These Foolish Things

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.

Diana and Robin are two youngsters who want to work in the entertainment business in 1939 London. Because, what the world needs is just another actress or playwright, especially on the verge of WWI.

The irony is that Diana wants so much to be an actress but everybody - except her boyfriend - tells her she's a bad actress, and that is the actual truth.

Funniest line, Diana telling Robin "I don't want to get a part just because you're writing it for me"... Diana darling, sleeping with the playwright (and the director) is the only way you are EVER going to get a part.

The main characters Diana and Robin are played by two unknown - for me - without any chemistry or subtlety. Not surprisingly, after this, they both ended up in the TV grinder of second-rate British series.

Bacall, Stamp, and Anjelica Huston play supporting roles. It is weird to think they must have been so much in need of yet another paycheck to accept starring in this stinker.

I'm a BIG fan of Andrew Lincoln! And I think he portrayed this character greatly! It's a romantic movie and has a bit comedy. This movie has a beautiful aesthetic. I love London and the old vintage look! Things can get weird at times but other than that it's great! The ending of this movie is sweet but wish it had more. It's a sweet movie! I think it deserves better rankings. The budget for this movie looked really good it looks expensive. They portrayed the 1920s look good. Underrated movie ! I would recommend watching. I started watching bc I was a fan of Andrew but I think I would like this movie either way!!

Not the best film in the world but a good effort by upcoming director Taylor-Stanley. I'm giving it seven because it wasn't dreadful and because the film score was fantastic.

Some of the acting is stronger in some places; some is weaker - I wasn't overwhelmed by the performance of the leading role of Diana, but supporting roles were good: Andy Lincoln did a great piece as Lovell, and Terence Stamp was wonderful as Baker. There were one or two small anachronisms, but mostly what you'd consider "anorak" things; for instance there is one point in the office of a theatrical agent where he fakes a telephone call, and the wire connecting the hand-held part of the Telephone is curly whereas in the 30s it should have been straight. There was also the use of the phrase 'Jesus H Christ' which was an anachronism, but generally a good film. The film score was wonderful, Mr Lynn is a complete unknown but it appears that the risk Taylor-Stanley took by hiring him was worth it.

As mentioned above, as a combination of the film's strong and weak points, I give it 7 out of 10.

Let me start by saying, I love British movies and TV shows. I've rarely seen one that I didn't like. This movie just didn't hold my interest, at all. First, as a costume designer for community theater for ov thirty years, I'm a huge fan of period pieces. The costumes in this movie seemed to be representative of the late 1930's, however, I just couldn't get over the character of Robin's hair. All of the other men had 1930's hair and Robin looked like a 2010 surfer dude. I felt the story was boring and just wasn't moving forward fast enough for me. The actors were bland, except for Douglas and Garsten Don't waste your time on this one.