An Ideal Husband (I) (1999) User Reviews

Charming, clever, and contrived.

[=G= · 7/10 · 26 May 2001]

"An Ideal Husband" is a charming though contrived little 19th century English period comedy with the subtly sardonic sense of humor typical of Oscar Wilde. The film, which deals with the politics of society first, the politics of the heart second, and the politics of the state last, features all the trappings of the period, a solid cast, and a clever script. An amusing and enjoyable watch for those into 19th century English period films.

Ideal, absolutely, for those who adore such films as Emma, A Room with a View, and A Merry War

[inkblot11 · 8/10 · 6 August 2007]

Gertrude (Cate Blanchett) is an English aristocrat in the Edwardian era. She is very much in love with her husband, Robert (Jeremy Northam), a rising star in the British Parliament. Yet, an old schoolmate of Gertrude's, the conniving Laura (Julianne Moore) arrives back in town with a mission. She knows a secret about Robert that would bring about his ruin and decides to pressure him to support a government bill that would invest heavily in a Argentine adventure, one she has staked her money on as well. What can Robert do? He turns to a close friend, Lord Arthur (Rupert Everett) for help. Arthur, a rich and witty bachelor, offers what support he can. But, with women chasing him around every corner, including Robert's sister, Mabel (Minnie Driver), can Arthur devote the time required to saving his friend? And, will Gertrude have to be told about the blackmailing, causing her to lose some faith in the husband she thinks is "ideal"? This film, based on a play by Oscar Wilde, is a sophisticated and charming movie of the highest order. As such, it is replete with clever and mirthful lines, lovely costumes, beautiful sets, and memorable characters. As the principal actors, Blanchett, Northam, Everett, Driver, and Moore are excellence itself, laying doubt that anyone else could have filled their roles in a better manner. Yes, it is a dialogue-driven film but it is never stuffy or boring. If you have enjoyed such movies as Emma or A Merry War, this one is an ideal choice for your next film engagement. But, even if you are channel surfing and stumble across the flick on some lonely night, you will be drawn to its universal humor and humanity.

Rupert Everett only the best of many reasons to see this movie.

[helen-15 · 8/10 · 30 June 1999]

I thoroughly enjoyed this refreshingly unusual summer movie. In the midst of blockbusters and bathroom humour, Oliver Parker decided to film a faithful version of an Oscar Wilde play, complete with authentic costumes, elaborate sets and witty, wonderful dialogue. The actors, particularly Rupert Everett, Jeremy Northam, Cate Blanchett and Minnie Driver, are obviously having a lot of fun as they sink their teeth into this worthwhile material. I saw the movie in a crowded theatre and people were hooked - they gasped, laughed and, at the conclusion, spontaneously applauded. I plan to go again and take with me other friends who are some what jaded by the other possibilities out there.

Wit, depth and beauty - Will Wilde follow Shakespeare to Hollywood?

[jimcheva · 18 June 1999]

As I left this movie, someone said "How nice to see an intelligent movie!"

The risk going in was that it would be ONLY an intelligent - or at least clever - piece, all period manners and costumes. In fact, with all the Oscar Wilde wit which sounds wonderfully fresh here, there are also rich moments of emotional depth throughout this amusing but also quite moving film.

One theme here - touching in hindsight - is how little it can take to destroy a reputation - Wilde was later to have some of the most painful possible firsthand experience of this. But the central question here, which anchors the humor and beauty that decorate it, is the cost of rigorous, even rigid, honesty. And the growth of the central characters on this point shines through, even through the dance of wit and farce.

Underpinning this is a surprising faith in human nobility, quite in contrast to the ironic persona Wilde maintained. It struck me while watching it both that Wilde had very French characteristics - a continental finesse, the love of repartee - and yet was profoundly an English writer by virtue of his faith in fair play and the bonds of (platonic) male friendship.

