Recensioni degli utenti

Though I've been enjoying the movie very much, I'd rather not compare it with the original novel by Evelyn Waugh on which it was based. Because the very point of the savage satirical masterpiece is missing in this film, which turned out to be only the tragical drama about adultery, the death in the family, the "saintly" husband and a hypocritical bitch of a wife who ruined their perfect image of family for nothing (not very refreshing story, I'd say). The actors did their best, and the atmosphere is delivered perfectly, but...it's hard to say why - the filmmakers revealed to us only the surface image of what the story is really about. Lacking the deadly satire of the original novel - it's turned out to be another work entirely.

"I will show you fear in a handful of dust" (c) - they didn't manage to do it. They showed only the typical tragedy of the cliché-situation.

Therefore my rating - "6", for a nice picture and acting, but for entire lack of the whole point.

At the end of this film, one wants to wash one's hands of the unmitigated cruelty pervading the atmosphere. The deliberate pace of the thirties setting (beautifully portrayed using the right houses, and suitable sets and costumes) ensures that every nuance of behaviour is clearly understood by the audience, and this is the great strength of the film. As I haven't read the book, but believe this is a faithful adaptation, I can commend both Charles Sturridge and the superb actors for translating what must be a difficult, but brilliant, novel by Evelyn Waugh, not only into an impressive film, but one that conveys thirties morals and social privilege in a way that rings true for today's 21st century attitudes.

I think this is the best performance I have ever seen by James Wilby. Cuckolded by his wife (Kristin Scott Thomas in a fantastic debut performance), suffering from the death of his only son, he turns from a kind and gentle husband to one who wreaks revenge on his wife by cutting off all financial support. His agony over his son is exactly restrained in the manner of the period, his embarrassment over setting up the grounds for divorce by being caught in flagrante, his bewilderment when one would think he should be released from torment but is trapped by a vindictive eccentric (Alec Guinness, as usual, quite amazing) in the middle of the jungle, after nearly dying of fever, is a tour de force. This is his film, but Kristin Scott-Thomas (who was the original reason I watched this film in the first place), is simply delightful as the spoil, bored wife who can't resist Rupert Graves's boyish charm and dilettante lifestyle. No wonder Robert Altman chose her for Gosford Park; she is made for these roles. Her character's brittle insouciance, total selfishness and insensitivity, her lack of concern for her husband and son while she pursues alleviation from boredom with Rupert Graves, is reminiscent of Daisy Buchanan's behaviour in The Great Gatsby. Kristin Scott-Thomas shows a sophistication and acting aplomb which is breathtaking.

Rupert Graves is convincing as the shallow man-about-town sponging off others but seducing charming to the ladies; Judi Dench gives a lovely cameo as his bourgeois mother; Cathryn Harrison is good as Millie, who is supposed to provide the evidence for the divorce; and Alec Guinness in one of his final roles, is chillingly menacing.

I recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a good story well told, excellent acting, and a period setting.

My summary is NOT to tell you not to watch the film. Instead, it's a warning to people who want a nice film where everything ends happily....none of this is the case. It's a sad story and even sadder because in the end, it's all for nothing...hence the title of this story, taken from an Evelyn Waugh story.

Tony and Brenda (James Wilby and Kisten Scott Thomas) are married and should be very happy. After all, Tony has a lot of money, a large manor in the country and they have an 8 year-old son. But despite this, Brenda cheats on poor Tony...who really is a pretty nice guy. Oddly, she chooses a man who is pretty much disliked by everyone and appears to be interested in her because of her money.

When their son dies in a tragic accident, Brenda immeidately makes it clear to Tony that she is having an affair and wants a divorce...and that everyone but Tony seems to know about the affair. Brenda claims to want a reasonable settlement and Tony is a bit of a sap, as he agrees to pretend to be the one having an affair. But when her lawyer reveals that she is going for A LOT of his money, necessitating Tony to sell his beloved estate, Tony refuses to cooperate and won't grant a divorce either. Then, he disappears for what he says will be six months traveling abroad...which actually means going on an expedition with a lousy explorer who ends up getting them lost in the South American jungle. What's next for Tony and Brenda? See the film...or not.

