Ernest ou l'importance d'être constant

I agree that the '52 version captures the essence, and I think the delight, of the play. Add to the cast mentioned in the previous review Joan Greenwood, and you have even more delights occasioned by the unique players of the "original." And Margaret Rutherford.

As long as I can see the former, I seldom prefer the latter. Some things should be left alone - definitely not re-invented.

Any success in remakes seems to come from sticking to the original, just "fresh" players. If the old stuff works, why mess with it? Do something different along similar lines, but rename it. Don't change it all about and call it the same thing.

When people like former versions (evidenced by initial AND enduring interest), they generally enjoy new (but TRUE) versions, if done half well.

Personally, I enjoy newer versions that stay with what I liked in the first place, but deplore "updates," "modernizations" and "reinventions" which basically depart from what formerly delighted. It's just annoying.

Do whatever you like, but don't call it by the same name. Create or refresh; don't despoil.

One person's opinion.

I watched this with low expectations, but I was very pleasantly surprised! The whole film has an air of absurdity, but without quite crossing the line of impossibility. Everett and Firth are perfect and extremely watchable as Jack and Algie, while Reese Witherspoon is delightful as Cecily. I love the surreal sense as her daydreams pop up unexpectedly throughout the scenes. And of course Judi Dench is spot on and absolutely brilliant as Lady Bracknell.

The film does vary somewhat from the original play (as seems to be what many people are complaining about) but I love the changes. The main differences seem to be quite simply the fact that in the film the conversations take place in different settings to the play, however this is because it is far easier to do this on screen than on stage, and it makes for far more interesting viewing in my opinion. As for the script it is, for the most part, almost word for word the same as the original.

This is a wonderful, fun film that I would recommend anyone to watch for some light hearted amusement, just don't try to take it too seriously and you'll love it!

I 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.

This 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.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

From reading these reviews, it appears that many of them find this to be the inferior film adaptation of Oscar Wilde's play. However, they appear to contain "Older-itis," which is to say the constant insistence that the older thing is always the better thing. This film is excellent adaptation of this play. Let me reemphasize that word there: "adaptation." Contrary to what many of the people in these reviews think, this film is not meant to be and does not have to be an exact performance of Oscar Wilde's script. The writers, cast, and director did an excellent job of taking "The Importance of Being Earnest" and making it their own creation without utterly disrespecting the source material like some film adaptations of plays sometimes do. Rather, I believe it IMPROVES Oscar Wilde's original vision by keeping what everyone loves about the original play and expanding on the lacking aspects of it. The cast of "The Importance of Being Earnest" is delightful; Colin Firth and Rupert Everett (Jack/Earnest and Algernon respectively) have fabulous chemistry and work off of each other to great effect. Reese Witherspoon plays her character marvelously, as do many of the other cast members. The line delivery is good, perfectly suited for the kind of dry humor and wry wit this play excels at. Speaking of the characters, this film does a fabulous job of expanding on characters that were disappointingly two-dimensional in Oscar Wilde's version. Cecily's daydreams are a lot of fun (and definitely not something that would have been possible in the original play) and many of the side characters that originally did nothing more than act as glorified signposts got their own little side plots and personalities.

It wouldn't be right of me to just carry on praising this movie without acknowledging certain downfalls this movie possesses. Perhaps greatest of all is the nonstop wit present. As funny and as clever as it all is, there is a point where starts to become tiresome and old, leaving one wishing for a bit of dialogue that doesn't contain some wry remark or snarky comment. This was a problem with the original play as well, but it becomes more apparent in this movie due to the lack of variety and visual interest in these scenes; most of them consist of people standing around and talking to each other, and when they all are saying the same things it can get a tad boring. Aside from this issue, as well as a few quirks that date this movie to the 2000s, there are no glaring problems that ruin this movie. It's not my first choice (I had to watch it for school), but I'm sure it would be of interest to a large host of viewers; those especially partial to Jane Austen might find the wit and satire of this movie appealing (plus Colin Firth was in "Pride & Prejudice" and now appears here). It's a decent film and is a perfectly adequate version of "The Importance of Being Earnest" in full color and good sound. If you're reading this review then you probably are trying to decide if you should watch this movie. If so, then I would say, "Yes, go ahead." Thus ends my review. Thank you.