In fact, Lord Goring, whose world-weary ways make him something of a surrogate for Wilde, is a distant cousin to Sidney Carton in coming to the defense of a 'nobler' friend even at great (possible) sacrifice to himself. His very lack of seriousness is what makes his efforts on behalf of his friends so moving.

With this, the pure visual beauty of actors like Cate Blanchett and Rupert Everett, matched by sumptuous costumes and sets, adds a sensuous element which, in a lesser film, might have dominated the movie. They, with Minnie Driver in cheeky comic form and Julianne Moore sweetly evil and superbly English, make it a delight both to watch and to savor later as tart food for thought.

(or and ideal wife) is ... the Truth ! (DVD)

[leplatypus · 7/10 · 16 September 2010]

It's quite a long time that i haven't seen such a perfect movie: a highly talented cast, a lavishing setting and a finely chiseled and powerful script.

Here, you got an all-star team: Driver as the eccentric but romantic young woman (unfortunately a falling star that hasn't shine for a long time), Moore as the Machiavellian lonely woman, Everett as the helpful friend, "Sir Robert" as the courageous man and ... Blanchet as the lovely wife whom characterization deeply moved me. In my tumultuous life, i was just wondering what's the special gift a woman can offer (me) to fall in love: beauty, wit, sensuality, wealth, power? Gertrude has nothing of that but her kindness, her attention, her devotion left me under the spell. She could become easily my ideal wife.

Then, the story happens in the Victorian time for which i have also a strong tie. I just really appreciate the British phlegm: you can say the more vile things but always with class. Here, you find cupidity, blackmail, lies, ambition but there's nor a fight nor a shout!

At last, the script is really well written: you don't know if this is a romance, a buddy movie, a thriller or a tragedy. I really like the morals questions the movie asks: can a bad action be redeemed? How can a true friend be helpful? Does love live with lies? The answers are not brought in a dull, academic patronizing way but playfully because all the characters seems to orbit around each other!

In conclusion, it's a sort of lighter and happier "Carlito's way" thus a great movie that is maybe really unknown.

A big disappointment...

[LDB_Movies · 6/10 · 11 October 1999]

I went into this movie expecting to like it-- after all, it got rave reviews, I love this "type" of film, and I'm a big fan of most of the stars. Well, it was a big disappointment...

Put simply, this film was very SLIGHT. That's the best way to describe it-- not much content, not very funny, and only the excellent acting all around could save it. Julianne Moore gives the breakthrough performance of the film. I expect an Oscar nomination for her.

During the film, I kept thinking (which is usually a sign of a bad movie) of other movies that "did it" better. If you want to see a much better film set in approximately the same time period in England, go see THE WINSLOW BOY (though it's not a comedy). If you are in the mood for laughs and wit, go see NOTTING HILL. Both films did what An Ideal Husband attempted and failed to do.

One last point to hammer home-- the close-ups of Rupert Everett's left ear revealed 2 earring holes (an anachronism or at least a reminder that THIS IS A MOVIE). Seeing this in one scene would have been mildly acceptable. But there were at least 3 scenes in which I noticed it. Where were the makeup people? Where was the director? Couldn't they see it in the dailies? There's no excuse.

Superb filmmaking

[FlickJunkie-2 · 10/10 · 19 January 2000]

To say that this film is a filmmaking tour de force would be a great injustice. It is far better than that. Oliver Parker's revitalizing of Oscar Wilde's classic play is filmmaking at its finest.

Every element of this film is superlative. Wilde's story as adapted to the screen by Parker is witty, intelligent and engaging from start to finish. Seldom can you find a story that attempts to be a romantic comedy, a tale of duplicity blackmail and betrayal, and a drama of political intrigue, and succeeds so well on all counts.

The intricate weave of deception, manipulation and double entendre along with comic misperception, irony and rapier witted dialogue are delicious and classic Wilde. This is a film you will want to see again and again, just to discover all the lines within the lines.

