Brits are usually known for authentic period pieces. But apparently nobody is perfect. This silly little movie doesn't make any sense whatsoever. We are supposed to believe that the young hopeful actress has the allure and talent, which she sadly does not possess. We are asked to buy the romantic package , which is as romantic as a garbage disposal. And to add insult to injury, this is one of the rare British movies with poor acting. Nobody stands out, not even the tragically miscast stars Huston, Stamp and Bacall. This fluffy powder puff of a movie is an utter waste of time.Its not funny or amusing or touching. It is big nothing.
13 Reviews
"Feel like a prawn, boy?"
mark.waltz19 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Thank Heaven For Terence Stamp
dmdcheney27 January 2022
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.
Not a fan
ksimon-8904023 June 2020
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.
Good effort
asw-prophile26 April 2006
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.
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.
A Crashing bore
malcolmgsw25 August 2020
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.
Those Stumbling Words ...
writers_reign12 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
... that sent me to the sick bag. The one burning question I would put to Julia Taylor-Stanley is how the hell do you get FINANCE for something this bad because if I couldn't produce at least half a dozen better scripts between now and, say, June I'll turn in my Writers ticket. For some reason either Taylor-Stanley herself or IMDb has seen fit to remove the other writing credit that appears on the film itself 'based on the novel "There's A Porpoise Close Behind Me" by Noel Langley. Langley was born in 1911 and has some fairly decent writing and directing credits; Taylor-Stanley doesn't reveal her age on IMDb but based on this movie I'd say she went on to solid foods and began walking about three weeks ago. Since she takes (at least on IMDb) sole writing credit she must, by extension, take sole blame. It's difficult to know where to begin - yes, it's that bad. It has the same not-quite-right sense of period that obtained in 'Mrs Henderson Presents' but without the gravitas of Judi Dench to compensate. Taylor-Stanley seems to have prepared both herself and the young members of the cast to recreate the 'feel' of the thirties by reading vintage Noel Coward plays or getting the BFI to screen some of those unwatchable Ivor Novello films from the late twenties/early thirties. It's not really enough to deck everyone out in 'period' frocks and punctuate the risible dialogue with a selection of 'silly' vintage records, you need total immersion - and it CAN be done, make no mistake; on the same day I saw this I saw Les Ames Grises which is set in 1916 and is TOTALLY convincing - but Taylor-Stanley and her cast need total immersion in the local swimming baths til they cry Uncle. A second question I would put to Taylor-Stanley is who or what was her target audience. I myself have a certain affection for the Brief Encounters, Quiet Weddings, Fallen Idols and Dear Octopi of this world and went along prepared to embrace this but alas it lacks completely the charm, warmth and artistry of the above and I wonder if Terence Stamp himself knew exactly what kind of Renaissance Boy he was supposed to be playing. Put this in the bin marked 'Revolver'.
These Foolish Filmmakers
Aristides-25 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
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!
Tedious. Banal. Obvious. Badly acted. Improbable. What a waste of time and money!
Critics Hated It - I Loved It
nturner8 November 2008
Here is another film that all the critics hated that I just loved. It is a totally unrealistic, sappy romance that belongs in the 1930's where it is set, but I think it is a great treat.
The story is right out of one of those 1930's melodramas about a young actress trying to make it on her own who meets with the perils of stage life. In this case, the young actress is Diana who is orphaned at a young age and is sent to live with her pious relatives. Her mother was a great stage actress, and Diana strives to follow in her footsteps. At maturity, she travels to London to try to make her mark upon the world of theater.
She meets Robin who is a struggling playwright and there is an immediate attraction. The first help that Robin gives to Diana is to suggest loggings at his boardinghouse run by a retired showgirl with a heart of gold.
The villains of the piece are Diana's cousin Garstin and his friend Douglas. Garstin is an entertainment columnist and Douglas is an actor of some success who has desires for Robin. This lusting of one man for another, of course, is a 2006 twist that could not have been done in a 1930's film. Garstin is a priggish snob and Douglas is a man who uses sex with both genders to further his own selfish motives. You couldn't ask for two slimier villains for this piece.
The other major young character in the story is Christopher, Robin's actor-turned-director friend, who is also in love with Diana. Christopher is a man of principles who is tortured by his love for his best friend's sweetheart.
Douglas beds wealthy supporter of the arts Lottie Osgood in order to get her to finance Robin's play with the ulterior motive of eventually bedding Robin. Straight as an arrow Robin is totally unaware of Douglas's evil desires, or so it seems.
The plot of These Foolish Things is just too campy to believe, but one doesn't have to believe to just sit back and enjoy. That enjoyment comes from the beautiful production and the wonderful acting.
Diana is played by Zoë Tapper who gives the character the innocence and beauty needed but is able to convey the wisdom gained by a young woman throw into a dog-eat-dog world of the theater.
Her suitors are David Leon as Robin - fresh, good looking, and eager - and Andrew Lincoln as Christopher who presents Robin with a choice of an older, more stable lover.
