Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Aspen Orson There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

tc_nafsasp I've given this 10 out of 10, because it doesn't matter how many times I watch it, I can't think of any way you could improve it. The original play is a classic, and this is a fairly good interpretation of the second, slightly shorter, version of Wilde's masterpiece. The cast is to die for, every role seems to have been written for the cast members, not the other way round! I've seen many stage versions, and although many have been excellent, I always find myself comparing them to this gem, and this always comes out on top. Probably only Hobson's Choice, with Charles Laughton, comes close to this level of perfection. Redgrave is brilliant, and shows an acting style not seen in any of his other films, contrasting wildly with the dull grey Crocker-Harris or studiously obsessive Barnes Wallace. Denison is a revelation as Algernon, a stage expert at his best, Tutin, in her film debut, is as close to an English Rose as ever portrayed on film, Greenwood, with her distinctive voice the perfect foil. Malleson and Rutherford are a match for any famous screen couple, and even Richard Wattis, Aubrey Mather and Walter Hudd as the 3 butlers are just right for their cameos. And then there's Edith Evans, in her most famous role, rightly so, delivering one of the most famous quotes ever on screen. Am I biased towards this film ? Yes, stuck on a desert island this would be my number one pick.

bluecrab22 I have seen the 2002 remake of "Earnest" (very good), I have seen it performed on the stage (also very good), but this 1952 film version is now my favorite. I saw it for the first time only last night. Wonderful performances all around, with Edith Evans' presence being especially commanding. It doesn't hurt one bit that both Joan Greenwood and Dorothy Tutin look almost impossibly beautiful. There is not one word of wasted dialog. I don't know if the film was remastered or otherwise reprocessed, but the colors and picture were sharp (via cable TV). It looks like a DVD that cleaned up the the original was made in 2002 - I may have to have that! If you get a chance to see a stage production of this, do so.

Ephraim Gadsby This "Importance of Being Earnest" is a funny movie derived from Oscar Wilde's best play. There are no clunkers in the cast and hardly a wrong step is made, even when Wilde is altered.Dame Edith Evans did not make her stage debut until fifteen years after "Earnest" first premiered, so Oscar Wilde could not have had her in mind when he created the role of Lady Bracknell; but she is so perfect it becomes difficult to imagine anyone else in the part, ever. She manages to squeeze every note of the music of human language into simple words like "found" and "handbag." Margaret Rutherford and Miles Malleson, two famous and prolific actors of the "British dotty school" come very close to being ideal for their more minor parts of (respectfully) Miss Prism and Dr. Chasuble.For the young lovers, the women are well chosen and make a fine contrast. Sultry-voiced Joan Greenwood has had a solid film career to this point (including the Alec Guiness classic "Man in a White Suit") and she knows how to deliver a comic line. Then new-comer Dorthy Tutin is so good with her lines, you'd think she was an old-hand, rather than a fresh-faced, twenty-two year old newcomer making her first major film appearance.The "young men" are sometimes thought of as more problematic. Michael Redgrave (unfortunately known these days more for being the father of Vanessa and Lynn than for his great acting) was in his forties. Mainly stage-bound actor Michael Denison was in his thirties. Denison wonderfully limns the all-important character of Algernon Moncrieff. He's young-looking and exuberant and delivers his lines with great care and consideration (Algernon is an easy character to go hammy with and Denison avoids that trap).For his part, Redgrave compensates for his age by an exquisitely-honed performance. Not only is his delivery spot-on, he practically gives a workshop on how to get a laugh with a slight twitch of a mustache or the roll of an eye. Redgrave and Denison seem to be having a high old time with their roles, while taking them seriously and never overacting.Also, be on the look-out for long-time supporting actor Richard Wattis as "Seton." Blink, and you'll miss him, as he flits in to raise a supercilious eyebrow or two.Some Wilde purists may object to the expurgation of lines. Many of the lines cut are the sort of thing that probably just struck Wilde as "a good idea at the time" and no one will miss them. Other lines may have been cut to keep this movie short, light and frothy. Wilde could be very funny, but he could also be unnecessarily cruel. I don't think he would have been a nice man to know, the way he could sling around hurtful lines to humorous effect. All his characters have been accused of "talking like Wilde" -- which is true to different degrees. A few of the missing lines were genuine, polished gems and it was a pity they weren't included. Also, the sub-plot of Grisby, which only appears in longer versions of the play, does not rear its ugly head in this short version (and good riddance). I, for one, am glad they kept the movie light and without a mean bone in its body.The movie has also been changed subtly from the stage. The stage version has the action taking place on a minimum of sets. The movie remains bound to the sound-stage and never really ventures out of doors (even in the outdoors scenes) but it adds a few more sets and more mobility. For instance, it begins in Jack's flat rather than in Algernon's. For me, this works even better than the stage version and gives Jack a good reason to throw one of Algernon's lines back in his face.So, you have a good play shorn of overmuch dialogue and a solid cast acting their hearts out. I don't know why I call it "Almost Perfect."

andrabem "The Importance of Being Earnest" is basically an adaptation of the Oscar Wilde's play for the screen, in other words, a stagy film. Nothing wrong with that, many films succeeded quite well this way, but here the caricatural acting spoils the overall effect. This is a theatrical film with performances that could work well on the stage, aided by the complicity and laughter of an audience. The acting could be even exaggerated if the film were made differently. "The Importance of Being Earnest" should have used fully the possibilities allowed by the play - respectability, social conventions, cynicism, hypocrisy, joie de vivre .... all living together under the same roof. This could have been dynamite if it had been handled right.Unfortunately, the actors are quick in using voices, smiles, eyebrows... to enhance every comic situation - this was not necessary! Oscar Wilde's play needs no underlining. In the "Importance of Being Earnest" there's a crescendo that should be considered. It starts as a light comedy, growing up slowly (innuendos and double entendres contend with respectability) ending finally in an explosion of laughter bursting out of a cathedral of joy. When I read the play as a teenager I liked it a lot - so much, in fact, that I read it again some years ago and I was hoping to repeat the fun with this film. Well, this did not occur. The film is just slightly funny. The story should be treated with the daring and irreverence that were Oscar Wilde's qualities. What we see instead is a "classic" comedy more appropriate perhaps for a museum.