[.ca] The House of Mirth (Widescreen)

Disappointing:
It doesn't seem to matter how good a story is, and The house of Mirth is good, casting the right players makes the difference between great and dismal. Dan Akroyd seems to be reading his lines off a nearby wall. Gillian Anderson is beautiful but doesn't elicit sympathy for her role as 'heroine led astray'. Eric Stoltz is a fantastic actor but even he seems to struggle. The movie has sumptuous wardrobe and settings done with meticulous detail. Even so,it's hard to watch without wincing at Akroyd's embarrassing performance or hoping that the heroine falls in the mud.

Uneven performance:
The biggest flaw to this movie is the uneven performance put up by Anderson. She is great in the first half an hour, but her performance degenerates into pity (much like the character she plays) and unconvincing for the rest of the film. Aykroyd just looks and acts ridiculous as the married seducer, probably the worst cast role in the film. For some reason I never developed a full sympathy for Lily Bart. It could have been a great film, but the rather theatrical direction leave the film cold.

A Good Effort:
This film version of Edith Wharton's "The House of Mirth" should be commended as a good attempt to bring the classic 1900's novel of manners to the big screen. However, while the director makes a laudable effort to adhere to the text, there are too many missing pieces to encompass the entirety of the tragedy that is Lily Bart. The removal of key sequences and themes - her parental influences, the irony of charity, her personal fear of filth and dinginess, Selden's role as a spectator and Lily's art, and the final scene with Netty's baby - leaves us with a separated, disjointed view of Lily. In short, the lack of setting and background means that if you have not read the book, you will not like this film. It leaves too much to the imagination. While Gillian Anderson gives a good portrayal of Lily, the other actors hardly do their characters justice. Dan Aykroyd should stick to "Ghostbusters" or "My Girl" rather than attempting Gus Trenor; he simply doesn't fit this role. Elizabeth McGovern is blunt and leaves me cold, when her written character has far more heart than we are given in this interpretation. Eric Stoltz's portrayal of Selden is perhaps the most divergent from the character we know in the novel, but apart from a bad interpretation of the character the actor himself comes across as insincere - he is not Wharton's Lawrence Selden. Overall, the film is good, but it lacks the emotion, the background, and the establishment of setting that would have made it great. Granted, the two hour time of the film would have been far longer if the things I have pointed out were to be included, but maybe someday the BBC or A & E will take on the project and do it the full justice it deserves. But until then, do yourself a favour and read the book - and leave this film on the shelf until you do.

a cautionery tale........:
this film is excellent, but this i attribute in most part, the edith wharton's creating such a brilliant story. what is so interesting about authors such as this, is they inspire those like myself who only know the time of "now" that we live in, & this story opens up the times before, how we came to be where we are now, filling in jigsaw pieces & also what life on a bigger picture is/was about. gillian anderson is wonderful as the tragic heroine, being free-spirited, independent & fun-loving. the thing that got me with this story was how she met such a tragic demise when she did nothing wrong! she was cruelly & jealously played by those she trusted called friends. maybe this is truly a cautionery tale!

Heartbreaking:
Couldn't help but feel the pain that the heroine went through. Wonderful film. I was surprised by Gillian Anderson's suberb acting because I had only seen her in the television show "X-Files". I would recommend this film to anyone who is patient to watch this film and who has an appreciating for tragic stories.