Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Mark Roberts They managed somehow to wring Waugh's uproarious novel completely dry of any humor in the process of adapting this film to screen. A formidable, if not commendable task. Personally, I think the characters would often have to react to the various plot twists--e.g. when the protagonist (first) learns he will no longer be able to marry his girlfriend (I can't remember their names) and informs her of this--with something like apathy or resignation. I don't think, in the example I gave, Waugh suggests that either of them are significantly devastated by this (as one would normally be), but rather only slightly put out by it for a moment (which is what I find funny about it), whereas, if I remember correctly, in the movie the girl acts genuinely disappointed.But I could be way off the mark, and I apologise if that's so. To be fair, Waugh's satirical wit strikes me as being particularly difficult to adapt. And I wasn't calling anyone involved in the movie a 'howling cad' -- that's just a reference to the book.

bob the moo The more things change the more they stay the same. London in the 1930's and the social scene is bustling. Adam is a writer of ambition but when his book gets confiscated by HM Customs he finds himself writing for Lord Monomark's paper as gossip columnist Mr Chatterbox. This involves him going to as many parties as possible and mixing with the rich bright young things of London society. While Adam attempts to get the money together to marry his girlfriend Nina he follows the ups and downs of this group.I have never read the book from which this came so I only came to this film as one comes to any other film and therefore had no expectations of what it should be or would be. The film follows the fortunes of the 1930's equivalent of the It crowd – those without jobs who seem to live of money from somewhere to just continually party and appear in the papers. As such the narrative relies heavily on the characters and I must confess I didn't find many of them interesting enough to really engage me. That said the plot still works because the characters are lively and flamboyant enough to be interesting and amusing. The multi-talented Fry takes pleasure in showing us how things are no different now than they were then – the public gobbles up tabloid gossip, the society parties are full of outrageous behaviour, sex and drug taking. With a modern eye it is fun to watch this although it perhaps isn't enough to make the whole film.Fry's debut as director shows him able as such even if some of his touches are a bit clumsy. The cast help him out greatly by delivering the goods from his script. Moore has the "straightest" character and the harder job of holding the narrative together but he does well and makes for an quite engaging character. Mortimer isn't used as well as I would have liked although she herself is pretty good. The rest of the cast are caricatures and outrageous types who perhaps don't add depth to the film but certainly make it fun. Tennant is good although the deliveries of Sheen and Woolgar naturally dominate. Quality is deep within the film even if some of Callow, Channing, Aykroyd, Mills and Grant are barely in it long enough to even be classed as cameos! Broadbent is a delight as a permanently sloshed major.Overall then an enjoyable film that makes for interesting viewing the way that modern society is reflected in 1930's society. The characters make for an OK story even if a lot of it is on the surface and very much of the moment (which I suppose might have been the point) and it is enjoyable even if it isn't that memorable.