I cannot say enough about the brilliance of Oliver Parker's direction in this film. He has captured late 19th Century aristocratic England with vivid and rich images that put the viewer right into the period. David Johnson's cinematography is fantastic, with every scene working well as to lighting and color. The beautiful blend of colors in the costumes and the set always looked like they belonged together. Parker also provides numerous interesting camera angles that help dramatize the scenes. It serves to remind us that glorious films can still be made relying on the creative eye of the director rather than special effects.

The acting was delightful. Rupert Everett, as the self absorbed Lord Arthur Goring, delivers an exquisite performance as the unscrupulous rogue upon whom the mantle of truth and honor is laid.

Julianne Moore was delightful as the evil and cunning Mrs. Cheveley. As cold, manipulative and heartless as she is with Chiltern and Lady Chiltern, she is that vulnerable and helpless with Lord Goring, for whom she has long held a flame. Moore handles this emotional juggling act with great skill and you find yourself simultaneously loving her ingeniousness and hating her treachery.

Cate Blanchett turns in another wonderful performance as the oh-so-perfect, Lady Gertrud Chiltern. Jeremy Northam is also excellent as Robert Chiltern, the man of untouchable character with a scandalous secret in his past. Even Minnie Driver is charming as Robert's sister.

This is a terrific film for the refined viewer who appreciates all aspects of filmmaking. Even for those not into the art of filmmaking, it is simply great entertainment. I can think of no negative criticism of it. It is well written, directed, photographed and acted. It is filmmaking the way it was meant to be. A perfect 10.

A treat; Oscar would approve.

[MOscarbradley · 7/10 · 16 January 2008]

This screen version of the Oscar Wilde play is gorgeous to look at, has an all-star cast and opens out the action superbly. I'm still not quite sure what audience the producers hoped to attract but then who would ever have guessed a movie entitle "Shakespeare in Love" would win the Oscar as the year's best picture.

Of course, Wilde's original play isn't quite in "The Importance of Being Earnest" class, (and in a nice touch the characters here attend a performance of that very play), but director Oliver Parker pulls out all the stops and the end result is very entertaining. The epigrammatic Wilde character is Lord Goring and Rupert Everett fits the part like a well-tailored glove but again it's the women who hold court and both Cate Blanchett, (Lady Chiltern), and Julianne Moore, (the very devious Mrs. Cheveley), are excellent while Jeremy Northam is a surprisingly effective Sir Robert. Indeed. it's hard to fault the piece. I'm sure and intelligent and grown-up audience will agree.

Surprisingly good - surprisingly timely, terribly marketed

[danielwill · 9/10 · 26 February 2000]

I saw "An Ideal Husband" at the Old Vic theater in London, and was surprised at the time how timely a 100 year old play could be.

When I saw the trailers, TV ads and posters for this version, it seemed like an entirely different story--will Rupert Everett get married off. That's certainly a thread in the movie, but in the marketing of this version, they made it appear as if it was the entire wardrobe.

I didn't see the film when it was in theaters because these ads, with their very modern music and fast cutting, made the film look like a joke.

But when it came out on video, I decided to try it, and am glad I did.

The film itself is excellent. Beautifully shot and paced, with an expert cast. Wilde's humor shines through, and the writer-director has done a wonderful job "opening" up the play into a film, without changing anything important. It's a masterful job of translating from stage to screen. It's really so crisply done, and very funny.

In years to come people will realise that this is a fine movie version of this play. And by then, hopefully, they will have either forgotten about the marketing campaign, or hopefully learned from it.

I recommend the film.

