source: These Foolish Things

Great production values, some snappy lines and a slew of veteran actors doesn't mean that the film has a story. In fact, there's very little plot, basically the struggles of a young actress (Charlotte Lucas) to break into the theater to follow in the footsteps of her mother. Aunt Angelica Houston has a sassy wardrobe (and even sassier butler), and Lucas has a group of not very nice gay men around her, obviously sex starved, as evidenced through their caustic attempts at conversation. Only Terence Stamp as the butler gets nastier lines, taking everyone down a peg, including his boss. As for romance for Lucas, she's saddled with a rather dull Mark Umbers whom Lucas's nasty cousin Leo Gill claims isn't really into her. British stage legend Julia McKenzie gets some good stuff to do as the landlady of a boarding house to struggling theater artists, a wise older woman who has seen and done it all...more than just a few times. It takes forever for Lauren Bacall to show up as Lady Lydia. After a while, the film seems to have lost its plot and focuses more on the attempted takedowns of each of the characters from a nastier one. The unpleasantness by this time is overwhelming and begins to inhibit the enjoyment of the film. The characters are either far too goody goody or just downright despicable, and that just leads this to becoming really tedious. As one character says, "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" which makes me wonder why the author didn't take that into consideration writing this.

The main credit of this film is that it brings you into the art of the theatre, behind the curtains, probing into the private lives of the actors and their agonies before the production, how a play is made and staged and how those mainly in charge act and interact - it's not just about ambition and talent, it involves relationships, passion, personal problems, derailments and even envy and sabotage - it's all here, at the brink of the Second World War just before it breaks out and involving the very outbreak and its disastrous consequences for the theatre - although a fiction it is all realistic and credible and gives you an invaluable insight into theatre work, on stage and off stage. It's a must for anyone involved with the theatre as a lover or worker or just a fan, and it is priceless for its revelations. Add to this the presence of legendary veterans like Lauren Bacall, Ray Dotrice, Julia McKenzie, Anjelica Houston and, perhaps the most important part of all, Terence Stamp as the butler. Keep your eyes on him and don't miss a moment of his stoic acting, which is what saves and leads the film forward every time he appears. The main actors are Zoë Tapper, David Leon and Andrew Lincoln, but there are many others who are exceedingly good as well. As a unique film bringing the world of the theatre into a unique light of vividness, it does deserve the highest rate.

Terence Stamp (the butler) and Anjelica Huston (Lottie) saved this movie. It was flat and drenched in pretense until these two incredible, larger than life, personalities peppered it with personality. It was great to see actress Lauren Bacall in These Foolish Things as well. Overall I felt like I'd seen this movie many times. Predictable.

Diana and Robin are two youngsters who want to work in the entertainment business in 1939 London. Because, what the world needs is just another actress or playwright, especially on the verge of WWI. The irony is that Diana wants so much to be an actress but everybody - except her boyfriend - tells her she's a bad actress, and that is the actual truth. Funniest line, Diana telling Robin "I don't want to get a part just because you're writing it for me"... Diana darling, sleeping with the playwright (and the director) is the only way you are EVER going to get a part. The main characters Diana and Robin are played by two unknown - for me - without any chemistry or subtlety. Not surprisingly, after this, they both ended up in the TV grinder of second-rate British series. Bacall, Stamp, and Anjelica Huston play supporting roles. It is weird to think they must have been so much in need of yet another paycheck to accept starring in this stinker.

Let me start by saying, I love British movies and TV shows. I've rarely seen one that I didn't like. This movie just didn't hold my interest, at all. First, as a costume designer for community theater for ov thirty years, I'm a huge fan of period pieces. The costumes in this movie seemed to be representative of the late 1930's, however, I just couldn't get over the character of Robin's hair. All of the other men had 1930's hair and Robin looked like a 2010 surfer dude. I felt the story was boring and just wasn't moving forward fast enough for me. The actors were bland, except for Douglas and Garsten Don't waste your time on this one.

What is the point of having actors dress up in period clothes when the leading male actor has long hair. Furthermore the play supposedly opens on the day war was declared.This was a Sunday when theatres did not open.In any event all cinemas and theares were immediately closed. The film lacks any entertainment at all.Thankfully I did not waste money in seeing this in a cinema.

Compelled as I am to write my thoughts on this movie that I saw last evening, I'm also in a parallel state of being almost speechless. I sat there, in awe, as unbelievable scene-after-scene kept staggering me, rendering me almost punch drunk, as if I had been running a marathon at 32000 feet above sea level. I ask myself, as I do from time to time when I see cliché-saturated stories like this: how in the world do these treatments/screenplays get sold to the folks who put up the money? Why do experienced actors like Stamp, Huston and Bacall appear in crapola like this? (Perhaps they are beset by not having the offers being made like earlier years and are desperate for work......understandable, actually.) Tedious. Banal. Obvious. Badly acted. Improbable. What a waste of time and money!

Not the best film in the world but a good effort by upcoming director Taylor-Stanley. I'm giving it seven because it wasn't dreadful and because the film score was fantastic. Some of the acting is stronger in some places; some is weaker - I wasn't overwhelmed by the performance of the leading role of Diana, but supporting roles were good: Andy Lincoln did a great piece as Lovell, and Terence Stamp was wonderful as Baker. There were one or two small anachronisms, but mostly what you'd consider "anorak" things; for instance there is one point in the office of a theatrical agent where he fakes a telephone call, and the wire connecting the hand-held part of the Telephone is curly whereas in the 30s it should have been straight. There was also the use of the phrase 'Jesus H Christ' which was an anachronism, but generally a good film. The film score was wonderful, Mr Lynn is a complete unknown but it appears that the risk Taylor-Stanley took by hiring him was worth it. As mentioned above, as a combination of the film's strong and weak points, I give it 7 out of 10.

We watched this film at home from a DVD and found it a pleasing alternative to the garbage being shown at the local multiplex. Since we obtained the DVD from a local library, saving $20. and avoiding the cell phones in a theatre was an added bonus. We thought Zoe Tapper was endearing in the primary role and the other Brits supporting her all did a stellar job. We thought the American additions Angelica Huston and Lauren Bacall contributed little and would have preferred Judi Dench and Francesca Annis but that's reaching for the stars. Always enjoy the films of the World War II era because their music is so far superior to what passes for melody in contemporary "music." Finally, we had the bonus of the special features showing the director and cast commenting on the production of the film. If a sentimental couple is seeking nostalgia in their evening's entertainment at home, this DVD is a good choice.