The acting is good but the story is pretty depressing to watch, as is Waugh's original novel. This does not mean you shouldn't watch it, but it can be tough going. Overall, a rather well made but bleak little film.

A story that raises many questions, even good ones, but gives only a few answers. A great cast, James Wilby is for example excellent as Tony Last, goes to work in this beautifully filmed melodrama set in the early thirties i UK and Brazil. The period feeling is great and so are the settings. The story is built up around a doomed marriage, but it is hard to really understand why. There is a lot of smoke here but no real fire until the late and great Sir Alec Guiness comes to work in the last 30 minutes creating a frightening illiterate fan of Charles Dickens. But superb acting on all hands and high class camera-work is not enough although the film is worth watching especially if you have a love for British culture and history, and don't we all...

On their enormous country estate, James Wilby and Kristin Scott Thomas live the life of leisure and riches in the early 1930s. While Miss Thomas is in the city with her lover, their young son dies in a hunting accident. Miss Thomas asks for a divorce.

It's another example of what I call the 'suffering in mink' tearjerker; Wilby is a perfectly decent if dull fellow who wouldn't do anything wrong, and even botches an attempt to allow Miss Thomas divorce him for cause. Derived from the novel by Evelyn Waugh, it offers some snide commentary, but I can't bring myself to have any sympathy for anyone involved.

It does boast some great location shooting on the Duke of Norfolk's estate, magnificent costuming, and a great cast that includes Anjelica Huston, Rupert Graves, Judi Dench, Pip Torrens, Stephen Fry, and Alec Guinness. But it's definitely not my cup of tea.

I should start by noting that I've never read the book on which "A Handful of Dust" is based. That said, Charles Sturridge's Academy Award-nominated adaptation gives one a feeling of the absolute insensibility of British high society in the 1930s. It was a world in which one could have anything except genuine happiness. The events at the end of the movie are merely the culmination of the preceding grim circumstances.

In addition to Sturridge's direction and the impressive editing, the cast put on fine performances, showing the characters continuing the facade even as things begin to sour. Cast members James Wilby, Kristin Scott Thomas and Stephen Fry later co-starred in Robert Altman's "Gosford Park", a biting satire on the British class system. In addition to them, the cast includes Rupert Graves, Judi Dench, Anjelica Huston, Alec Guinness and Pip Torrens (who later appeared on "The Crown" as the perpetually dour Tommy Lascelles).

Not the ultimate masterpiece, but worth seeing.

I will admit, I was not a fan of this film during the first fifteen minutes when it nearly went into the "Period Film Sleeping Bag" category, but after you get through this first hump (which is to wean out the naysayers) this is a very disturbing and thoughtful film. In fact, I loved it. It took me awhile to think about it after the first viewing, but I was very impressed. Not only did this film break the boundaries of the dreaded "Period Piece Snore-fest", but also the standard of some films dating after 1988. When I watch films from the 80s, I normally do not see this caliber of writing and intensity. While it may have been around, most films were not ready to dive headfirst into it yet, but apparently Charles Sturridge has no fear. Instead, he gives us a biting story about social decline and satire, while all the while luring us deeper into this very depressive world. Amazing actors, an extremely powerful story, and an ending that will knock your socks off, A Handful of Dust was an unexpected, yet much needed, surprise.

Feeling like a combination of Requiem for a Dream and Angels & Insects, this period piece film offers more than just torrid love affairs and snobbery, it gives us this brief, yet powerful, glimpse into a world turned upside down by the squandering of a woman. I don't mean to sound sexist, but Sturridge does paint a picture where Kristin Scott Thomas' portrayal of Brenda does not paint a pretty picture of the perfect marriage. When Tony is left time and time again with John Andrew while Brenda is off gallivanting around London with John Beaver, our emotions are not placed within Brenda's arms, we care about Tony and his reaction if he were to ever discover the truth. Unlike other period piece films, we sympathize with the husband in this case, and ultimately open so wide to him that when the dramatic, and bizarre, ending occurs, we are left flabbergasted. It almost doesn't compute, but then you think about it and realize that Sturridge is a brilliant director using techniques well beyond his time.

