These Foolish Things (2006)

Sorry, this movie sucks

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

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.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

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.

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!

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!

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.