The object in question is a pint-sized Henry Moore statuette, owned by shallow sophisticate Andie McDowell and appraised at $35,000, an amount in many ways even more beautiful to its owner than the item itself. Especially when McDowell and her 'husband' (played to haughty perfection by John Malkovich) find themselves at a fiscal disadvantage while living beyond their means in a posh London hotel. In the vernacular of the upwardly mobile, they aren't 'fluid', and when the statuette disappears they immediately accuse each other of plotting to collect the insurance value. The film is an underhanded, cynical, satirical poke at American materialism, pointless in the end because nothing is resolved. But the plot itself is secondary to the characters (ugly though they are), and rarely have two actors been better suited to their roles: McDowell's poor little rich girl routine is by now second nature, and Malkovich captures all the self-absorbed boredom of the ersatz upper class with his languid voice and steady reptilian gaze.
Add a Review
-
mjneu5921 December 2010
-
SnoopyStyle1 December 2017Jake (John Malkovich) and Tina (Andie MacDowell) are living beyond their means in a classy London hotel. Hotel manager Mr. Mercer (Joss Ackland) and his underling Victor Swayle keep trying to collect. Jake is down from a cocoa investment in Sierra Leone. Tina has a small highly priced Henry Moore sculpture from her husband Larry (Peter Riegert) which Jake would like to sell. Joan (Lolita Davidovich) is her friend. Deaf maid Jenny steals it for its beauty. The hotel investigates. The insurance company stalls on paying the claim. Distrust grows between the couple. Jenny's brother Steve tries to sell the ugly little sculpture.
As a comedy, it's not that funny. It's intermittently quirky. Its pacing does not give it the needed tension. It's a bit of an odd duck. It has a darkness but isn't dark enough to be compelling. Nobody is worth rooting for. I worry more about the sculpture than any of the characters. This film needs an upgrade in intensity. I have questions about how Victor gets to ransack Jenny's home. I also have questions about who that lady is to Jenny. I would be more interested in following the odd little head than any of these characters. -
chinaskee10 June 2001John Malkovich and Andie McDowell play a couple of jet-setters who hatch a plot to steal their own statue so they can collect the insurance and pay off their ever-rising hotel and credit card bills.The chemistry between the two of them reminds one of William Powell and Myrna Loy.If they had picked up the pace a bit,they would have had a real classic comedy here.This film is highly watchable,though.The score by Tom Bahler fits the film like a glove.Lolita Davidovich's (as a girlfriend of McDowell's)performance is a bit too low key,but it doesn't really hurt the film that much.All in all,a pleasant way to kill a couple hours.
-
cocreate6 August 2002I particularly have to disagree with a couple of reviews which see the deaf mute maid as unsympathetic, selfish and idiotic. She is the movie's emotional core, and the only character who has a true arc. Yes, she commits a selfish act, but she returns the statue when she realizes it was as wrong for her to take the statue from its owners as it was for her brother to take it from her. That is development of a kind the other characters don't have, and admittedly such a lack is a problem with this movie. Before one tosses aside her return of the statue as merely ethical on a childish level, consider what prompted her to take the statue in the first place: her first caress of the earless statue reveals a profound identification with it. In a world severely limited both by physical challenges and her economic situation, her opportunities to see herself as having any sort of beauty have obviously been rare to non-existent. Be certain that this statue is a full-strength totem object for her, rendered with the sensitivity of a master artist's hand. Out of a life so empty, the statue's return represents a genuine sacrifice of self. Then perhaps the "why anyone in this movie does what they do" problem becomes less vexing, at least with regard to one.
The movie's major mistake is ending with Jake and Tina, whom one suspects will never really change their habits or lifestyle even if they are talking about it, instead of giving us any idea what's to become of the maid, even (or perhaps especially) on an internal level. -
Sleepin_Dragon29 March 2024Jake and Tina are living a lavish life in a top London Hotel, only they are living way beyond their means, their only asset, Tina's limited edition Henry Moore figurine. Its disappearance coincides with new maid Jenny, who took a shine to it.
I understand why it has a relatively low score, and I don't think anyone could argue it has a massive appeal, but it has a definite appeal.
It's a real fusion of styles, yes it's a drama, but it's a comedy, it's a romance, it definitely crosses the genres.
Jake and Tina are two very spoiled adult children, they have no respect for one another, no regard for one another, I don't even think they like eachother, you have to wonder how on Earth they got together.