Kristin Scott Thomas does a great job with the material that she is given. Her puppy-dog eyes seem to flutter and keep James Wilby's Tony at bay. I think that is what fascinated me about her character was that she portrayed this feeling of innocence, yet she was in complete control of the situation. That is why I think Rupert Graves' character was the most under-appreciated of them all. While some will see him as the villain of his film, I saw him as just a random person that happened to fall in love with a woman that reciprocated back, and happened to see the advantages of falling in love with her. He wanted to get rich quick, and this was his answer. Thomas could have stopped at any time and went back into the arms of Tony, but she chose not to, even with all of her innocence. Guinness surprised the daylights out of me with his role in this film, well, I guess he always does. Then there was Wilby, the most multi-layered character of the film. He showed us all the true love does exist, and that good husbands do as well. He did nothing wrong during the course of this film, yet somehow felt life hit him the most. The events that happen during this film continually to the ending happened directly to him, not really to anyone else. That surprised me. Here was a man that had all the money in the world, a gorgeous house, and a family, but found that luck was never on his side. Together, these three powerful plays hurdle through a tough film to give some genuine thought-provoking performances.

Then there was Sturridge who did his homework secretly in the darkness of his own basement to help bring this film to the silver screen. Most of Hollywood would have probably changed the story to bring about some final satisfaction. This is not the case with Sturridge who keeps the mood and themes of the film in constant view of us. We consider these people high society, with their hunting moments and huge houses, but the reality of it is that they face the same troubles that we, the normal person, do daily. They may have money, but they are human, and that is what Sturridge keeps with us during the course of the 118 minutes. He captures your attention with the characters, throws in some Twilight Zone scenes, and allows your imagination to work overtime. Anytime that a director pulls your mind into a film, the battle is already half won. This was my kind of film.

Overall, I was very impressed. This film broke me of my feeling that all period piece films were bad and dull, and had me drooling for more. While I know that not all will be like this, I cannot wait to see what other directors will dive headfirst into this untapped pool. The cinematography was pure 80s, the actors did their parts, and Sturridge brilliantly colored the themes and satires. I was surprised (and still shocked) by this film and cannot wait to show it to others … now that is the true test of a great film.

Grade: ***** out of *****

An 18th-century English writer, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, once wrote (putting Alexander Pope in his place): "Satire should, like a polished razor keen, wound with a touch that's scarcely felt or seen". This is exactly what Evelyn Waugh's novel A Handful Of Dust does and the film, in my view, fully does the novel justice. Waugh's satire here is very underplayed, very understated and very funny, but none the less utterly lethal for all that. Charles Sturridge and his fellow screenwriter's have, as far as I can see, stuck extremely close to the novel, which is no bad thing as Waugh was an extremely economical writer and there would be little point in trying to gild the lily. Although Waugh wrote his novel as a young man, his thorough dislike of modernity - which he regarded as insincere cant - in every shape or form is already apparent and he mercilessly sends up its more vicious aspects. But Waugh was too intelligent just to hate for hate's sake: it was the loss of admirable qualities in favour of 'progress' which upset him. So in the novel and film Tony Last behaves well to everyone despite a great many people, not least his 'modern' wife Brenda, treating him appallingly badly. He is loyal, values tradition, honest, accommodating and indulgent and in return loses everything. Brenda is conventionally sweet but is simply a self-centred monster who lives without a thought for anyone, and always gains what she wants. One reviewer here complained that 'nothing' happens in the film. Not a bit of it. A great deal happens but everyone is so polite and well-brought up that no one, not even Tony, questions the huge injustice of it all. If you are reading these reviews while considering whether to see this film, bear in mind the quotation with which I started my contribution: Satire that's 'scarcely felt or seen'. That will give you the key to enjoying a very good film indeed. (NB The full quotation putting down Pope runs: "Satire should, like a polished razor keen, wound with a touch that's scarcely felt or seen. Thine is an oyster knife, that hacks and hews, the rage but not the talent to abuse.")

