Purely Joyful Movie!

Best movie of this year hands down!

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Brits are usually known for authentic period pieces. But apparently nobody is perfect. This silly little movie doesn't make any sense whatsoever. We are supposed to believe that the young hopeful actress has the allure and talent, which she sadly does not possess. We are asked to buy the romantic package , which is as romantic as a garbage disposal. And to add insult to injury, this is one of the rare British movies with poor acting. Nobody stands out, not even the tragically miscast stars Huston, Stamp and Bacall. This fluffy powder puff of a movie is an utter waste of time.Its not funny or amusing or touching. It is big nothing.

Here is another film that all the critics hated that I just loved. It is a totally unrealistic, sappy romance that belongs in the 1930's where it is set, but I think it is a great treat.The story is right out of one of those 1930's melodramas about a young actress trying to make it on her own who meets with the perils of stage life. In this case, the young actress is Diana who is orphaned at a young age and is sent to live with her pious relatives. Her mother was a great stage actress, and Diana strives to follow in her footsteps. At maturity, she travels to London to try to make her mark upon the world of theater.She meets Robin who is a struggling playwright and there is an immediate attraction. The first help that Robin gives to Diana is to suggest loggings at his boardinghouse run by a retired showgirl with a heart of gold.The villains of the piece are Diana's cousin Garstin and his friend Douglas. Garstin is an entertainment columnist and Douglas is an actor of some success who has desires for Robin. This lusting of one man for another, of course, is a 2006 twist that could not have been done in a 1930's film. Garstin is a priggish snob and Douglas is a man who uses sex with both genders to further his own selfish motives. You couldn't ask for two slimier villains for this piece.The other major young character in the story is Christopher, Robin's actor-turned-director friend, who is also in love with Diana. Christopher is a man of principles who is tortured by his love for his best friend's sweetheart.Douglas beds wealthy supporter of the arts Lottie Osgood in order to get her to finance Robin's play with the ulterior motive of eventually bedding Robin. Straight as an arrow Robin is totally unaware of Douglas's evil desires, or so it seems.The plot of These Foolish Things is just too campy to believe, but one doesn't have to believe to just sit back and enjoy. That enjoyment comes from the beautiful production and the wonderful acting.Diana is played by Zoë Tapper who gives the character the innocence and beauty needed but is able to convey the wisdom gained by a young woman throw into a dog-eat-dog world of the theater.Her suitors are David Leon as Robin - fresh, good looking, and eager - and Andrew Lincoln as Christopher who presents Robin with a choice of an older, more stable lover.As the major villain, Mark Umbers is athletic and handsome with an underlying evil heart. It is easy to imagine him having his way with both women and men for personal gain. His partner in crime is Garstin played greasily by Leo Bill. He gives the audience a great nose-in-the-air snob liked by no one.Even though the young actors are all excellent in their parts, the real treat of this campy treasure is provided by the veteran actors.Anjelica Huston is a kick as Lottie Osgood - a woman who is well-aware of the way things operate and is abashedly ready to use her considerable wealth to get what she wants - be it adulation or a good roll in the hay.Lauren Bacall - beautiful as ever - gives a witty and heartwarming performance as a dame of the theater who guides the young Diana. One small scene with Bacall and Tapper is worth watching the whole film.The veteran who steals the film is Terence Stamp. He is the proverbial disgruntled butler always ready with a snappy comeback, a hilarious under the breath rapier line, or a good sock in the jaw, His performance is an absolute delight.A sappy love story. A campy period flick. A melodramatic wallow. An unbelievable tale. All of these foolish things are what make These Foolish Things a delicious pleasure.

Compelled as I am to write my thoughts on this movie that I saw last evening, I'm also in a parallel state of being almost speechless. I sat there, in awe, as unbelievable scene-after-scene kept staggering me, rendering me almost punch drunk, as if I had been running a marathon at 32000 feet above sea level. I ask myself, as I do from time to time when I see cliché-saturated stories like this: how in the world do these treatments/screenplays get sold to the folks who put up the money? Why do experienced actors like Stamp, Huston and Bacall appear in crapola like this? (Perhaps they are beset by not having the offers being made like earlier years and are desperate for work......understandable, actually.)Tedious. Banal. Obvious. Badly acted. Improbable. What a waste of time and money!

... that sent me to the sick bag. The one burning question I would put to Julia Taylor-Stanley is how the hell do you get FINANCE for something this bad because if I couldn't produce at least half a dozen better scripts between now and, say, June I'll turn in my Writers ticket. For some reason either Taylor-Stanley herself or IMDb has seen fit to remove the other writing credit that appears on the film itself 'based on the novel "There's A Porpoise Close Behind Me" by Noel Langley. Langley was born in 1911 and has some fairly decent writing and directing credits; Taylor-Stanley doesn't reveal her age on IMDb but based on this movie I'd say she went on to solid foods and began walking about three weeks ago. Since she takes (at least on IMDb) sole writing credit she must, by extension, take sole blame. It's difficult to know where to begin - yes, it's that bad. It has the same not-quite-right sense of period that obtained in 'Mrs Henderson Presents' but without the gravitas of Judi Dench to compensate. Taylor-Stanley seems to have prepared both herself and the young members of the cast to recreate the 'feel' of the thirties by reading vintage Noel Coward plays or getting the BFI to screen some of those unwatchable Ivor Novello films from the late twenties/early thirties. It's not really enough to deck everyone out in 'period' frocks and punctuate the risible dialogue with a selection of 'silly' vintage records, you need total immersion - and it CAN be done, make no mistake; on the same day I saw this I saw Les Ames Grises which is set in 1916 and is TOTALLY convincing - but Taylor-Stanley and her cast need total immersion in the local swimming baths til they cry Uncle. A second question I would put to Taylor-Stanley is who or what was her target audience. I myself have a certain affection for the Brief Encounters, Quiet Weddings, Fallen Idols and Dear Octopi of this world and went along prepared to embrace this but alas it lacks completely the charm, warmth and artistry of the above and I wonder if Terence Stamp himself knew exactly what kind of Renaissance Boy he was supposed to be playing. Put this in the bin marked 'Revolver'.