L'importance d'être constant

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.

Films like this need to be more widely available. It was showing at one theater 45 miles from my house, but it was worth the drive to go and see it. The script was witty, and seemed to be fairly true to the Oscar Wilde play (at least a lot of the funniest lines were retained). What a great cast! Colin Firth and Rupert Evert were both wonderful as rogues. I loved the "fight" scene!! As did most of the others in the theater, as there was lots of laughter all around. Reese Witherspoon did a good job with her British accent, and she and Frances O'Connor were both a lot of fun to watch. Judi Dench was marvelous, as usual. I highly recommend this movie...it wasn't really deep or anything, just very funny!

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.

From reading these reviews, it appears that many of them find this to be the inferior film adaptation of Oscar Wilde's play. However, they appear to contain "Older-itis," which is to say the constant insistence that the older thing is always the better thing. This film is excellent adaptation of this play. Let me reemphasize that word there: "adaptation." Contrary to what many of the people in these reviews think, this film is not meant to be and does not have to be an exact performance of Oscar Wilde's script. The writers, cast, and director did an excellent job of taking "The Importance of Being Earnest" and making it their own creation without utterly disrespecting the source material like some film adaptations of plays sometimes do. Rather, I believe it IMPROVES Oscar Wilde's original vision by keeping what everyone loves about the original play and expanding on the lacking aspects of it. The cast of "The Importance of Being Earnest" is delightful; Colin Firth and Rupert Everett (Jack/Earnest and Algernon respectively) have fabulous chemistry and work off of each other to great effect. Reese Witherspoon plays her character marvelously, as do many of the other cast members. The line delivery is good, perfectly suited for the kind of dry humor and wry wit this play excels at. Speaking of the characters, this film does a fabulous job of expanding on characters that were disappointingly two-dimensional in Oscar Wilde's version. Cecily's daydreams are a lot of fun (and definitely not something that would have been possible in the original play) and many of the side characters that originally did nothing more than act as glorified signposts got their own little side plots and personalities.

It wouldn't be right of me to just carry on praising this movie without acknowledging certain downfalls this movie possesses. Perhaps greatest of all is the nonstop wit present. As funny and as clever as it all is, there is a point where starts to become tiresome and old, leaving one wishing for a bit of dialogue that doesn't contain some wry remark or snarky comment. This was a problem with the original play as well, but it becomes more apparent in this movie due to the lack of variety and visual interest in these scenes; most of them consist of people standing around and talking to each other, and when they all are saying the same things it can get a tad boring. Aside from this issue, as well as a few quirks that date this movie to the 2000s, there are no glaring problems that ruin this movie. It's not my first choice (I had to watch it for school), but I'm sure it would be of interest to a large host of viewers; those especially partial to Jane Austen might find the wit and satire of this movie appealing (plus Colin Firth was in "Pride & Prejudice" and now appears here). It's a decent film and is a perfectly adequate version of "The Importance of Being Earnest" in full color and good sound. If you're reading this review then you probably are trying to decide if you should watch this movie. If so, then I would say, "Yes, go ahead." Thus ends my review. Thank you.

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.