Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

pbellarbutus If this is an example of Waugh's writing, remind me never to see or read any more. That so many truly excellent actors and actresses could not even with their combined talents lift this dreary, confusing, morbid and maddening tale out of the mire is surely reason enough for any discerning person to give it a miss.I have tried to find any redeeming features in this depressing story, and failed miserably; indeed, that this author has attained a certain prominence in English literature, I find quite frankly astounding, however I will freely admit this is my first acquaintance with Waugh's work, and perhaps not his best work. Unfortunately after seeing "A Handful of Dust", I will probably never know.

patrick powell An 18th-century English writer, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, once wrote (putting Alexander Pope in his place): "Satire should, like a polished razor keen, wound with a touch that's scarcely felt or seen". This is exactly what Evelyn Waugh's novel A Handful Of Dust does and the film, in my view, fully does the novel justice. Waugh's satire here is very underplayed, very understated and very funny, but none the less utterly lethal for all that. Charles Sturridge and his fellow screenwriter's have, as far as I can see, stuck extremely close to the novel, which is no bad thing as Waugh was an extremely economical writer and there would be little point in trying to gild the lily. Although Waugh wrote his novel as a young man, his thorough dislike of modernity - which he regarded as insincere cant - in every shape or form is already apparent and he mercilessly sends up its more vicious aspects. But Waugh was too intelligent just to hate for hate's sake: it was the loss of admirable qualities in favour of 'progress' which upset him. So in the novel and film Tony Last behaves well to everyone despite a great many people, not least his 'modern' wife Brenda, treating him appallingly badly. He is loyal, values tradition, honest, accommodating and indulgent and in return loses everything. Brenda is conventionally sweet but is simply a self-centred monster who lives without a thought for anyone, and always gains what she wants. One reviewer here complained that 'nothing' happens in the film. Not a bit of it. A great deal happens but everyone is so polite and well-brought up that no one, not even Tony, questions the huge injustice of it all. If you are reading these reviews while considering whether to see this film, bear in mind the quotation with which I started my contribution: Satire that's 'scarcely felt or seen'. That will give you the key to enjoying a very good film indeed. (NB The full quotation putting down Pope runs: "Satire should, like a polished razor keen, wound with a touch that's scarcely felt or seen. Thine is an oyster knife, that hacks and hews, the rage but not the talent to abuse.")

The_Other_Snowman British television of the 1980's managed to produce scores of movies and miniseries based on classic novels. Name a book by a British author of the 19th or early 20th centuries, and you can bet there's an adaptation for British TV. Most of them are faithful, well-acted, full of authentic period details, and don't have the same nettlesome commercial sensibilities of American TV. A lot of them are very good: for example, the long series of Sherlock Holmes stories starring Jeremy Brett, or Fortunes of War with Emma Thompson.One problem: they tended to crank these things out, with the same actors and directors, so that one period piece set at an English country manor featuring well-spoken actors in tailored tweeds looks and feels more or less like any other period piece set at an English country manor featuring well-spoken actors in tailored tweeds.With Evelyn Waugh, that's a big problem. Waugh is a hilariously funny writer, even when he's writing about infidelity and death and the other terrible things that happen in "A Handful of Dust". So the film version, with Kristen Scott-Thomas, Alec Guiness, and Stephen Fry in a small role, follows the plot of the book, and uses much of the dialogue, but they've cut out most of the humor.Take a scene from the book where Tony and Jock get very drunk and telephone Brenda (Tony's wife) and stagger around to her flat in the middle of the night. In the book this scene goes on for several pages -- they phone her, get lost, phone again, have a few more drinks, etc -- but in the movie it lasts all of two minutes. In another part of the book there's a parish priest who recycles his sermons from thirty years earlier, all of which were written while he served in the army in Afghanistan; the parishioners don't mind the references to deserts and jungles and tigers. That's not in the movie at all.It's not a bad movie, just very disappointing if you've read the book. "Bright Young Things", Stephen Fry's more recent adaptation of Waugh's "Vile Bodies" was a much more accurate version of Waugh's black humor and satire. The humor is almost entirely missing from "Handful of Dust".

JULIA - 41 I saw this film a couple of weeks ago for the first time and I have to say that Kirsten Scott Thomas who played Brenda Last seemed to have been softened in her role - Waugh's novle portrays her as a cold hearted woman with few human feelings!I found her performance very stilted and somewhat false.