The more things change the more they stay the same. London in the 1930's and the social scene is bustling. Adam is a writer of ambition but when his book gets confiscated by HM Customs he finds himself writing for Lord Monomark's paper as gossip columnist Mr Chatterbox. This involves him going to as many parties as possible and mixing with the rich bright young things of London society. While Adam attempts to get the money together to marry his girlfriend Nina he follows the ups and downs of this group.I have never read the book from which this came so I only came to this film as one comes to any other film and therefore had no expectations of what it should be or would be. The film follows the fortunes of the 1930's equivalent of the It crowd – those without jobs who seem to live of money from somewhere to just continually party and appear in the papers. As such the narrative relies heavily on the characters and I must confess I didn't find many of them interesting enough to really engage me. That said the plot still works because the characters are lively and flamboyant enough to be interesting and amusing. The multi-talented Fry takes pleasure in showing us how things are no different now than they were then – the public gobbles up tabloid gossip, the society parties are full of outrageous behaviour, sex and drug taking. With a modern eye it is fun to watch this although it perhaps isn't enough to make the whole film.Fry's debut as director shows him able as such even if some of his touches are a bit clumsy. The cast help him out greatly by delivering the goods from his script. Moore has the "straightest" character and the harder job of holding the narrative together but he does well and makes for an quite engaging character. Mortimer isn't used as well as I would have liked although she herself is pretty good. The rest of the cast are caricatures and outrageous types who perhaps don't add depth to the film but certainly make it fun. Tennant is good although the deliveries of Sheen and Woolgar naturally dominate. Quality is deep within the film even if some of Callow, Channing, Aykroyd, Mills and Grant are barely in it long enough to even be classed as cameos! Broadbent is a delight as a permanently sloshed major.Overall then an enjoyable film that makes for interesting viewing the way that modern society is reflected in 1930's society. The characters make for an OK story even if a lot of it is on the surface and very much of the moment (which I suppose might have been the point) and it is enjoyable even if it isn't that memorable.

A most notable characteristic of this film is that it rather zanily merges the 1920's with the 1930's. That historical distortion may seem a slight defect to some viewers choosing to concentrate on a broader stage involving the upper class in its last throes of excess, but for me it destroys the underlying plot. The years before the Great Depression -- the Roaring 20's -- were sui generis. Moving everything forward to events as late as 1940 is a forced element that simply fails.Otherwise, there are some bright young moments here. Character actors do indeed steal the show, even if some are given throw-away roles. If only there were better and more believable development of various interactions between the leads, it would make for compelling drama; but we are treated instead to campy olio resolving itself into a strange conclusion, somewhat surreal. For example, the business between Adam and Ginger having to do with money as WWII rages on is misplaced farce -- even if the audience assumes a generous disposition of credulity.Little wonder outsiders looking in have a difficult time with this film, not to mention us history buffs.

I have not read Waugh in years, and while this adaptation made me recall how much I enjoyed "Vile Bodies," the film does not do justice to the novel. The film is muddled and episodic, and requires the audience to do too much work. There is none of the subtlety here of a Woody Allen, for example, to reward us for remaining engaged amid the sloppy editing and choppy pacing. In fact, the excellent cast seems wasted, as does the novel itself. The movie brightens up during fleeting and sparkling party scenes that make us feel we are in London at a certain time -- though it's not clear what time that is. This adaptation pushes the hedonism of the 20s forward to the 30s (I believe the novel was published around 1930, whereas the movie seems to be set in the 30s). And the jazz score only reminded me what a cultural backwater London was at this time, relative to New York, where the Jazz Age and the real parties were in full swing. So, it doesn't work as a character-driven drama, and it's not a compelling portrait of the age. It is, however, perhaps worth seeing for some performances. We do not see enough of James McAvoy and Alec Newman, who are excellent. What a strange coincidence that both of these actors played the leads in the SciFi Channel's mini-series adaptations of the Dune novels.

Actor Stephen Fry makes an impressive splash as a director with Bright Young Things, based on the Evelyn Waugh novel, Vile Bodies. The story centers on some struggling "bright young things" during the years before England entered World War II. Adam (Stephen Campbell Moore) and Nina (Emily Mortimer) play sometime-engaged young things at the center of a disparate group of eccentrics. They seem addicted to the London "social whirl" as well as cocaine. He's a struggling writer, and she needs a rich husband. He gets roped into taking a job as a gossip columnist because the former writer (James McAvoy) commits suicide and because his manuscript is confiscated when he enters Scotland. So the young things go to every party and write up tons of scandalous gossip for the rag, keep getting drunk and stoned, and keep pursuing money. Typical acid commentary from Waugh, and Fry does a good job balancing all the characters and sub-plots. Impressive cast as well with Peter O'Toole (very funny), Dan Aykroyd, Stockard Channing (hilariously named Mrs. Melrose Ape), Harriet Walter, Imelda Staunton, Simon Callow, Jim Broadbent, Julia McKemzie, John Mills, Jim Carter, Angela Thorne, Bill Paterson, Richard E. Grant, and Margaret Tyzack recognizable. Fry appears as a chauffeur.Moore and Mortimer are solid as young things, but Fenella Woolgar as Agatha is the standout. She's awesome in the part of the drugged out socialite who ends up in an asylum. Woolgar has several memorable scenes and droops about being "smashingly bored." Her race car scene is a scream. David Tennant is the repulsive Ginger, Michael Sheen is the queeny Miles, Lisa Dillon is the social wannabe, and Alec Newman is the very odd race driver.Only real complaint is that the ending is VERY long and drawn out. And even though a few loose ends are tied up, it seems padded and interminable. We didn't really need to see WW II battle scenes, and even if the ending worked in the novel it seems very phony in the film.