"A Handful Of Dust" strikes one as a butterfly on a pin, beautiful to look at but rather pointless, apart from what's holding the poor butterfly. This cinematic adaptation of the Evelyn Waugh novel has all the same pieces, but lacks a sense of purpose beyond its own pointless existence.

In 1930s England, we meet Tony Last (James Wilby), country squire and "rather a stick" who dotes over his son and his grand but decaying estate, Hetton. This doesn't sit well with wife Brenda (Kristin Scott Thomas), who pines for the party scene in London. "I just thought it would be fun to eat someone else's food for a bit, that's all," she says when Tony shoots down a suggestion to pay a visit on one of her friends. Brenda has other options, it turns out, a young man named Beaver (Rupert Graves) with whom she takes up an affair that is common knowledge to everyone but Tony until a horrible accident brings everything in sharp focus.

There's nothing here not covered better in the novel, which has its own problems in terms of structure (namely an incongruous last act set in South America) but captures wonderfully a jaded social scene Waugh inhabited but despised. Reading "Handful Of Dust" is to be immersed in a world of clever beastliness, but an inert quality of cold cynicism hampers the film, which by following the novel as closely as it does suffers for the lack of Waugh's jabbing narration.

The principal actors all play their roles capably enough, but none find the right angle or empathy to make the film either wicked fun or emotionally involving. Judi Dench comes closest as Beaver's mercenary mother, crowing about a fatal house fire she expects to make money off redecorating. "Luckily they had that old-fashioned fire extinguisher that ruins everything," she purrs. But neither she nor any of the other savage Londoners that abet Brenda's cruelty give you much to hold onto. They say their lines, make their point, and the film rolls on.

Alec Guinness shows up late in the film as Mr. Todd, a sinister character who takes advantage of Tony in a curiously quaint way. "There is medicine for everything in the forest, to make you well...and to make you ill," is about as openly threatening as he gets, and it is enough. Still, even he doesn't bring enough life to the proceedings to make the film take off.

Director Charles Sturridge, who also co-wrote the film, gets in a lot of pretty pictures of period London and the rain forest, but he doesn't seem to have much of a vision of his own beyond capturing Waugh on film the same way he did with "Brideshead Revisited," the 1981 miniseries he co-directed. "Brideshead" though had many more hours to develop its subtle themes, and a better story besides of grace as well as ignominy. "Dust" just has the ignominy. It is not enough.

I really liked only one performance in the entire film, that of Alice Dawnay as a little girl named Winnie who accompanies her mother to Brighton and doesn't see why she can't have a seaside holiday even if her mother's there to help Tony amass evidence of sexual infidelity for a quick divorce. The girl's scenes with Wilby have the right lightness and energy to suggest a film moving on its own power, and not just going through the motions.

But for the most part, "Dust" delivers only a sad tale of ruined lives that fails to make you care about anyone who is in it. There's nothing in it that really stinks, yet the lack of a real point really hurts it in the end.

WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER

Evelyn Waugh was one of the most stylish writers of his generation and the deceptively simple prose of his early mordant satires ('Decline and Fall', 'Vile Bodies') stands up very well today. 'A Handful of Dust,' written during the break-up of his first marriage to Evelyn Gardiner ('She-Evelyn') is more personal and less comic, and more concerned with the consequences of the characters' lack of personal morality. This film version by Charles Sturridge, who was earlier jointly responsible for a fine TV version of 'Brideshead Revisited,' is a worthy attempt to do justice to the novel, but perhaps he need not have bothered.

