A movie taken from a Wilde's play has to be pleasant by default. It's impossible not to enjoy the fire-works of wit so smoothly offered by the Irish writer. Yet "An ideal husband" almost succeeds to be a boring film.
It should be observed that "An ideal husband" is Wilde's fourth play not only chronologically, but also with respect to the artistic level. In particular, the dramatic turns of the plot and the design of the moral scruples of the characters are decidedly weak. Therefore, to focus on these aspects of the play, as the movie does, is a major mistake. The Oliver Parker's script of the film presents several changes with respect to Wilde's original text. You easily recognize the added lines: they are so flat compared with the true ones! One scene is so un-Wildean that it has to be remarked: in the Turkish bath Lord Goring (the author's alter-ego) shows his gym-built muscles. Nothing could grate more with the spirit of Oscar Wilde, who always addressed his most ferocious sarcasm against the fashion/mania of sport, gymnastics and physical shape.
The acting is surprisingly flat (save Peter Vaughan and John Wood in two minor roles). Actually, Rupert Everett as lord Goring makes an adequate job: nothing memorable, though. To compare him with Cary Grant is sheer blasphemy. One can't believe how misfit Jeremy Northam is to play Robert Chiltern: he really makes an awful performance. Minnie Driver as Mabel Chiltern is not much better, with her perpetual half-stunned, half-whining expression. Moreover she is ugly (sorry). Julianne Moore is generally considered a first-rate actress: I don't know, but here she certainly doesn't show her talent. Needless to say, Moore is unattractive, too. Now let me ask: is there a LAW AGAINST BEAUTIFUL ACTRESSES in current movies? Is such a law some form of political correctness? Let some Foundation for Endangered Species preserve Catherine Zeta-Jones for all us...
"An ideal husband" is a forgettable movie: a routine work that produce poor results from Wilde's brilliant matter.
It should be observed that "An ideal husband" is Wilde's fourth play not only chronologically, but also with respect to the artistic level. In particular, the dramatic turns of the plot and the design of the moral scruples of the characters are decidedly weak. Therefore, to focus on these aspects of the play, as the movie does, is a major mistake. The Oliver Parker's script of the film presents several changes with respect to Wilde's original text. You easily recognize the added lines: they are so flat compared with the true ones! One scene is so un-Wildean that it has to be remarked: in the Turkish bath Lord Goring (the author's alter-ego) shows his gym-built muscles. Nothing could grate more with the spirit of Oscar Wilde, who always addressed his most ferocious sarcasm against the fashion/mania of sport, gymnastics and physical shape.
The acting is surprisingly flat (save Peter Vaughan and John Wood in two minor roles). Actually, Rupert Everett as lord Goring makes an adequate job: nothing memorable, though. To compare him with Cary Grant is sheer blasphemy. One can't believe how misfit Jeremy Northam is to play Robert Chiltern: he really makes an awful performance. Minnie Driver as Mabel Chiltern is not much better, with her perpetual half-stunned, half-whining expression. Moreover she is ugly (sorry). Julianne Moore is generally considered a first-rate actress: I don't know, but here she certainly doesn't show her talent. Needless to say, Moore is unattractive, too. Now let me ask: is there a LAW AGAINST BEAUTIFUL ACTRESSES in current movies? Is such a law some form of political correctness? Let some Foundation for Endangered Species preserve Catherine Zeta-Jones for all us...
"An ideal husband" is a forgettable movie: a routine work that produce poor results from Wilde's brilliant matter.