Armadilhas do Coração

There do seem to be some scathing reviews here, but I have to say that I loved it!

I first started by reading the play, then watching the 1952 version, and then this latest reworking. The cast were absolutely stellar, though I'd go along with the criticism that they were just a little too deadpan in places. The sheer quantity of wit and wordplay in this script make it difficult to keep up, and it's often only in a reading that you realise that just about every other line is a hilarious gag.

I really can't understand an earlier criticism that a viewer couldn't make out any of the dialogue. I though it was wonderfully recorded with crystal clear diction throughout, but maybe that's an international difference. I'm lucky to make out about one third of anything the children say in 'To Kill a Mockingbird'.

Anyway - it was well filmed, great locations, and wonderful wit delivered by beautiful people. I loved it.

I agree that the '52 version captures the essence, and I think the delight, of the play. Add to the cast mentioned in the previous review Joan Greenwood, and you have even more delights occasioned by the unique players of the "original." And Margaret Rutherford.

As long as I can see the former, I seldom prefer the latter. Some things should be left alone - definitely not re-invented.

Any success in remakes seems to come from sticking to the original, just "fresh" players. If the old stuff works, why mess with it? Do something different along similar lines, but rename it. Don't change it all about and call it the same thing.

When people like former versions (evidenced by initial AND enduring interest), they generally enjoy new (but TRUE) versions, if done half well.

Personally, I enjoy newer versions that stay with what I liked in the first place, but deplore "updates," "modernizations" and "reinventions" which basically depart from what formerly delighted. It's just annoying.

Do whatever you like, but don't call it by the same name. Create or refresh; don't despoil.

One person's opinion.

It is a rare treat when you go to the movies expecting not very much but walking away with so much more! After reading the reviews here as well as some professional reviews, I almost decided to pass this one by and what a pity it would have been. Sounds like my unfamiliarity with Wilde's play and the previous version of this movie was to my advantage. After all I could view this movie based on its own merits without any other comparisons getting in the way. What a glorious summer treat and a wonderfully fun vehicle to discover Oscar Wilde's hilarious play and for that matter Wilde in general. Couldn't have asked for a better audience to watch this with here in the South. They were enthusiastic, obviously familiar with Wilde, remained for the credits, and clapped at the end. Can't remember the last time that happened,can you? Again, what a lovely surprise this movie was with absolutely marvelous chemistry between Mr. Firth and Mr. Everett, a sweet supporting cast, not to mention the beautiful production values. After seeing the movie, I almost immediately hunted for the text of the play and read it straight through.

This is the story of two men in England in the late 1800's. Algernon Moncrieff (Rupert Everett) lives primarily in the city, while his good friend Jack Worthing (Colin Firth) lives primarily in the country. Jack calls himself Earnest when he is in the city, so Algernon calls him that. Jack also uses the name Earnest to refer to an imaginary brother who lives in the city and always needs assistance, giving him an excuse to go to the city. Similarly, Algernon is always leaving the city to attend to an imaginary friend named Bunbury.

Jack is in love with Gwendolen Fairfax (Frances O'Connor from "Artificial Intelligence: AI"), who lives in the city and therefore knows him as Earnest. Gwendolen's mother is Lady Bracknell (Judi Dench), who is also Algernon's aunt. And the final main character is Cecily Cardew (Reese Witherspoon), who is Jack's ward, and who Algernon introduces himself to as Earnest. This of course makes sense to Cecily because she knows of Jack's brother (but obviously not that he is imaginary).

There is more to the story, but I don't want to give away too much, not that the story is really the important thing anyway. This is a comedy and not a serious period drama, and what makes it work is the dialog, which is based on the play of the same name by Oscar Wilde and adapted for the screen by the film's director, Oliver Parker. I enjoyed it more than I expected to, but I have not read the play or seen any other adaptations. My wife, who has, was disappointed, because apparently too little of Wilde's words remain in the finished product.

The acting talent is first rate, including, in addition to those mentioned above, Tom Wilkinson from "In the Bedroom." They do very well with the material, but it's so light you don't think about the skill required.

The bottom line is that this film is a good choice if you are looking for something frothy and entertaining, yet respectable, and you keep your expectations fairly low.

Seen on 7/15/2002.

I didn't like the new, added dialogue (Gwendolyn getting a tatoo, Lady Bracknell having been a musical hall dancer). However, the film is well-paced, has some very funny scenes (Algy and Jack's musical number, for example) and is well-acted. Frances O'Connor (Gwendolyn) and Rupert Everett (Algy) are wonderful, and Reese Witherspoon (Cecily) pulls off a passable English accent. Anna Massey and Edward Fox are superb as supporting characters Miss Prism and Lane the butler.