Talks more and says less as it goes on

[SKG-2 · 7/10 · 27 January 2000]

Comedy plays like those that Oscar Wilde are tough to do; go one way, and it's too smug and arch, go another and it's too labored and drawn out. Adapter Oliver Parker avoids the first part but stumbles into the second. Obviously, in this post-Lewinsky era, he probably felt he could make a timely statement about politicians, and he handles that part without grandstanding. But this is essentially a comedy, and while we start out brightly, the end slows it down to a crawl. To be fair, it's hard work to appear effortless(as Cary Grant proved), but the comedy suffers because of it. Certainly Rupert Everett is effortless enough, and he's not only good in of himself, but everyone else is at ease when acting with him(I particularly like his sparring with Minnie Driver). But while the rest of the cast is good(though Northam looks uncomfortable at times), they get caught when the movie slows down. It's too bad, because there are good things here, but as Wilde might say, it talks more and says less as it goes on.

Not what it could have been

[VLeung · 5/10 · 11 April 1999]

On paper, this would appear to have got everything right. Script by Wilde; Minnie & Cate and the delicious Rupert Everett and Jeremy Northam. But it doesn't quite work, because the actors don't seem able to have any fun with the text. They should be serious at times, of course, or the story wouldn't work, but the production lacks lightness, playfulness. If, for instance, you compare Minnie's Miss Mabel with the Glynis Johns performance in the earlier movie, you'll see where Minnie got it wrong, behaving like a slightly desperate child, where Glynis's Mabel was a charmingly faux-naive grown-up woman, who knew exactly what was going to happen all along. For Glynis, the end is: yes, and what took you so long? For Minnie, it's: Blimey! Really? Not quite as chic. All the same, they're an awfully attractive cast, and it's a nice film. But it could have been fun, and it could have been good

See it twice.

[Curtize · 9/10 · 9 August 1999]

An Ideal Husband - ****

In 19th Century London, Sir Robert Chiltern (Jeremy Northam,) is a successful member of parliament married to the virtuous, fabulously popular Lady Gertrud Chiltern (Cate Blanchett.) Sir Robert's sister Mabel (Minnie Driver) is infatuated with Sir Robert's friend, Lord Arthur Goring (Rupert Everett.) The dashing Lord Goring, the wealthy son of the Earl of Caversham, is an inveterate bachelor who lives a life of leisure. Into this already crowded picture drops Mrs. Laura Cheveley (Julianne Moore,) an Austrian socialite with two ex-husbands and a convoluted past. Not only was she briefly engaged to Lord Goring, but it seems that she possesses evidence that the noble Sir Robert once committed a terrible indiscretion. Mrs. Cheveley uses this explosive evidence in her attempt to blackmail Sir Robert into voting against his conscience on the floor of Parliament. What ensues is a fascinating examination of honor and idealism. We learn that the noble Sir Robert is less than perfect, while the rakish bachelor Lord Goring possesses a surprising level of honor and insight.

If Shakespeare in Love deserved an Oscar, this film deserves the Nobel Prize. It is simply outstanding in every respect. The first thing one notices is the dialogue. It is a bit stiff and stilted, as was the custom in London at the time, but it also possesses a razor sharp wit and sly sense of humor. Every last character speaks with intelligence and humor. The verbal fireworks, particularly as provided by Lord Goring, illuminate character and motivation while simultaneously producing guffaws from the audience. The plot structure is a marvel. There are no explosions, fireballs, or car chases, but the picture achieves a certain breathlessness simply through its intricate layering of multiple characters, all with intertwining motivations, interests, and connections with one another. A prime example of this is the scene in which poor Lord Goring receives multiple visitors at his home in a single night. All of the visitors have conflicts with one another, so Lord Goring must segregate them and move from room to room, listening to their problems and providing insights. The costumes and locations are all excellent. I particularly liked the manner in which Sir Robert's bright home is contrasted with Lord Goring's dark and cavernous bachelor pad. The one complaint I have is with the film's music; it seemed too light and frivolous, overplaying the "madcap shenanigans" element of the picture. But this is a minor quibble indeed.