As the major villain, Mark Umbers is athletic and handsome with an underlying evil heart. It is easy to imagine him having his way with both women and men for personal gain. His partner in crime is Garstin played greasily by Leo Bill. He gives the audience a great nose-in-the-air snob liked by no one.
Even though the young actors are all excellent in their parts, the real treat of this campy treasure is provided by the veteran actors.
Anjelica Huston is a kick as Lottie Osgood - a woman who is well-aware of the way things operate and is abashedly ready to use her considerable wealth to get what she wants - be it adulation or a good roll in the hay.
Lauren Bacall - beautiful as ever - gives a witty and heartwarming performance as a dame of the theater who guides the young Diana. One small scene with Bacall and Tapper is worth watching the whole film.
The veteran who steals the film is Terence Stamp. He is the proverbial disgruntled butler always ready with a snappy comeback, a hilarious under the breath rapier line, or a good sock in the jaw, His performance is an absolute delight.
A sappy love story. A campy period flick. A melodramatic wallow. An unbelievable tale. All of these foolish things are what make These Foolish Things a delicious pleasure.
The story is right out of one of those 1930's melodramas about a young actress trying to make it on her own who meets with the perils of stage life. In this case, the young actress is Diana who is orphaned at a young age and is sent to live with her pious relatives. Her mother was a great stage actress, and Diana strives to follow in her footsteps. At maturity, she travels to London to try to make her mark upon the world of theater.
She meets Robin who is a struggling playwright and there is an immediate attraction. The first help that Robin gives to Diana is to suggest loggings at his boardinghouse run by a retired showgirl with a heart of gold.
The villains of the piece are Diana's cousin Garstin and his friend Douglas. Garstin is an entertainment columnist and Douglas is an actor of some success who has desires for Robin. This lusting of one man for another, of course, is a 2006 twist that could not have been done in a 1930's film. Garstin is a priggish snob and Douglas is a man who uses sex with both genders to further his own selfish motives. You couldn't ask for two slimier villains for this piece.
The other major young character in the story is Christopher, Robin's actor-turned-director friend, who is also in love with Diana. Christopher is a man of principles who is tortured by his love for his best friend's sweetheart.
Douglas beds wealthy supporter of the arts Lottie Osgood in order to get her to finance Robin's play with the ulterior motive of eventually bedding Robin. Straight as an arrow Robin is totally unaware of Douglas's evil desires, or so it seems.
The plot of These Foolish Things is just too campy to believe, but one doesn't have to believe to just sit back and enjoy. That enjoyment comes from the beautiful production and the wonderful acting.
Diana is played by Zoë Tapper who gives the character the innocence and beauty needed but is able to convey the wisdom gained by a young woman throw into a dog-eat-dog world of the theater.
Her suitors are David Leon as Robin - fresh, good looking, and eager - and Andrew Lincoln as Christopher who presents Robin with a choice of an older, more stable lover.
As the major villain, Mark Umbers is athletic and handsome with an underlying evil heart. It is easy to imagine him having his way with both women and men for personal gain. His partner in crime is Garstin played greasily by Leo Bill. He gives the audience a great nose-in-the-air snob liked by no one.
Even though the young actors are all excellent in their parts, the real treat of this campy treasure is provided by the veteran actors.
Anjelica Huston is a kick as Lottie Osgood - a woman who is well-aware of the way things operate and is abashedly ready to use her considerable wealth to get what she wants - be it adulation or a good roll in the hay.
Lauren Bacall - beautiful as ever - gives a witty and heartwarming performance as a dame of the theater who guides the young Diana. One small scene with Bacall and Tapper is worth watching the whole film.
The veteran who steals the film is Terence Stamp. He is the proverbial disgruntled butler always ready with a snappy comeback, a hilarious under the breath rapier line, or a good sock in the jaw, His performance is an absolute delight.
A sappy love story. A campy period flick. A melodramatic wallow. An unbelievable tale. All of these foolish things are what make These Foolish Things a delicious pleasure.
Turgid
dierregi22 December 2021
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.
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.
A Pleasant Evening's Entertainment
hjmsia496 August 2008
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.
Glamorous romance.
keithmp29 May 2006
I showed this film at our local theatre, where I voluntarily act as cinema manager, presenting two Friday night film shows per month. We had a good turnout and our mature, discerning audience really enjoyed this light comedy romance set in London's West End, immediately prior to the outbreak of World War Two. Zoe Tapper makes a lovely, charming heroine while Leo Bill does well as her 'reptile cousin', Garstin. Terence Stamp steals the show as a butler delivering a succession of witty/sarcastic comments (which had our audience laughing out loud). Debutant director Julia Taylor-Stanley has produced a commendable first effort, - a piece of glamorous, escapist, old-fashioned cinema with a terrific cast and an outstanding music soundtrack. Perfect for those Senior Screen film shows, in my opinion!
Greenhorns staging and acting a play in and out of the theatre
clanciai31 July 2022
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
