The more things change the more they stay the same. London in the 1930's and the social scene is bustling. Adam is a writer of ambition but when his book gets confiscated by HM Customs he finds himself writing for Lord Monomark's paper as gossip columnist Mr Chatterbox. This involves him going to as many parties as possible and mixing with the rich bright young things of London society. While Adam attempts to get the money together to marry his girlfriend Nina he follows the ups and downs of this group. I have never read the book from which this came so I only came to this film as one comes to any other film and therefore had no expectations of what it should be or would be. The film follows the fortunes of the 1930's equivalent of the It crowd – those without jobs who seem to live of money from somewhere to just continually party and appear in the papers. As such the narrative relies heavily on the characters and I must confess I didn't find many of them interesting enough to really engage me. That said the plot still works because the characters are lively and flamboyant enough to be interesting and amusing. The multi-talented Fry takes pleasure in showing us how things are no different now than they were then – the public gobbles up tabloid gossip, the society parties are full of outrageous behaviour, sex and drug taking. With a modern eye it is fun to watch this although it perhaps isn't enough to make the whole film. Fry's debut as director shows him able as such even if some of his touches are a bit clumsy. The cast help him out greatly by delivering the goods from his script. Moore has the "straightest" character and the harder job of holding the narrative together but he does well and makes for an quite engaging character. Mortimer isn't used as well as I would have liked although she herself is pretty good. The rest of the cast are caricatures and outrageous types who perhaps don't add depth to the film but certainly make it fun. Tennant is good although the deliveries of Sheen and Woolgar naturally dominate. Quality is deep within the film even if some of Callow, Channing, Aykroyd, Mills and Grant are barely in it long enough to even be classed as cameos! Broadbent is a delight as a permanently sloshed major. Overall then an enjoyable film that makes for interesting viewing the way that modern society is reflected in 1930's society. The characters make for an OK story even if a lot of it is on the surface and very much of the moment (which I suppose might have been the point) and it is enjoyable even if it isn't that memorable.

They managed somehow to wring Waugh's uproarious novel completely dry of any humor in the process of adapting this film to screen. A formidable, if not commendable task. Personally, I think the characters would often have to react to the various plot twists--e.g. when the protagonist (first) learns he will no longer be able to marry his girlfriend (I can't remember their names) and informs her of this--with something like apathy or resignation. I don't think, in the example I gave, Waugh suggests that either of them are significantly devastated by this (as one would normally be), but rather only slightly put out by it for a moment (which is what I find funny about it), whereas, if I remember correctly, in the movie the girl acts genuinely disappointed. But I could be way off the mark, and I apologise if that's so. To be fair, Waugh's satirical wit strikes me as being particularly difficult to adapt. And I wasn't calling anyone involved in the movie a 'howling cad' -- that's just a reference to the book.

Having seen this film at the cinema and thoroughly enjoyed it I purchased it on DVD and then read the book so as to better judge whether the comments that the film was an exceedingly loose adaptation were true. It is certainly true that Fry hasn't stuck to the narrative strictly but the changes he made in the name of good cinema were overwhelmingly the right ones and he actually managed to bring forward some entertaining background characters and relegate some fairly tedious ones. For example Lord Monomark who is a Canadian Newspaper magnate shamelessly based on Lord Beverbrook is rairly mentioned in the book but is superbly played by Dan Ackroyd in the film whilst the PM Walter Outrage who features heavily in Waughs novel is barely mentioned in the film and rightly so as the character in the novel is a complicated amalgamation of contemporary politics (i.e Ramsay Mcdonald and Bonar Law)that even I having studied the period extensively found heavy going. Also whilst the ending is contrived to be too happy it is a marginal improvement on the novel in my opinion which doesn't seem to conclude the book very well. Overall a superb film with excellent production values and peerless period feel for which Stephen Fry should be commended. I just hope that he has a stab at at adapting Decline and Fall which is another excellent Waugh novel.

Stephen Fry's film hasn't got a clue where his film is going or who it's for. It's a bit like MTV with period dress. Fry seems to hope that the film's complete lack of substance has been disguised by its fast and furious style. I was kept going my the endless checklist of cameos, but even some of these were too much to take. It should be made law that all of Simon Callow's performances are deposited on the cutting room floor. Paying audiences should not be subjected to his hammy preening.

A most notable characteristic of this film is that it rather zanily merges the 1920's with the 1930's. That historical distortion may seem a slight defect to some viewers choosing to concentrate on a broader stage involving the upper class in its last throes of excess, but for me it destroys the underlying plot. The years before the Great Depression -- the Roaring 20's -- were sui generis. Moving everything forward to events as late as 1940 is a forced element that simply fails. Otherwise, there are some bright young moments here. Character actors do indeed steal the show, even if some are given throw-away roles. If only there were better and more believable development of various interactions between the leads, it would make for compelling drama; but we are treated instead to campy olio resolving itself into a strange conclusion, somewhat surreal. For example, the business between Adam and Ginger having to do with money as WWII rages on is misplaced farce -- even if the audience assumes a generous disposition of credulity. Little wonder outsiders looking in have a difficult time with this film, not to mention us history buffs.

Well after 36 mins I had enough, this is really terrible. It's boring through the bone, I have no idea what the point is in making movies like these. It's just huhhh... nothing, hard to put words to this kinda mess, just not worth my time. I like "European" movies, but this is too hard to watch. I felt bad after just 2 minutes and it got worse. I expected a nice movie, but I got deeply disappointed. I go to sleep and I hope I will forget about this tragic event, that turned out to be a released movie. The money wasted on this crap... Well for some this might be worth watching, if you are that kinda person.... hmm, you might want to check out your mental capacities... A 6.7, it's crazy, please see "Les 400 Coups", or well a normal movie. I'm so sad, because of this...I might apply for adaption :).