The film follows the novel as published in England – a US edition had a different, happy ending - though for space reasons some incidents are omitted (eg the drunken night at the sleazy 'Old Hundredth' club). Tony Last (James Wilby) is a pleasant young dim Tory gentleman, the proud owner of Hetton Abbey, a pile of Victorian Gothic bombast, and the attentive but slightly baffled husband of Lady Brenda (Kristen Scott-Thomas), elegant, aristocratic, and bored to death after seven years of country life. They have a cute six-year old son, John Andrew (Jackson Kyle), who seems to relate better to his nanny and riding instructor than to his parents, who are equally awkward with him. A young man called John Beaver (Rupert Graves) invites himself to stay, and Brenda, despite Beaver's vacuity, decides to have an affair with him, renting a small flat in Mayfair from Beaver's mother (Judi Dench) for the purpose.

Then an accident occurs which prompts Brenda to reveal her affair to Tony (almost everyone else in their circle knows of it already) and leave him. Tony, having met an explorer named Messinger, sets off with him to Guyana, South America, in search of a lost city, but the expedition falls apart and Tony is rescued by Todd (Alec Guinness), a part-white man living with the Indians. Todd wants someone to read him Dickens, and Tony finds himself a prisoner.

The re-creation of life at Hetton; mists over the park, the huge, overdecorated house (Carlton Towers, Yorkshire, is a perfect match for the fictional Hetton Abbey), the attentive servants, the elegant meals, house parties, Sunday morning at church, the ritual of foxhunting etc, is all beautifully done. We see why Brenda is bored (even if Anjelica Huston's character does drop in by plane), but it is not so easy to see why Brenda takes after Beaver. Jock (a wooden Pip Torrens), young MP, friend of the family and an old boyfriend of Brenda's, seems a much more likely choice, obsessed as he is with the politics of pig-farming. Kristen Scott-Thomas is fine in the role of Brenda but the script lets her down a little. As Tony, James Wilby projects just the right air of amiable, good-natured dimness. We feel sorry for him even as his unlikely fate assumes an air of inevitability. A youthful Rupert Graves gives us a callow and colourless Beaver, egged on by his ambitious mother.

The change of scene from England to Guyana is somewhat abrupt, though signalled in the script, and it's almost as if we are watching a different movie. This is not necessarily the filmmaker's fault as Waugh backed an earlier short story of his 'The Man Who Loved Dickens' into the first two-thirds of the novel, which is a kind of prequel to the short story. Yet the events of the whole novel bear close correspondence to Waugh's own experiences, his marriage break-up mentioned above, and a journalistic trip he made to Guyana as a kind of therapy. Unlike the unlucky Tony, Waugh returned from the jungle to tell this, and several other mordant tales.

Here the film-makers were not able to give visual expression to Waugh's mood. Perhaps different music might have helped – the theme for 'Brideshead' was perfect. For the most part the actors were well-cast, but they were pinned down by the close adherence of the scriptwriters to the novel's dialogue.

but well worth the time. The actors are perfection while the story is allowed to tell itself with crushing realism. This isn't a movie that is going to make you smile much but it will probably make you think.

In what is supposed to be a dry, British high-society drama, A Handful of Dust certainly has an odd beginning. Where does the movie take place, in the jungle or in a beautiful English estate house? Do Kristin Scott Thomas and James Wilby have a happy marriage or are they bored? Unfortunately, I didn't really get any less confused as the movie continued. Kristin has an affair (for no reason I could tell other than boredom) with the poor Rupert Graves and, miraculously, has no clue he's only after her money. You'd think the upper class would have a sixth sense for sniffing out gold diggers. The brokenhearted James gets even more brokenhearted when their young son is killed in a horseback riding accident.

