Watch Vanity Fair For Free

Gripping story with well-crafted characters

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

(Flash Review)I haven't seen too many 1800's period pieces that show a wide spectrum of societal classes in depth without focusing the majority of time to the upper echelon. Reese plays a young woman working her way up from an orphan up to a woman with a mid to upper class status. She captivates young gentleman of status and military rank with her charm and looks as well as befriends their mothers with her intellect. The film has an engaging story with crisp pacing and some very picturesque scenery shots. One small quibble is that this movie spans several years yet none of the characters really seem to visually age or change too much. This was also based on a book and many reviewers complained that the main character lacked the original's sharp, ruthless and bold persona. I have not read it so that didn't factor into my rating.

Solid movie adaptation of Thackeray's novel, thought I believe some liberties were taken here because I can't imagine king's entertainment being described as ribald as this one.Nair does a good job of following melodramatic story about young, pretty and ambitious orphan girl rise in the society. No amount of wealth, however, can sidestep the burning question of restrictions set by proper bloodline, so naturally there are enough complications to fill a long TV saga. My initial amusement was slowly replaced with gnawing feeling that this is another "Gone With The Wind" never ending story, where heroine is not exactly likable and guys are goodies. Reese Witherspoon is just fine, though way too modern for a period piece. Rhys Ifans is Rhett Butler here and since nature of his character is far more understandable (gambler with a golden heart) he gets our attention far better. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is surprisingly effective as movie's true villain, while Bob Hoskins, Jim Broadbent and Eileen Atkins steal the show in supporting roles. It was very entertaining up to certain point, than slowly started to feel overlong.

Yes, ''Vanity Fair'' is a good movie, but sadly it's not very much faithful to the novel, which is one of my favorite novels.Just see the differences: are there any similarities between the Becky of the novel and the Becky of the movie? In the novel, we start to hate Becky Sharp. Again in the novel, Becky is presented with a selfish and wicked character, a character WITHOUT a soul. But in the movie--- she has emotions and she is a good person despite her wicked dreams.If you don't read the novel but only watch the movie, then you will like this movie. In fact, I also like this movie very much, but I'm sad because of it's lack of faithfulness towards the novel.And now, the songs are truly wonderful. Take an example of ''Now Sleeps the Crimson Petal'' and ''She Walks in Beauty''. Aren't these songs wonderful? The musical effects of the film is very good.And the casting: it's excellent!!! I like the performances of all of them: Reese Witherspoon, James Purefoy, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Romola Garai, Rhys Ifans, Bob Hoskins, Gabriel Byrne, Jim Broadbent and others.In short, the whole movie is good but is not much faithful to the novel. Yes, it's faithful, but some elements in the movie truly disappointed me.

None of the reviews I have read thus far would seem to have commented on the music & dance sequence towards the latter part of the film. The sequence depicted 'native' dancers performing an 'ethnic' dance to some equally 'ethnic' music. Both the choreography and the music seemed to draw from a wide variety of styles, i.e. Latin- American, African, Arabic - styles which would simply not have existed in the early 19th century! How on earth could the director have got it so wrong? The sequence was laughable, almost Pythonesque in its absurdity. For me this was the final straw in a piece that had struggled from the start to hold itself together. Even the very talented Miss Witherspoon looked fairly clueless throughout most of the film.