"Bright Young Things" is a comedy that's never funny, a period piece that doesn't know what period it's in, and a party film that leaves you with the hangover. When writer-director Stephen Fry decided to make an adaptation of an Evelyn Waugh novel, he could have done himself a favor and not adapted "Vile Bodies." It's an episodic satire on the lives of a group of London club kids in the late 1920s that attempts to elicit laughter from the nasty ways they are run to ground by the world around them. The characters aren't meant for any deeper emotional investment than lab rats, though Fry seems to believe otherwise. At the center of the story, in both novel and film, is young Adam (Stephen Campbell Moore), who at the start of our story has lost his prized manuscript and is desperately trying to find new sources of funding with which to marry his lover Nina (Emily Mortimer). Opportunity comes in the form of an offer from publisher Lord Monomark (Dan Aykroyd) who wants Adam's help "tearing the lid off the young, idle, and rich." "I put Seignior Mussolini on the front page, no one buys a copy," he laments. "But a picture of one of your set in a nightclub, I can't print enough copies." The problem with both the novel and the film is this interesting idea is dropped almost before it begins, in favor of a number of other outrageous episodes which seem to act on the principle that anything can be made merry provided it moves fast enough. Like a strange major who makes off with some money Adam wanted to bet on a long-shot horse. Or a party that winds up finding themselves in the Prime Minister's residence. Or a car race that loses a wayward driver. All of this is drawn out as if it were funny merely by being incongruous. The film is worse on a few counts. First, Fry by necessity condenses the story but is at pains to include almost every character that appears in the book, as a way of facilitating assorted cameos that run from extraneous (Richard E. Grant as an angry Jesuit) to sad (John Mills as a mute coke sniffer). Second, he invests his version with an elegiac sadness that feels totally out of place in the second half. Nothing says comedy like a man sticking his head in an oven, or another tearfully discovering his homosexual lifestyle exposed. Even the main romance, a matter of crass opportunism in the book, is presented as a kind of real love story, even heroic as the Roaring '20s zip suddenly ahead to Dunkirk and the Blitz. Fry doesn't seem to trust either Waugh's wit or his own to make "Bright Young Things" work on comedic grounds, or else he really thinks the characters worth celebrating. The result is a doubled-down waste of our time.

"Bright Young Things" is a very stylish adaptation of the Evelyn Waugh novel, "Vile Bodies". I felt the film captured the snarky satire tone of the novel and was a fairly decent effort on the part of Stephen Fry who was making his directorial debut. I found the film played fairly light and enjoyable; a bit like a meringue that way. I suspect that this is a film for those with a fondness for wicked satire, in jokes and an interest in period pieces. There is a kind of manic pacing to the film and the cinematography which I suppose matches the feeling of the time. People had survived a war, and a pandemic so it might make one a bit dotty. I was quite pleased by some of the work by some of the young actors who had never been in a film before. They had a pleasant ease infront of the camera. It isn't going to be some over the top smash. It is one of those nice art house films that one later rents from the library and shares with certain friends who have a taste for colorful clothes and characters.

I began to fear that this film would be a travesty of Waugh's superb novel when I saw Stephen Fry doing promotional interviews for it in which he claimed that the reason Waugh's title had been changed was because Waugh had actually wanted to call the book "Bright Young Things" but had been dissuaded by his publisher. Balderdash, of course. Obviously, some ill-read fellow in the film business had expressed the view that the title "Vile Bodies" suggested a horror film - perhaps about a depraved coroner? - rather than a sharp satirical comedy. Still, this annoyingly foolish pretence didn't quite prepare me to expect a film quite as awful as this one actually is. Fry seems to have no understanding of Waugh's novel at all, and even transposes it from the 1920s - the actual era of the "bright young things" - to the 1930s, when the absurdities of the rich, in an era of worldwide economic depression, were considerably less tolerated. The entirely fictitious and unspecified war which breaks out at the end of the book becomes World War II - even though Waugh's novel predates that conflict by nine years! Could it be that Fry didn't actually know this? The relentless cheapening of Waugh's fine satire is made worse by the employment of a large number of the best actors in Britain (not to mention Dan Aykroyd and Stockard Channing from America), most of whom are wasted - none more so than John Mills, in his last movie - and many of whom are encouraged by tyro director Fry to over-act irritatingly. Only Fenella Woolgar and David Tennant seem to have actually read the novel, or anything else by Waugh. The novel is, after more than eighty years, still as sharp as a razor; this film seems as shallow, empty and stupid as its characters.

This is one of the best films I have seen in a while. I was lucky to be able to catch it at Washington, DC's International Film Fest, but I hope that it gets a proper U.S. release date soon. The stunning costumes, set, and dialogue -- all very era-appropriate -- were compelling. I don't usually go for period pieces, but so much of this movie seemed tongue-and-cheek that I couldn't help enjoying it. The main characters were well-developed, each with their own quirks, and there were some unexpected twists that helped move the plot along. Stephen Campbell Moore, the actor who plays the lead (Adam Symes), is a real find. He carries the movie beautifully, and I wouldn't be surprised if he became a huge star. Even though Moore does fine on his own, you have to give credit to Simon Callow (King of Anatolia), Jim Broadbent (the drunk Major), and others in the supporting cast for mastering their oddball roles. Furthermore, the costume designer deserves an Oscar. I was a bit disappointed with the ending, or at least the scenes leading up to the end. The film starts out like a carnival ride and runs out of gas near the end. But, like all good carnival rides, once you finish, you want to get back on. That's the way I felt about "Bright Young Things." I can't wait to see it in the theater again.