Mia moglie è un fantasma

Any time we see a movie, we have to suspend disbelief in order to get into the fictional world of a film (that's not a documentary). The huge problem with Blithe Spirit is that much of it was so unbelievable as to make it almost impossible to suspend disbelief and therefore impossible to watch.

Basically, the main theme of this version of Noel Coward's play, is that after the main male character's deceased ex-wife is summoned forth from a medium who's supposed to be a fraud (Judi Dench), said deceased ex-wife sets out to get between her former husband and his now (living) wife. For me, the big problem here was that the husband, a crime-writer, acts in such a stupid and irrational way that the whole film just seems ridiculous. Plus, the former wife, played to the hilt by Leslie Mann, was a stereotype of the vengeful scorned wife, even though anyone who is rational would recognize that that's not what she really was.

Specifically, once he has "seen" the ghost of his former wife and realizes others don't see her, he should have altered his behavior accordingly. Instead he keeps repeating the same moronic behavior over and over which just served to make me angry. Did the director and/or scriptwriter really think an audience would go for this?

Despite this major flaw, the film was visually engaging and busy enough to keep me watching despite my annoyance.

Blithe Sprit

So many reviews on here fail to just get it, this play/farce was written by Noel Coward, in 1941 as an antidote to WW2 and presented on the West End stage. Noel Coward very much in the style of Oscar Wilde writes light whimsical repartee between the characters and it really is a celebration of language.

This movie, set in the 1937, just does not tick the boxes that light up modern audiences. This is a most unfair way to judge it, the plot was well executed, the acting crisp, with a light touch delivery was really quite splendid.

It your looking for a car chase, criminal masterminds and superheroes in spandex look elsewhere.

I'm giving this a jolly well done 7

The only levels on which this adaptation succeeds is that it opens the play up so it feels less theatrical. However the new script on retains only a scattering of the Noel Coward dialogue and the new stuff makes all the characters unlikable and tedious. They've even made Madame Arcati's character far less quirky and quite bland. Can't image who the makers think this will appeal to. Traditional Coward fans will hate it and it has nothing to recommend it to anyone else.

I have never seen the original play or movie, so I'm not making a comparison. I think the main problem of this movie is that it lacks in rhythm. It felt too long despite being only an hour and a half. However, I still had a good time watching it. There are some true laugh-out-loud moments and everyone gives a good comedic performance. Also, the costumes and sets are gorgeous. Apparently, there have been a lot of changes from the original story, but I thought this story was good. My rhythm issue came more from some of the dialogue and the editing, I think. You won't be wasting your time watching it, but don't expect a masterpiece.

If you liked the stage play then I would imagine you would have a few issues with this film, however if you are not aware of the play or the 1945 film based upon the play then you will probably like this version. I never really liked the original film so not that emotional about comparing the two but many prefer the first attempt.

Does this capture Noel Cowards wit, not really but that maybe no bad thing.

Enjoy it for what it is, a simple story with a lacklustre ending to while away some time.