Baron Ronan Doyle As one of the best assets humanity can boast to count among itself, Stephen Fry has delighted the world across a vast array of media, firmly establishing himself as one of my very favourite entertainers. How then, you ask, could it have taken me so unforgivably long to sample his Bright Young Things?Having just penned the novel from which the film takes its name, Adam Symes is crestfallen to have it taken from him by customs as contraband literature. He returns to his life of yuppie indulgence (if indeed the film's '30s/'40s setting will permit the usage of that term) where he is variously delighted and disappointed by the tide-like fortunes of his financial situation, and the uncertainty concerning his ability to wed his beloved Nina.Beginning with an expository reporter attempting to gain access to a lascivious and drug fuelled party, Bright Young Things launches us into the wild party lifestyle of its central cast of characters. The cocaine and absinthe combinations proclaimed by Nina as boring impress upon us the extent of the inter-war indulgence of the London youth. Things are somewhat slow to start, though the positively delightful and flowery banter of Fry's script keeps us both amused and entranced by the language of the era. Humour comes spouting from the supporting cast: the likes of Fenella Woolgar and Michael Sheen lend more laughs than the main acts themselves, who are generally left to present the dramatic front of the movie. Without doubt the film's best factor is the scene in which the hopeful Symes visits his father-in-law-to-be, a crackpot lunatic played splendidly by Peter O' Toole. As the running time finds itself elapsed, the drama begins to more firmly announce its presence to us, the stakes yet again raised and the outcome looking ever more bleak. The problem is that this never reaches a sufficient and acceptable zenith. No point of conclusion is reached wherein the characters seem to transform beyond the horrid snobs they began life before our eyes as, a shame given the potential this may have had. Not, that is to say, that the characters are unlikeable. In spite of their vices they grow upon us and become endeared to us, though we look on like disappointed parents, hopefully awaiting the time when they will learn the folly of their ways and grow up, a time the film never presents, or at least not expressly enough. I understand the novel on which the film is based takes this more desired route, the film's distance from this perhaps the product of Fry's wishes to carve his own story. In any case, despite the slight disappointment of the lack of redemption, the film is consistent in its humorous and dramatic elements, which blend together to give a decent slice of entertainment.Almost certainly less good than it could and should have been, Bright Young Things feels like it fell at the last hurdle. That said, it was never at the front of the race. A perfectly competent debut from Mr Fry, one cannot disagree that the film holds its own.

cameron42 I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The story is lively and great, the dialog quick,witty and fabulous, darling. The performances are outstanding, particularly Stephan Campbell Moore, David Tennent, James McAvoy and especially Fenella Woolgar, who plays her supporting role brilliantly. Emily Mortimer's beauty makes her acting a non-issue, but she is perfect in her portrayal of the fickle love interest. Stephen Fry's direction pulls it all together in such a delightful way that I felt as if I was one of the bright young things tagging along from party to party, race course to race course, bomb-drop to bomb-drop, and home again.

joannaclaireice When i first saw Bright Young Things it was because my elder sister Florence had made we watch it when she was in charge of the remote control. i wasn't really paying any attention until Adam was left by his fiancé-to-be Nina. I think that David's appearance in this film was absolutely great as that was the first time that i'd ever seen him with ginger hair and a moustache. My favourite character was Agatha (played by Fenella Woolgar) and especially after she went mad. I didn't quite understand what happened to her until the film literally pushed my to books etc... to buy the book. The most devastating part of the film must have been when Miles (Michael Sheen) reveals that he is gay. The funniest character was definitely the drunken major as he never had the time (or the place) to give Adam his money. Jim Broadbent brought a great light to the film seeing as i was a bit disappointed and felt like crying a) when Adam lost his fiancé-to-be Nina and b)when the man at the train station refused to give Adam his story book named 'Bright Young Things'

joelglevi 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.