This movie is actually a film adaptation of Oscar Wilde’s play of the same name, which was performed for the first time in 1895 in London at the St. James Theatre, which has since been demolished. This 2002 film adaptation’s main stars are, yours truly, Mr. Colin Firth as John “Jack” Worthing, Rupert Everett as Algernon “Algy” Moncrieff, Judi Dench as Lady Bracknell, Frances O’Conner as Gwendolen Fairfax and Reese Witherspoon as Cecily Cardew. The general plot is that Jack creates a wayward brother who he calls Earnest in order to provide a reason to visit London to get a break from his distinguished and responsible life out in his Hertfordshire Estate in the country. When he is in the city, he goes by the name Earnest, the very name that he used for his fake brother. Gwendolen, his love interest, only knows him by that name and declares that she can’t love a man by any other name. Jack’s friend Algy often hears about the young ward named Cecily staying with Jack at his estate and secretly arranges to arrive there and pose as the wayward brother Earnest. When Gwendolen, Gwendolen’s mother, and Algy arrive at Jack’s estate at the same time and unannounced, the whole mansion is turned upside down and confusion ensues as a case of mistaken identity goes awry.
I won’t give away the ending, but I would say that this film was an entertaining one, in the same manner of the original play. There is no deeper meaning or message in it; it just pokes fun at the lifestyles of the wealthy and idle English elite in the nineteenth century, on the brink of the twentieth. I would recommend this film, as we see another side to Colin Firth, a light-hearted, comedic, and musical one, kind of like what we saw in Mamma Mia!, but less painful to watch. What is also cool about this film is that we see Rupert Everett and Colin Firth reunite about eighteen years after their first film together Another Country—which I did a review for also. However, their onscreen chemistry this time around seems forced or at least that they were irritated with each other off-screen, which showed in the movie. I’d say that helped to a degree, considering the roles they played and situations they were placed in. If I were to give this film a rating, I’d say 3 out of 5 stars. It was okay; it was fun and it was cute, but not really a memorable film. In other words, it did not leave a lasting impression on me like other films starring Colin Firth.
Thanks to my followers for sticking with me these past couple of years and through my hiatus. School, work, and life in general takes up most of my time, but I will soon have a nice break to start reviews again. Stay tuned!
One day I’ll start these reviews again. Thanks for following me everyone despite my prolonged absence and claim that I’ve lost interest in Firth. I don’t think I can ever lose interest in this man
Reason? What reason?
There is absolutely no “reasonable-ness” in the film. It’s rubbish. I haven’t read the book, but I’ve heard that the book is far superior to the movie, yet the borderline ridiculous plot is actually in the book, too. I don’t know, maybe the book is great, maybe someone who’s read it will stumble upon this and set me straight about it. As for now, I am reviewing the dreadfully pathetic film.
The plot seems interesting, I guess: So Bridget and Mark are three months into the relationship when suspicions arise that have her believing Mark is cheating with a younger colleague of his. They argue about it, without really using words or dialogue, so they are both confuzzled and eventually break up. Daniel Cleaver comes into the picture again when Bridget is chosen to travel and work with him for a travel television series in Thailand. *Spolier ALERT*—-*skip to next paragraph for my recommendation* Again she is wrapped up in his web of hackneyed lies, but resists in the end and leaves when a prostitute shows up. She spends the rest of the time with her friend Shazzer and her younger beau, and ends up packing a fertility bowl with a cocaine filled core in her suitcase that Shazzer’s younger man gave her. She ends up in a Thai prison, Mark bails her out, and when she learns this, they reunite living happily ever after!
Now, I liked the first one, and despite all reasonable doubt to not see the movie, I saw it anyway, for the sake of Firth. I now ask myself, was it worth the hour and fifty minutes? No. Yes in the first film Renee Zellweger as Bridget Jones was convincing, and endearing, but in this film she was just brooding on a whim of fabricated suspicions. I hope that the title is supposed to be ironic or satirical, because they turned Bridget Jones into an illogical, exaggerated, caricature of herself. In fact ALL the characters were hyped up caricatures of themselves. And I’m sorry to say Firth’s character, Mark Darcy is included. He hardly says anything in the damn film, so no wonder Bridget’s character is so suspicious. Plus his character hardly gets to talk because Bridget turns into a cackling gobshite right before our eyes (harsh? well, the movie asked for it). At the end of the movie, I was exasperated at how much time was taken away from me by mess. I don’t recommend it if you haven’t seen it, it’s one of the most disappointing films I’ve seen in a while. If you’re an early fan of Firth, it might chip away at your love for his acting career. Don’t be blinded by the hype like so many of us fans.
in Sir Colin. I know, I know I thought it would last forever, too, but I have found “someone new”…a lot of “someone new”s actually. I don’t want to delete this blog, though…it was so much fun writing on here, but I can’t force myself to do what I have no interest in anymore. So if anyone is willing to take partial owner of the blog and keep it alive by adding to it, I would be so grateful…if not, I’ll still leave the blog up just to remind myself of the good times we had together. SO long Sir Firth and your, err, movies! So long!
Colin Firth, CBE is made a Freeman of the City of London at Guildhall Art Gallery on March 8, 2012
Oh, Colin Firth looks good here…hmm…