The acting is first rate across the board. Jeremy Northam (yes, he could play James Bond) is well suited to the role of Sir Robert. He exudes intelligence, honor, and duty. Julianne Moore, as Mrs. Cheveley, seems to relish the conniving and scheming of her character. Cate Blanchett and Minnie Driver capably bring depth and intelligence to their limited roles. But the true star of the film is Rupert Everett as Lord Arthur Goring. Mr. Everett has had a promising career to this point, but An Ideal Husband is his breakout role. In this film he is witty, charming, caring, wise, devilish, and childish all at once. Lord Goring is the kind of man that makes women swoon and men flock around to hear funny stories. He reminded me of Cary Grant - only better. Someone give that man an Academy Award.

Rupert Everett is great here!

[perfectbond · 7/10 · 17 December 2004]

I watched this film adaptation of Oscar Wilde's an Ideal Husband to complement my study of it for a 19th century English drama course. Of course there were a few liberties here and there -- aren't there always in an adaptation? But I found most of the characters depicted in the right spirit. Julianne Moore portrayed the conniving blackmailer Mrs. Laura Chevely particularly well; her very pale skin helped to accentuate the character's coldness, in my opinion. But I thought Rupert Everett as Lord Goring stole the show. Everett seems to naturally have the charm, wit, charisma, and cynical pragmatism that the character conjures in my mind. All in all, this adaptation helped in my appreciation and understanding of the play. Recommended.

Pretty, and pretty terrible

[razasyed · 1/10 · 26 August 1999]

Trite, precious, rote, hackneyed, tired, terrible. I can't summon enough pejoratives to disparage this period-piece mess. First off, I didn't appreciate the obvious digital trickery employed to make this moderately budgeted production "handsome." Lots of mathematically blatant composites -- foreground too crisp, background too Gaussian-fuzzy -- and simulated crowd scenes. The whole film has this peculiar, hermetically sealed quality -- as if nothing contained within it has any causative relation to the world at large. Indeed, the forced drollery of the script made my eyes roll back into my head. It was painful to watch perfectly wonderful actors -- Julianne Moore, Cate Blanchette, Rupert Everett, Minnie Driver -- gesticulate their way through the wildly unfunny material, and even more painful to witness the usually insipid Jeremy Northam get way too much screen time. Pass.

Good, but it could have been great

[JimC-6 · 6 July 1999]

If I weren't so lazy, I would have checked the original play to see if my favorite line from the movie was in it:

Goring's father: I use nothing but my common sense. Goring: So my mother tells me.

Even if was concocted for the film, that line still contains the essence of Wilde and the essence of all modern British humor, for which, I should say, I'm a major sucker. While watching An Ideal Husband, I didn't object to the lack of suspense as long as Rupert Everett was working his way around those Wilde lines, which he does as well as anyone I've ever heard.

I used to think Stephen Fry was Wilde on earth, but Fry is something wonderfully different -- Everett is Wilde on earth, or at least the actor that Wilde should have had around to deliver those lines when he wrote them. I first saw Everett in The Madness of King George, for which he put on weight. Every review of that film mentioned this; I thought the attention excessive, but when I saw him lying shirtless in a sauna, I understood. The man is, shall we say, cut. I can only imagine the effect of that scene on straight women or gay men -- probably something akin to the effect Greta Scacchi's "I think we're alone now" smile at the end of The Coca-Cola Kid has on me.

An Ideal Husband is full of good performances, with one glaring exception: the usually great Julianne Moore. Her scenes are curiously leaden, and Parker -- whose fault this may be -- has the camera linger over her as though the exposure will convince us how evil she is. The one exception is her scene with Everett, which has a real "Will he sleep with the enemy?" tension. It may be that Moore was just outclassed by the Brits, who are born to this stuff.

Cate Blanchett, whom I've seen in three movies, two of which were British period pieces, continues to amaze me with her range.

The unsung hero of the movie is Jeremy Northam, who takes a thankless role -- the man in the play who isn't the Oscar Wilde figure -- and makes it emotionally compelling. He is responsible for the play's only real suspense and emotion, since the rest is word games, more or less.

