AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

Ameriatch One of the best films i have seen

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

lexva5 I didn't read the book before watching this film. Still after going through the 2 hours I can say that this film looks beautiful with exquisite period costumes and settings but the main characters don't come to life. The film concentrates on the exploits of Becky, a girl coming from a poor family climbs her way through the social ladder. As interpreted by Reese Witherspoon or as written on script, Becky's character feels flat and unnatural and so much is hinged on this character in the film. Either Reese was out of her depths in this or the director/script writers didn't get the feel of how a conniving, calculating but bewitching person could be. or feel. Rosella O Hara in Gone with the Wind springs to mind and VIvian Leigh nailed down the part. That made the whole film spring to life despite the many goings and comings of different characters. Unfortunately Vanity Fair fails in this and most of the characters have a disposable feel to them with a few exceptions The film still stuns in the visual department with the rich costumes, interiors, colours and delightful gardens being shown. That I enjoyed

normbograham The plot is far too condensed for a movie, and this might be the fatal flaw. The dramas of the book were lost in the movie, and the movie is difficult to follow and scenes just jump from one drama to the other. However, the cinematography, costumes, etc, make this a fun movie to watch. For some reason, we in this day and age like to forget about the smell of London in prior centuries, when men and women p'd in the street, or in the halls and/or emptied their p pots in the streets. This movie is no exception. Every scene deserves an award for costumes, and cinematography. The female characters are showing cleavage before the pm...How odd, but fun to watch.

MBunge Great old books are quite a challenge to bring to the big screen because they were simply written on a different level than today's popular fiction. Vanity Fair is a great example of that.Becky Sharp (Reese Witherspoon) is a young woman from an impoverished family who lost her mother when she was just a child. After slaving away many years at a boarding school, she finally gets a job as governess to one of those pinched English families in the early 19th century that had neither enough nobility nor enough money to be thoroughly upper class. From there Becky latches on to a rich dowager, before marrying the dowager's soldier nephew. Meanwhile, Becky's best friend Amelia (Romola Garai) is hopelessly in love with an arrogant jerk who cares little for her but whose father cares a great deal for Amelia's family fortune. When that fortune disappears, the father forbids the marriage to Amelia but the son goes through with it anyway, for no apparent reason. Becky and Amelia follow their husbands to Europe as the men prepare to war against Napoleon, where Becky becomes the toast of the night life of the British expeditionary force. The war ends with Amelia's husband dead and Becky and her husband trying to make a name for themselves in London society, racking up huge debts in doing so. That brings in the Marquis of Steyne (Gabriel Byrne), who sets his sights on Becky and tempts her with everything she's ever desired from life. But getting everything she ever wanted turns out to be far more than Becky can handle.There's a lot more than that in the film (and even more in the book), but that's the major problem with Vanity Fair. There's just too much story in too little time, leaving none of it with a chance to breathe. Take Reese Witherspoon's performance, for example. Her Becky is tough and determined, but the story is so busy moving her from place to place that we get no sense of her ambition and lust for status. She's called a "mountaineer" of social climbing, but most of her advancement in the first half of the film are due more to chance and circumstance than any effort of Becky's. By the time her more grasping nature has a chance to unfold on screen, it seems out of place and forced. Or take Amelia's beloved George (Jonathan Rhys Meyers). He's such a jackass it's hard to understand Amelia's devotion and then George makes decisions that are completely counter to his jackass nature without explanation. In a book, you can find the verbiage to justify or cover up stuff like that which makes little to no sense. But on screen, you just get what you can see.This is a common problem with books like Vanity Fair, which may have been pop culture in their day but played to audiences that were much smaller but much more literate than we have today. While a contemporary novel might be a cheeseburger, good but aimed at the common taste buds, Vanity Fair is more like a steak prepared by a French chef, tasty but perhaps too expensive or too much of a bother for many.The film does look great and the actors uniformly do a fine job. The best thing about the movie, however, is how it crystalizes the social and economic prison people found themselves locked inside in the early 19th century. If you didn't have money and status, your life would be nasty, brutish and usually short. I f you had money but not status, you found yourself on the outside of acceptable society trying desperately to get in. If you had status but no money, you found yourself a helpless pawn in the social gameplaying of those had money. And whatever it is that you happened to lack, there were only a very few and limited ways to try and fix that deficiency.As a work of entertainment, you're probably better off reading the book. But as an example of the structure of British society at a particular point in time, such as a teacher might use to give students a clearer understanding of those realities, Vanity Fair is worth your while.

Hussam Ayad well, i've really nothing to add more than 130 comments so far until now , we all agree the weakness of the character and the weak British accent , also an Indian scene ! , just want to add a big surprise , i've watched this movie tonight and it seem very well and i can't stop laughing since that Indian dance scene , at least all of you think it's an Indian show , yes it is , but can you imagine in the middle of the movie and all these 19th century time hrosess, palaces , and lords , a guy just show up with 1999 car model with a stereo sound system , what would u say? with all my respect for the cast and the awesome directors that opera show which played in front of the king wasn't Indian , it's an Egyptian song for Hakem in 1999 you don't believe me just search for it or pm me , really i would never ever thought they will commit such a horrible mistake like this , what does it mean , we all know .