JoeytheBrit Watching Stephen Fry making his directorial debut is a little bit like watching a toddler the first time he rides a bike without stabilisers. Things are dangerously wobbly to begin with then smooth out nicely as self-belief grows before everything comes crashing down due to over-confidence. Based on Evelyn Waugh's 'Vile Bodies', this film chronicles the debauched lifestyle of a group of paradoxically penniless rich kids (i.e. they're mostly lords and ladies but have no visible means of income) in a Britain of the 30s that would be unrecognisable to all but the impoverished aristocracy. This is a rarefied world that no doubt existed and seemed real to the likes of Waugh but which is unrecognisable to the majority of British people. Without doubt, however, this movie, in its representation of that period and lifestyle, provides us with an absorbing and entertaining tale.Apart from our hero Adam Fenwick-Symes (Stephen Campbell Moore, another débutant giving a good account of himself) the characters in this film aren't so much introduced as wander in like party guests you drunkenly met in another room ten minutes ago. They all share a propensity for decadence, and the affectation of declaring most everything to be a frantic bore, and are all, without exception, empty shells. We've seen it all before in the likes of Brideshead Revisited and The Sun Also Rises, but Fry manages to keep us hooked despite the clumsy manner in which he films those opening scenes. Perhaps it's because of the sumptuous production design that captures the feel of these bright young things' hedonistic lifestyle, or perhaps it's because of the amiably random manner in which Fry begins to pull the threads of his story together. Either way, despite Fry's apparent determination to use every scene transition known to the film world, and to make use of at least a little snippet from each of a multitude of cameras used to shoot many scenes, the story manages to hold your attention and drag you along with it, leaving you asking yourself why you're interested in a bunch of characters who are all about as deep as lemon peel.The story and the characters follow a predictable arc, but Fry fills the film with enough detail and ingenuity to at least keep us entertained. A host of famous faces provide a series of cameos that last little more than seconds in some cases – and this is without doubt the only film in which you will see the redoubtable Sir John Mills snorting cocaine. Fenella Woolgar outshines everybody in her scenes as the agreeably dippy cokehead Agatha, who brings a whole new meaning to the term 'powdering one's nose' and eventually parties herself into an insane asylum. In a role that strays into parody every now and then, she manages to provide a brief glimpse of a lost soul behind the party face, and her 'dream' speech pretty much sums up the entire social scene in which the characters are embroiled. James McAvoy, as the ill-fated Lord Balcairn (AKA Mr. Chatterbox) also stands out in one of few sympathetic roles.The film loses its momentum in the final act, when Fry moves from adapting Waugh's story to altering it completely, and we are left with an ending that is not only contrived but stretches credibility beyond its limits. Having managed to have steered a path that at least avoided conventionality in terms of plot, Fry suddenly makes a complete about-turn and presents us with a finale that stands out as a monumental piece of misjudgement. Perhaps Waugh's ending was too downbeat for the backers. It's a shame if that is the case, because it will mean that Fry most likely compromised himself. Somewhere down the line someone needs to show an ounce of integrity and fight for an ending that is true to the nature of the story, rather than compromising with a soap-opera climax that tarnishes the good work that has gone before.Bottom line: BRIGHT YOUNG THINGS is a worthy directorial debut from Stephen Fry and, while it's no classic, has a lot going for it. It's probably not worth seeking out, but if it happens to cross your path it's definitely worth watching. Just be sure to stop watching after the war scenes….

drednm Actor Stephen Fry makes an impressive splash as a director with Bright Young Things, based on the Evelyn Waugh novel, Vile Bodies. The story centers on some struggling "bright young things" during the years before England entered World War II. Adam (Stephen Campbell Moore) and Nina (Emily Mortimer) play sometime-engaged young things at the center of a disparate group of eccentrics. They seem addicted to the London "social whirl" as well as cocaine. He's a struggling writer, and she needs a rich husband. He gets roped into taking a job as a gossip columnist because the former writer (James McAvoy) commits suicide and because his manuscript is confiscated when he enters Scotland. So the young things go to every party and write up tons of scandalous gossip for the rag, keep getting drunk and stoned, and keep pursuing money. Typical acid commentary from Waugh, and Fry does a good job balancing all the characters and sub-plots. Impressive cast as well with Peter O'Toole (very funny), Dan Aykroyd, Stockard Channing (hilariously named Mrs. Melrose Ape), Harriet Walter, Imelda Staunton, Simon Callow, Jim Broadbent, Julia McKemzie, John Mills, Jim Carter, Angela Thorne, Bill Paterson, Richard E. Grant, and Margaret Tyzack recognizable. Fry appears as a chauffeur.Moore and Mortimer are solid as young things, but Fenella Woolgar as Agatha is the standout. She's awesome in the part of the drugged out socialite who ends up in an asylum. Woolgar has several memorable scenes and droops about being "smashingly bored." Her race car scene is a scream. David Tennant is the repulsive Ginger, Michael Sheen is the queeny Miles, Lisa Dillon is the social wannabe, and Alec Newman is the very odd race driver.Only real complaint is that the ending is VERY long and drawn out. And even though a few loose ends are tied up, it seems padded and interminable. We didn't really need to see WW II battle scenes, and even if the ending worked in the novel it seems very phony in the film.