All of which leads me to blame the production's shortcomings on its writer/director, Oliver Parker. He seems to have squandered an outstanding cast. The play's final scene is played as a series of French scenes -- a film term for a series of different scenes in the same location -- and this kills any momentum that scene might have had.

Three out of four stars, I say, which makes it better than 90% of the movies out there.

Wit's the Word

[secretagent_007 · 7/10 · 10 January 2008]

Ain't no wit like Oscar Wilde's wit 'cause Oscar Wilde's wit don't stop! I wish I could carry on a conversation like the characters in An Ideal Husband or any of Wilde's other stories. The world he creates with his words is like a giant stage only built to give his characters an opportunity to have crackling dialogue and witty asides. This humor rarely got anything larger than a chuckle out of me, but it was so constant that my gut hurt at the end of the movie. Better to have a movie filled to the brim with quiet, downplayed jokes than a movie built around two or three "big laughs" like an Adam Sandler vehicle.

But this isn't one of those - it's a vehicle for Oscar Wilde's witty writing. I hate to keep using the word "witty," but that does seem the most appropriate term. The thesaurus tells me that good replacement words might be "intelligent" or "whimsical," but those don't feel right, no no. Because the character of Lord Goring, whom you will find on the DVD cover played by Rupert Everett, is not "bright" or "smart" or even "epigrammatic." He is witty, and that is that. He is spoiled and self-indulgent, but one cannot deny his gift of wit - his ability to go through life spinning any seriousness into a joke has given him an inherent superiority over the rest of his community. Life is never a drag, it's always a party. Until it isn't.

One of his old flames comes into town to do some business with a close friend, Sir Robert Chiltern, who has much political power. This woman, Mrs. Chevely (a devilish Julianne Moore), happens to know some damaging information about Robert's past and blackmails him into publicly supporting a particular scheme she has invested in. It's really an unexpected turn for a story that starts so light and comical (unless you're already familiar with Wilde's work). The drama between Goring, Cheveley, Chiltern, and his wife is sometimes tense, sometimes funny, and sometimes bittersweet. The story operates not only as a romantic comedy, but also as a political drama and blackmail thriller. One scene that serendipitously brings all of the principals together at Goring's house manages every emotional low and high within the span of a single 10 or 15-minute scene.

I must say, however, that much of this tale depends too heavily on coincidence and silence to create its drama. Every story contains some amount of coincidence, and this was originally a play - a cast of dozens wasn't possible, so all manner of problems had to exist between these certain people and those people alone. I can forgive that much even in an adaptation. But so much conflict could have been avoided if these characters simply talked to each other about the obstacles they faced. Too often a character will be about to say something, then stop, as if it would be rude to continue. These silences are not played well. It looks not like a character is so distraught he or she is unable to speak, but merely like they decided to say nothing further, and no one could change their minds. It feels arbitrary, not natural.

That's all direction though, not only the actors. For the most part, the entire cast is wonderful. This movie makes me long for more like it, not in setting and subject matter necessarily, but in its wit. Hollywood makes movies based around a catchy concept instead of a cast of characters (unless the character IS the concept, like in Bubble Boy). This isn't anything new, but An Ideal Husband made me see it with new eyes. Maybe I should start up Stage Plays With Mark...

http://www.movieswithmark.com

A middlingly enjoyable movie

[Sir_AmirSyarif · 6/10 · 4 June 2020]

'An Ideal Husband' is a middlingly enjoyable movie that could have been better with a stronger script and a more exciting direction. The performances are sharp, especially those of Jeremy Northam and Julianne Moore.

an interesting look at Victorian sensibilities

[T-10 · 10/10 · 28 July 1999]

