Vanity Fair (2004)

Lack of good storyline.

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Growing up poor in London, Becky Sharp defies her poverty-stricken background and ascends the social ladder alongside her best friend, Amelia. Vanity Fair (2004) stars Reese Witherspoon, Romola Garai, James Purefoy, Rhys Ifans, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Gabriel Byrne and Robert Pattinson (Deleted Scene). Now this kind of movies are usually not my thing and unfortunately this wasn't a good movie at all. The movie is so much Shakespeare with people over reacting in every scene and those annoying accents? Jeez i like Reese as an actress especially in Water for Elephants but damn the film was a giant mess, boring and the director could easily cut 30-35 minutes. (0/10)

In 1802 London, the Marquess of Steyne (Gabriel Byrne) buys the last picture of young Becky Sharp's mother. After her painter father's death, she is left orphaned. Becky (Reese Witherspoon) grows up to be a country governess. Her best friend Amelia Sedley (Romola Garai) has a self-obsessed boyfriend Captain George Osborne (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) and a secret admirer in his best friend Captain William Dobbin (Rhys Ifans). Amelia's brother Jos is taken with Becky but George convinces him to not pursue the commoner. Becky starts work for the crude Sir Pitt Crawley (Bob Hoskins). He has two sons, awkward Pitt and dashing Captain Rawdon Crawley (James Purefoy). She brings the rundown mansion back to a high class standard. The older Pitt is visited by his wealthy half-sister Miss Matilda Crawley (Eileen Atkins) who takes Becky with her back to London. Becky discovers that the Marquess of Steyne is her new neighbor. She marries Rawdon and gets thrown out.I'm not familiar with the book and won't make any comparisons. Director Mira Nair fills this with a luscious flirty beauty. Witherspoon is a charismatic lead. There is a lot of story with many characters to fit into a movie even with its over two hours running time. This may fit better as a mini-series which could accentuate the ups and downs. The cast is good throughout. This is a fine production.

I hadn't seen this movie until last year, nearly 8 years after it's debut. I'd vaguely heard of it, and though I love Reese, musicals are just not my thing...well, except for the Muppet Christmas Carol....*cough* Yet, I found myself presented with an opportunity to watch this movie, and did. At first, grudgingly, and within the 1st 5 minutes, I saw myself, you know...mentally sitting up, the movie had it, it had what it took to keep me curiously watching on, till the end.This is a movie I rate up there with the highest amongst classics, "West Side Story", "Wuthering Heights". It is a true art, the gift of acting, being able to ... feel, know, and become the person she is playing. And she makes it easy to feel it with her. Her voice is just...just heavenly, really. And the depth of her character, as such a person she represents would know of heaven and hell, and she...is between, moral, spiritual, physical creating such energy as she walks the tightrope of her perilous journey. And don't you find yourself praying for the best? That, there. That's what true art achieves. It uplifts you. Reese, you GO girl! You might catch up to Jodie (Foster, my one and only choice, I adore her and have such respect for her depth...).Thumbs up!

In the past year I read the novel, which is excellent, a true classic. Not long after I watched the very excellent mini-series with Natasha Little (who shows up here as Lady Jane Pitt). The Natasha Little adaptation was fairly true the book and her Becky was wonderful.But what's with this mess? I must first start with Becky. Witherspoon is a very good actress so I do not fault her...it's the material she was given. Why was all the bite and clawing taken out of Becky? In this film she's almost a misunderstood saint and not the lying, scheming social climber she is supposed to be. Next, what's with Amelia? When did this simpering, sort-of-dim nitwit get so ballsy?And WHAT was with that dance all the ladies did at Lord Styne's place?! I don't think so. Not in a million years. Could we have a little reality here, people? In the novel it was merely a charades tableau. Ladies did not go around with bare midriffs at this time. They would not do lavicious dances for royalty.Let's talk about some of the fellas. Isn't Lord Styne supposed to be a bit repulsive? I thought he was supposed to be repulsive? So why was the role cast with that Irish fox Gabriel Byrne? Please. Also, Dobbin is supposed to be a complete dork. Rhys Ifans is not nearly dorky enough. Although he often plays dorks he really isn't that bad to look at (just ask Sienna Miller) and in that scene where he is in the tent with the long hair and the tan and the whole thing...well, he's downright hot! Dobbin is not supposed to be hot.And wasn't Amelia's turn-around after Becky tells her to wise up and shows her George's letter....wasn't that just a bit too quick? In the novel she did not go "oh well, in that case..." and run off immediately to Dobbin. She wails and moans and soul searches for days.Finally...the ending. What? What was that? First off, Joseph Sedley DIES in the novel. He does not take Becky off to India to live happily ever after and ride elephants. The only thing I liked about this film is it was nice to look at. But if you are looking for a good, faithful adaptation...well, actually you should read the damn book!...but aside from that, go with the Natasha Little mini- series and stay away from this junk.