If you're watching this for the story, you're better off with The Age of Innocence. If you're watching it for a young Judi Dench, she has a far more interesting character in A Room with a View. James Wilby and Kristin Scott Thomas both have a host of English sagas to their resumé that you can choose from. Anjelica Huston's only in the movie for about eight minutes, and Alec Guinness doesn't show up until the final seventeen. He is given a funny laugh line, though. He plays an illiterate man living in the jungle who asks James to read to him for entertainment. His suggestion is Little Dorrit, in which he acted the year before!

A really good book cannot be entirely simulated adequately on screen. There is too much going on underneath, too many subplots, too much conversation and description to undertake in two hours. Choices made by production folk determine which direction the film will go, generally accenting one plot line of or other and allowing the rest to fall to the wayside. HOD does a fine job with the route it takes, darkly stating the consequences of empty lives which rely on artifice for sustenance. These creatures were not creating their lives so much as feeding their idea of existence without exploration. The result is tragedy but the tragedy was already in existence. The actions of the trapped subjects simply began to reflect their emptiness. This doesn't make for a happy movie but it is instructive if one chooses to see the lessons. And as art, the acting, direction and cinematography are quite fine.

I decided to watch this purely on account of the magnificent cast, not realising it was another Evelyn Waugh adaptation. Maybe if I'd known, I wouldn't have bothered because I absolutely HATED Brideshead Revisited, also directed by Charles Sturridge. Perhaps the necessary compactness of a film adaptation compared to the lumbering drawn-out length of the Brideshead TV-series is what made it work for me.

What a magnificent film this is: sensitively directed, beautifully shot and the amazing cast absolutely spot-on. The understated performances of James Wilby and Kristin Scott Thomas as the two doomed main characters are just perfect to make this strange story come to life. The stellar supporting cast all add up to a feast of fine acting.

In my opinion, AN UNDERRATED MASTERPIECE.

It's a great film and very well made in all its meticulous sense for details and excellent psychology, but it's a horribly sad story. Everything is perfect, especially the acting, Kristin Scott Thomas is as overwhelming in her beauty as ever, James Wily makes a very convincing husband in all his limitations, and Rupert Graves is good enough, and there is even Alec Guinness. Objections could be raised though against the story. Is it quite plausible? Could this actually have happened? All is acceptable up to the first accidental death, a horrible accident, which triggers the tragedy, but then there are constantly new question marks concerning the consequences. As so often in Evelyn Waugh's novels, you feel an objectionable lack of decency. "Brideshead Revisited" is his masterpiece, which was also made a TV film by Charles Sturridge, and in that great novel Evelyn Waugh somehow succeeds in superating his own penchant for morbidity, but here it still shines through. They say he was a great satirist, but his satirism is generally negative and never funny and seldom human. Of course, you have to feel some compassion for the victims of this complicated drama, but was it really necessary to leave it like that? Would not Tony Last have tried to escape from his final prison, perhaps even to return to England and Kristin Scott Thomas again, and what would Rupert Graves do after his stay with his mother in America? Certainly he would also have returned, which leaves the theoretical possibility for all three of them to have met again - and definitely in happier circumstances, becuase they couldn't really be much worse than what Evelyn Waugh leaves them in.

A hidden treasure in a sea of mediocre and formulaic films. The cast is excellent! Great love triangle story. Alec Guinness is wonderful. Kristin Scott-Thomas is a fox!

"A Handful of Dust" is a period film (circa 1935 approx) which tells of a woman (K Scott Thomas) who becomes restless rattling around in a huge English mansion with her family and servants and decides to take a flat in London for he purposes of a liaison with a handsome young man of dubious character. Her affair results in an upheaval which sees her husband going off on an Amazon expedition while she stays and frets about her divorce settlement. The film doesn't end so much as it just quits with many dangling loose ends. There are no highs or lows of emotions in this very well crafted bit of nothingness and the story is so bland and uneventful there's little reason to recommend it. A knock-off of a story by Evelyn Waugh who penned the wonderful "Brideshead Revisited", this film seems to have needed much more time to tell its abruptly truncated tale. Passable with no CC or subtitles on the DVD I watched. (C+)