As we prepare to enter the 21st Century, An Ideal Husband allows us to see the world, England in particular, as we enter the 20th Century, and who better to guide us than Oscar Wilde. The story is not unfamiliar --- politics, blackmail, love, and friendship. What is different however is how these are viewed thru the prism of the Victorian Era, the centerpiece of the film. The cast was superb from Jeremy Northam, Sir Robert Chiltern the title character, to Cate Blanchett, Lady Gertrud Chiltern his wife, to Minnie Driver, Mabel Chiltern his sister, to Rupert Everett, Lord Arthur Goring his friend, and Julianne Moore, Mrs. Cheveley. The minor characters of Lord Goring's father and butler were good as well. Although all were very good, Rupert Everett stole the show. His character is the one who connects all the others and does so with grace, charm, and wit. Which brings me to my final point, the film is filmed filled with witty dialogue and double-entendre a la Oscar Wilde. I went to see this movie twice. It was that good and appreciated it more the second time. I can not see how this movie could have been better. Four stars!!!

Predictable

[ian_harris · 6/10 · 15 January 2003]

This is a predictable rendering of one of Oscar Wilde's fine plays. Amazing cast, mixing and matching between screen "favourites" like Cate Blanchett (to whom I have an unswerving aversion), Minnie Driver (much better) and Julianne Moore, London stage supremos such as Lindsay Duncan, Simon Russell Beale and John Wood, plus "bit-of-both-niks" such as Rupert Everett and Jeremy Northam.

Of course the acting is good (apart from the ever O.T.T. Blanchett), the costumes and sets delighted my old mum etc.etc.

However, this lacks the spark that can be achieved with Wilde - this is Wilde the period piece, the costume drama, rather than Wilde the "my goodness this was written 100 years ago yet still seems pertinent today". Which is a pity. the Argentinian Canal scam within the plot is a 19th century Enron.

It all adds up to 90 minutes of family entertainment that fails to do justice to its fine cast and the play upon which the film is based.

A delightful movie!

[Cos-5 · 10/10 · 22 November 1999]

This is a wonderful movie! It is fast-paced, funny, moving in parts, entertaining. Rupert Everett and Minnie Driver play their parts to perfection, and so do all the remaining actors. Costumes, music, photography, everything was excellent! I've not yet read the original play, so I cannot judge how close it is to it, but it is certainly very close to Wilde's spirit. Hilarious!

A nice movie, though it's not completely Oscar Wilde

[gcsman · 7/10 · 1 July 2018]

This film is self-described as "based on" Oscar Wilde's stage play, and that's accurate. Scenes are not in the same order, quite a bit of the characteristic Wilde dialog has gone missing, and some other material not in the play has been interpolated. Nevertheless, it's entirely fun to watch and entirely worth it.

My wife and I think this might be Wilde's best play, because it cuts a bit deeper than his more famous Importance of Being Earnest and really does have a serious message to go with the trademark Wilde comedy and unbeatable wit. The message at the end being, simply, that people need to give each other some slack -- extend forgiveness rather than judgment. Thankfully, lots of the wit is still there, and no one could do that like Wilde.

The acting is fine, led by Rupert Everett as Arthur Goring: all the Wilde plays have a character who represent Wilde himself, and Arthur is the best case of that. We just came back from seeing the Stratford Festival production where Arthur was played to the hilt as a Dandy, which in Wilde's time was almost a technical term and which Wilde himself put out as his public persona. Excessively mannered behavior, extravagant and expensive yet weirdly tasteful suits, a quick wit ready to emit a clever opinion on anything at all, and comments that sound self-contradictory yet contain insanely clever aphorisms. The movie version doesn't quite do justice to that -- in fact all the main characters are somewhat muted from the more extreme versions you can pull off on the stage. Overall it's a great cast. Julianne Moore is fine as the villainously smooth snake who ignites the ticking time bomb that makes up the plot, Jeremy Northam and Cate Blanchett play the husband and wife pair who gradually come to understand each other, and themselves, better as they go along, and Minnie Driver is their sister who finally maneuvers Arthur into proposing, much to his own surprise.

