Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

zetes I've never been big on costume dramas, and this is no exception. I was mostly bored during this. Based on an Edith Wharton novel, the film stars Gillian Anderson as an independent woman. She's getting close to being out of marriageable age, but she refuses to pick between the many men courting her. She believes she has plenty of time, knowing that she's highly desirable. Unfortunately, her gambling debts are starting to haunt her, and they eventually pull her down to a lower class. Soon she finds that her marriage prospects are no longer available, and she must (gulp!) work for a living. For me, it's the dialogue that really kills it. Perhaps people spoke like this in early 20th Century New York, but I can't hear "I have been foolish to the point of being compromised!" without rolling my eyes a bit. As one might expect, the costumes are excellent, and, as with all Davies films, the cinematography is beautiful. But I found it to be a slog.

mnpollio If this film adaptation depicting lives ruined by the social mores and hypocrisy of turn of the century upper crust New York society seems to have a lot in common with the similarly plotted The Age of Innocence, it would be because authoress Edith Wharton was responsible for both novels. Unfortunately, like The Age of Innocence, this is yet another wallow in victimization and misery that Wharton seemed to specialize. However, unlike The Age of Innocence where director Martin Scorsese seemed psychotically obsessed with the elegant trappings at the expense of his story, director Terrence Davies is actually more interested in the players of his piece.The primary player is one Lily Bart (played by Gillian Anderson), a lovely, elegant young woman, who not only bungles her chance at true love, but comes to realize to her detriment how much she is at the mercy of a fickle high society filled with pettiness, envy and jealousy.Lily is at heart that rarest of beasts - a genuinely decent person. She has had the misfortune of accumulating a sizable debt from card playing, which she anticipates paying back with the inheritance to be left her by harridan aunt Eleanor Bron. As Bron is infinitely more taken with dishrag ward Jodhi May, it is questionable how much Lily can count on this development. Lily pines for scandalous attorney Eric Stoltz, who is the sometime lover of society grand dame Laura Linney, but finds bad timing and circumstance consistent obstacles to a relationship. In fact, bad timing and bad luck seem to relentlessly dog Lily in every endeavor. Trusted friends and companions reveal themselves to be bitter enemies beneath the surface. When some scandalous letters fall into her lap that would prove to be her personal salvation, Lily takes the high road to her further detriment.The House of Mirth does not have much mirth in it. It is depressing, gloomy and leaves the viewer in an utterly hopeless state. It is a despairing experience to watch the destruction of a person, who did not invite it, does not deserve it and is left broken and battered by life, while some appalling specimens of "humanity" glide past unscathed. This is by no stretch of the imagination an enjoyable viewing experience and one would imagine that it would be an even more trying reading experience.All that aside, there are definitely reasons to watch the film. Davies' assured direction and the fine literate screenplay being two of them.Another compelling reason would be Anderson's central performance. Anyone who is only familiar with Anderson from The X-Files and oblivious to the stellar acting she has also contributed to British TV and films, will most certainly be impressed with the appealing, nuanced and heartfelt performance she contributes here. What makes Lily's inexorable downward spiral a spirit crushing blow is that until the final moments where she confronts her dismal future, Anderson never plays Lily as a victim. She seems entirely too self-assured and confident in her quest to do the right thing. The climactic moments where her emotional walls crumble at what life has in store for her is a powerful sequence. The entire performance is a demonstration of understated grace.The supporting cast is strong with one notable exception. Linney is matter-of-factly monstrous as society force of nature Bertha Dorsett, who throws Lily to the wolves on a whim to make herself look better. Terry Kinney is sympathetic as Linney's cuckolded husband. When he makes an offer to Lily late in the film that would make both of them whole, it comes across as a meeting of two lost souls and one is disappointed that Lily does not take him up on it. Dan Aykroyd is terrific playing against type as a joyfully manipulative scoundrel.Unfortunately, the film is thrown off-balance by the miscasting of Stoltz in the pivotal role of the scandalous lothario that inspires so much consternation among the female characters. I usually find Stoltz underrated, but here he is all wrong. Pasty-faced and limp, Stoltz adopts an effete fey attitude that is more off-putting than attractive. It reminds one somewhat of the miscasting of John Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons. It is difficult to believe that one woman would find him irresistible, but the fact that three women are in such ardor over him as to launch campaigns of betrayal on each other strains credibility at every turn. Worse, Stoltz barely registers a pulse when Anderson shares the screen with him so that it hardly seems that Lily is letting much pass her by with this colorless smelt. He seems less like an unrequited love than a chance acquaintance. When Lily makes the ultimate sacrifice to spare his reputation, it seems like a wasted effort. This casting leaves the important unrequited romance between the two characters a bust. And while it may be believable that a milksop like May would be enamored of Stoltz in this film, it is inconceivable that a being depicted with the voracious appetites of Linney's Bertha Dorsett would stoop to inspect him much less expose herself to vulnerabilities to chase him. A really foolish bit of casting here that nearly throws the film off balance.

toddstlmo This was the absolute *Worst* movie I've ever watched. Yes, the scenery was nice, the costuming was fairly good, and the story line may have been a realistic portrayal of the powerlessness of women in that time period. However, the movie was not quite as exciting as watching paint dry, and significantly more depressing. Sooooo terribly Boring! And did I mention, depressing? How about depressingly boring? Imagine something like a root canal, without the fun and excitement, but lasting for hours on end. I couldn't muster the willpower to care about the characters, hoping that somehow the plot would lead *somewhere* - but it didn't. Last but not least, let's face it, the accents didn't cut the mustard. If you consider "Jane Eyre" to be an edge-of-your-seat action/adventure novel that you just couldn't put down, then this movie is for you! Everyone else, *please* do yourself a favor - don't watch this movie! If you ignore my review and watch it anyway, and if you have the fortitude to stay awake to the end, and if you manage not to hang or eviscerate yourself out of sheer depression, you will still curse yourself for not heeding this warning and wasting almost 2 & 1/2 hours of your life!

creeda1 Saw this film recently on TV. It started off well enough - I mainly spent my time trying to identify the painters used as models for the composition (Tissot, Monet, Whistler, etc.). However there are only so many lovely Edwardian frocks one can admire.....The actors all seemed to live in an alternative universe where time stretches out endlessly (one of their minutes equals 2 of ours...) apart from Gus and Mr. Rosedale. There were a number of baffling points - that I haven't seen addressed here - although I have not read all the reviews. 1. The letters: why did the cleaning lady bring the letters to Lily when they were signed by Bertha?how did the cleaning lady know who Lily was and where she lived? Was it the usual practice for young ladies to have one hundred dollars (presumably a very large sum at the time) about their person - Lily didn't even need to go to another room to fetch the cash... 2. How come Lily, a young lady living with her aunt, went all on her own to the opera with 2 men - neither of which was related to her? This seems very odd to me - after all one's reputation was very fragile I can't imagine this happening in Edwardian times. 3. Why did Lily not sell her earrings if she was short of cash? 4. Who was the duchess and why should she be invited to dinner - to impress who?? All in all, while the film seemed to drag on for ever none of the characters was properly developed and we kept meeting new and mysterious people. the whole story was quite uninvolving since we didn't really know who anyone was or their position in society. I assume Mrs Fisher was a lower rung than Bertha of the large yacht - as evidenced by her sloppy way of sitting! Lily comes across as a very silly person - but I think we're meant to sympathise with her. Selden meanwhile is just a rather smug lawyer - he never says anything amusing or interesting - and yet is not even a reprobate.