. The novel was concerned with people fighting to stay alive, with a dramatic yearning for fulfillment so exaggerated that the reader develops similar yearnings. All that is transformed into mere costume here.Instead, we get a woman who was born into a rich, painterly vision. She spends her life trying to incorporate that vision into her manner, but it is all borrowed passions. She comes close to real gamblers and feigns risk but hasn't the nerve. She pretends to be freely capricious but all the actions are as automatic as those she condemns.She has some emotional performance skills. But the real thing that separates her from the higher classes is that they can distinguish intricate, ineffable matters of style. Try as hard as she may, she cannot.And that's just the filmmaker.Reese is red here and dressed fetchingly, but is no Miriam Hopkins.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
Confused and weak, but pretty!
posted on 22 Nov 2008This was severely disappointing adaptation. The most significant complaint about it for myself was that it didn't move me. I neither hated Becky nor loved her and that was one of the fundamental problems with this version, everyone seemed to have a different interpretation of Becky, from the director to Reese herself. I got the distinct feeling that Reese felt she was some kind of heroine, turning all Becky's nasty deeds into social justice for the position she was placed in. That was the clearest theme in the book - Becky was not a heroine. Often people take to bad character's for their rebelliousness, but this confusion meant that Becky was neither bad nor good, just in between. In the book, although she is not wholly bad, the merit she retains amounts to little.Stylistically, the film really redeemed itself immensely. The clothes, the scenery and sets were all wonderful. So often you find taht period films are rather neutral in colours and visually uninspiring, but where the story really failed, the cinematography really surpassed it.Aside from my issues with the clear confusion over the way in which to take the character and story of Becky (which unfortunately infiltrates almost every scene since she is in almost all of them), there are some great moments from the supporting roles.Jonathan Rhys Meyers (apparently really that vain in real life) was a much more self-involved George than I remember, but carried the character well and really made me cringe. Eileen Atkins was just great, she's always funny and good value.Natasha Little (Lady Jane) was the original Becky in the classic TV series from a while ago. Perhaps the director should have seen that adaptation again without banishing her so quickly to the small role of Lady Jane. Her portrayal for me was the defining one of Becky Sharp, and Reese just rather stood in her shadow a bit.The best however was Rhys Ifans. Without a doubt he was just the best thing in the film, he was understated as Dobbin but there was so much feeling in him, and although he is only a minor character, I felt more emotion for him than any other character.The only reason to see this film is to get it over with and allow some good supporting actors to carry the film through for you. Then go to the library or Amazon and find the 1998 BBC edition, rent it, watch it, and you'll know what I mean when I say that this has been and could have been done better.
Outside the box
posted on 27 Oct 2008It's definitely going to be an interesting movie to watch with a director who is not from Hollywood, someone whose thinking is outside the box with an international flair to the movie. And with Reese Witherspoon starring in the movie, i think vanity fair should be an eye candy for the viewers. And a treat from the rush of action flicks that have bombarded the theatre this summer. Mira Nair seems to be an impressive director and ever so graceful with the movie. The story line based on Mr.Thackeray's novel seems to be a solid backdrop. With the old English traditions, the movie should be a revival of the life from back in the times. The influence of Indian characters should infuse a rich culture and color in the movie and probably will make the movie pleasant to watch! Awaiting the blockbuster!!!
Quite Good
posted on 11 Oct 2008William Makepeace Thackeray's novel Vanity Fair (1847 - 1848) has been the subject of numerous television and film adaptations.Vanity Fair is a 2004 drama/romance film, directed by Mira Nair.This version made substantial changes, including a happy ending (see Thackeray article for plot summary).It stars Academy Award winner Reese Witherspoon as Becky Sharp.The film was nominated for "Golden Lion" Award in 2004 Venice Film Festival.Reese Witherspoon was pregnant during the making of this film.This film was shot in England.
Gorgeous and lovely, but often hard to follow
posted on 07 Aug 2009I saw this film on opening night and was dazzled by its dizzying array of colors, fabrics and gorgeous costumes. The plot, however,was hard to follow. You really had to have a pre-conceived notion of the characters and storyline to follow the movie from start to finish and understand the details and relationships.Reese, as usual, pulled the performance off with a perfect english accent, emotional honesty and a transparent quality that perfected the believablity of her character.The piecing together of the film as a whole must have been where things went a bit wrong, as the result was a choppy movie, but wonderful story.