It's all a fun ride, though you end up wondering if they could have produced a version that would have been a bit more faithful to Wilde's text. As a last comment, the settings are very nice; both lavish and accurate for ca.1890's London society.

Poor results from Wilde's brilliant matter

[pzanardo · 4/10 · 27 September 2001]

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.

Pure pleasure and a good story

[bjork-bjork · 9/10 · 16 March 2000]

This has become one of my favorite films. I can't get enough of Arthur, Lord Goring, or of Laura Chevely, who are both wonderful to look upon, and the script is full of funny dry wit, plus it's a good story. In addition, the settings and costuming are beautiful. For pure enjoyment of a movie with high quality on many levels, I recommend this one.

Not a bad film, but it wasn't a comedy

[baumer · 6/10 · 13 July 1999]

There is one thing that has bothered me more and more over the last few years about films. And that is how they are marketed. It seems that no how much the movie is not a comedy or how serious the film is, the execs behind it feel it is necessary to make the film look like it is a comedy. There are some very serious issues in whatever film it is that they are marketing but instead of trying to market it as a drama or a period piece, they make you think it is a comedy. They make you think that you are going to walk out with a smile on your face. In the previews there is always some scene of someone dancing with a huge smile on their face. It such common practice now that I am surprised that Goodfellas and Schindler's List wasn't marketed as a comedy. Sorry, that is Scorsese and Spielberg, they actually have morals and values and won't let their films be falsely thought of like that. I say all this because An Ideal Husband really wasn't that funny. In fact I laughed as much in this as I did in Titanic. Both were fairly serious films with hints of comedy in them. But when watching the commercials for An Ideal Husband you are expecting to see a Jim Carrey movie. And that it wasn't.

An Ideal Husband worked for me because I was intrigued by the characters for the most part. But as the story goes, Robert has been in office in British Parliament for quite some time now. He is comfortable there and he has a beautiful wife as well. Suddenly, out of his past comes a mystery lady named Lady Cheveley. She knows about his tainted past and threatens to expose him unless he supports a bill that is about to be debated upon in the House Of Commons. She invested a hefty amount of money in some company that will be affected terribly by his speech in the House. He now has to decide if he is going to do the right thing and stick to his guns or if he is going to acquiesce to the blackmail.

The film is funny in some parts, that is for sure. But the Ideal Husband part of it is really just a sub plot. There is so much more to this film than women trying to find a suitable husband. And I wish that was told to us going into the film, perhaps it would be more popular. I'm not sure.

The film is richly acted from all participants and it has some witty dialogue, one of new favourite movie lines now is " No amount of money can buy back a man's past." Now that is powerful. What's done is done. A great line. But the movie also suffers from people doing things that you know they would not do. Namely, when life long friend Arthur tries to talk to Robert and explain some of his questionable actions, Robert just walks away and does not even give Arthur a chance to remedy the situation. When all he had to do was say "HEY" very loudly, " let me finish dammit. " That would avoid some of the confusion that the friends were encountered with.

I did enjoy the film despite my miscomings about it. Cate Blanchet is a joy to watch. She lights up the screen. But on a whole I was disappointed in some areas and it kept me from really enjoying it immensely. But ya know what? I'm in my late 20's. The crowd I saw it with was at least two generations older than me and they loved it. They even cheered at the end of the film. So maybe it is a film that is enjoyed better by someone that is not so caught up in the broohaha. Maybe this is a film to just be enjoyed and that means just sitting in the theater with your detectors off. Just enjoy. I guess that should be advice to myself. And maybe I'll take it sometime and give this film another chance.

awful

[andre123 · 1/10 · 15 February 2001]

actors play creates impression that they are hollywood actors brought to England but pretending they are englishmen mostly by wearing of corresponding kind of close. interpretation of Wilde play is absolutely commercial and destroys all classical charm. last five minutes i personally declare worst segment of the film ever made. especially the place where Lady Chiltren finally work out personal problems and lies. Awful!!!