I was excited to see a new version of Lady Windermere's Fan, because I absolutely loved the version with Helena Little (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323012/). It's a couple decades old, and it looks a little dated. You might notice there, though, that the only credited writer is Oscar Wilde, which makes sense for one of the greatest writers in the English language. What one gets here is the basic plot put into a blender with random Wilde quotes, which end up out of context and ridiculous. Of course they're still going to sound witty in any context, Wilde is just like that, but these characters sound like people trying very hard to achieve their cleverness, instead of simply having delightful conversations. It was so frustrating to see all the SENSE taken out of the writing that I had to stop watching halfway through. Plus Helen Hunt was just speaking her lines in a monotone, and Scarlett Johanson's idea of appearing innocent seems to be to just minimize her expressions as much as possible. Staring around vacantly doesn't do much to convey rigid thinking. I gave it the second star for the costumes and locations. Very pretty. Very stupid.

Why would a filmmaker make a period film, but alter the period by 30 years? What was gained by placing the story in the 1930's instead of the 1900's? Did it seem like audiences would swarm to a film placed in the 30's, but snub a film set at the turn of the century? I just don't get it.Why would a filmmaker adapt a story by a quintessentially British playwright about a quintessentially British milieu to place it in Italy rather than Britain and populate it with people who are Americans and Italians instead of British? Part of the point of Wilde's satire is, thus, completely lost.Having been enchanted by 2 adaptations of "The Importance of Being Earnest" and another adaptation of "The Ideal Husband," I eagerly anticipated "A Good Woman." I was very disappointed. The reconciliation of Tuppy and Mrs. Erlynne in the end improved my rating a point or two. The great costumes and sets are another saving grace - despite the fact that they, too, betray Wilde's original setting. The main problem is that all of the actors are portraying characters that are totally foreign to Oscar Wilde (in more ways than one). None of them is true to the roles conceived by Wilde, and essential to the creation of the comic satire he wrote! In particular, 4 of the 5 principals are waaaay too consistently earnest! No nuance. However, this doesn't seem like a problem with the acting, per se, but with the direction.I fault Helen Hunt no more than the other cast members. Her fault lies primarily in the fact that the director has misinterpreted her character and also made her an American. That's not her fault; it is the director's for changing the character. Scarlett Johansson is not terrible, either. Like Hunt, she is wrong mostly because her role is all wrong.Even the other British actors seem to be slightly off-key. Darlington is about as far off as the miscast American actors. Cecil, Dumby and Lady Plymdale come closest to capturing Wilde's spirit. But the audio and staging of many scenes makes much of their dialog difficult for an American audience to understand clearly. Among the actors, Tom Wilkinson alone impressed me. The blame for this disappointing movie can be laid squarely in the lap of the director. Beyond the poor decision to relocate the story in place and time, and beyond the decision to alter nationalities, he has completely misinterpreted Oscar Wilde. He has directed a light drama, rather than the light, comic satire written by Wilde. In Wilde's plays, all of the fun revolves around a combination of characters who take themselves too seriously, characters who are supercilious and characters who verbally amuse themselves at the expense of the others. One of Wilde's primary purposes is to satirize a certain milieu of turn-of-the-last-century British society. When the nationality of many of the characters is inexplicably altered, the satire is utterly lost. Moreover, everybody is waaaaay too serious in this film. As a result, the entire tone of the movie has nothing to do with Oscar Wilde. The soundtrack also makes this a drama rather than a comedy. The music, like the characters, is waaaaay too serious. Not a light note or a hint of comedy anywhere in the music. What a pity, I do so like Wilde's work. With the production values of this movie, it could have been really great.Either the director was attempting to transform Wilde into something he is not, or he is clueless about Wilde in the first place. I tend to believe the latter.

This is a hugely entertaining film bursting with class.Set in the high society of the 1930's, we follow the adventures of a 'sophisticate' who now seeks her fortune from the rich and famous in the Italien Riviera.Super locations,lovely costumes and an engrossing tale beautifully scripted and performed. Indeed the dialogue is so good it sometimes seems like it comes out of a book of quotations!All the actors are outstanding and the lead female is iconic and sensual. This movie had me absorbed from start to finish and all in all is worthy of at least:8/10.

Even though I gave this movie full attention, I would have trouble explaining it to anyone, because I really didn't get it myself. There were inconsistencies, gaps, and even conflicts in the plot that left me scratching my head and wondering what was going on. Yes, I know the audience is supposed to do some mental work with a fine film, but even my best, concentrated effort left me with unanswered questions.Additionally, I felt that there were times when the action called for far more emotion. In real life, people would not react so reasonably to betrayal, intrigue, and deceit.I agree with other reviewers that the cast was highly capable. At the same time, even a superb cast cannot rescue a bewildering plot.Finally, few people I know make the number of memorable statements this movie provides.At best, I consider this a fairly average movie.