I saw this movie last night at a screening in Boston, and I have to say there are both positives and negatives to this film. Surprisingly, the movie does follow the general outline of the classic novel, obviously with certain sections omitted, Hollywood-style. The characters are all given a strong background for a nice foundation at the beginning, and the pace of the film moves along comfortably during the beginning as well. Because of our preset notion of Reese Witherspoon from previous movies (ahem, Legally Blond) it is at first difficult to see her play this role. However, after the first few minutes I found it easy watching her as Becky Sharp. The characters generally follow closely to the traits that I had imagined from the novel. And even if you haven't read the novel, they are very believable.
SPOILER ALERT
I feel that the director did a generally good job of conveying the overall message and story of the original novel. Becky is seen in her impoverished childhood, bent towards making a better life for herself by climbing the Everest of social society in the 1800s. Her wit and power of being able to manipulate others turns haywire after making the mistake of allowing a rich man to pay her husband's gambling debts. It characteristically follows the 1800s-novel scheme by bringing her back to where she started, with a slightly uplifting end in a place (India) foreshadowed where Becky did not expect to see herself.
Some complain of being confused at the end. The pace of the movie jumps pretty quickly at the end, but I did not find it hard to follow myself. It is merely the consequence of trying to concentrate the rest of the novel within half-an-hour, quite understandable considering the actual novel length. Several major issues that seem important are not addressed as thoroughly as I would have liked (We find out that Rawdon Crawley dies of a fever during a conversation later on. He was a pretty important character to brush off like that.) The only other thing is the scream Becky Sharp makes when her husband leaves her. Reese seems to be forcing it out: it's really almost unnatural.
Overall, I still feel that this movie does not tread far from the general tone, mood, and moral that was meant for Vanity Fair. Pretty well done, considering the depth and length of the novel, a 6 out of 10.
SPOILER ALERT
I feel that the director did a generally good job of conveying the overall message and story of the original novel. Becky is seen in her impoverished childhood, bent towards making a better life for herself by climbing the Everest of social society in the 1800s. Her wit and power of being able to manipulate others turns haywire after making the mistake of allowing a rich man to pay her husband's gambling debts. It characteristically follows the 1800s-novel scheme by bringing her back to where she started, with a slightly uplifting end in a place (India) foreshadowed where Becky did not expect to see herself.
Some complain of being confused at the end. The pace of the movie jumps pretty quickly at the end, but I did not find it hard to follow myself. It is merely the consequence of trying to concentrate the rest of the novel within half-an-hour, quite understandable considering the actual novel length. Several major issues that seem important are not addressed as thoroughly as I would have liked (We find out that Rawdon Crawley dies of a fever during a conversation later on. He was a pretty important character to brush off like that.) The only other thing is the scream Becky Sharp makes when her husband leaves her. Reese seems to be forcing it out: it's really almost unnatural.
Overall, I still feel that this movie does not tread far from the general tone, mood, and moral that was meant for Vanity Fair. Pretty well done, considering the depth and length of the novel, a 6 out of 10.