Delightful performances from the leading stars, John Malkovich and a radiant Andie MacDowell are both terrific, she edges it for me, Bill Patterson and Joss Ackland are both quite wonderful.
Not quite an underrated gem, but definitely well worth seeing.
7/10. -
Normally, my rating for this wordy film, with its long stretches of ho- hum and boringly repetitive dialogue, flaccid acting (especially from John Malkovich who does anything but ignite our attention in the lead character and his dilemma), ponderous direction and no more than just mildly interesting story-line, would be no more than four points out of ten. But I have allotted two more points for the movie's inclusion of a startling and completely unexpected scene - I don't see it mentioned in any of the other reviews on IMDb, nor is it alluded to in any of the newspaper or magazine write-ups in my library - when a totally naked Andie MacDowell strides past the camera. She is one really gorgeous woman, that's for sure, and she certainly spices up what is otherwise a rather pointless scene. We've already been told a hundred times that the lead character has no dough! And alas, as acted out by John Malkovich, he has no charisma either. This movie that doesn't move is available on an excellent Artisan DVD.
-
ccthemovieman-12 April 2007Call me a goody-goody, but I have a hard time liking a movie (or a story) in which dishonest people - right from the start - are made out to be the "good guys."
The main couple in this film - "Tina and Jake," played by Andie MacDowell and John Malkovich, respectively - are a couple of cheats, liars and bankrupt people when it comes to ethics. We are supposed to root for these people, and "laugh" along with them?
Later we have to hear them squabbling all the time when their con goes awry. No thanks.
What a sick message and a poor excuse for entertainment. -
rmax30482330 June 2015John Malkovich and Andie McDowell, unmarried but happy, are high-living surfers on a wave of risky investments and the luxury that can come from them. They are in a fancy London hotel when Malkovich's ship not only doesn't come in; his pier collapses and they are out of money and credit. The only thing of value they own is a pint-sized bronze head of a woman by Henry Moore, which looks like something you might make in a high school art class out of papiere-maché if you happened to be drunk.
The object of beauty disappears, stolen by a poor, mute, plain-looking made to whom "it spoke." It doesn't speak to the owners, except to say "Twenty-five thousand dollars." The object of beauty is not the same as objective beauty. Tension between the lovers. Arguments. Their relationship is questioned. Finally, after much difficulty, the object of beauty is restored.
It's slow. The direction is competent and the art direction fine. A lot depends on the characters and the dialog. McDowell, Malkovich, and Lolita Davidovich meet the challenge.
It would have been a good screwball comedy from the 1930s, with maybe William Powell and Carol Lombard. But then we'd have been deprived of a lingering look at the sleeping Andie McDowell's beckoning haunch.
Diverting enough to keep you watching. And there is some wit distributed through the writing in little bits and pieces. -
t_habrock31 July 2002Have you ever been to a party where you dislike everybody? By that, I mean, you can not find one single person whose company you enjoy. This movie is that party!
There is not one single redeemable character in this movie, no one you can sympathize with or care about. No one worth spending your time, which means this movie is not worth spending your time.
The two main characters are two spoiled, rotten, selfish, moronic individuals without one good character trait I can see. The one character that you would expect to illicit sympathy, the deaf house maid, is also portrayed as selfish and idiotic. Each character's moves throughout the entire movie illicits the following question: "Why would anyone do that?!"
If you like this type of party, then enjoy, but if you're like me, throw the invitation away. -
blanche-21 February 2014John Malkovich and Andy McDowell star in "The Object of Beauty," a 1991 film directed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg.
Malkovich and McDowell play Jake and Tina, an unmarried couple (she's getting a divorce) who love to travel, stay in beautiful hotels, call room service, and go to lovely restaurants. Just one problem: Jake is in commodities and the cocoa shipment he's heavily invested in is being held up, and he's broke. The hotel wants their money. His credit card is declined at dinner. He is able to give the restaurant a check, but if the bank refuses to pay the check, it will bounce.
Jake eyes one of Tina's gifts from her husband (Peter Riegert), a small Henry Moore statue, worth a fortune. She won't agree to let him sell it. Finally she suggests that if it were stolen, they could collect on the insurance. She asks a good friend Joan (Lolita Davidovich) to keep the statue for her should she ask her to do so. Joan agrees.
When the statue appears to be missing, Jake thinks Tina took it. But Tina didn't. It appears that the statute was actually stolen. The hotel and insurance company start an investigation, and, seeing Jake's financial problems, don't really believe him.
Amusing comedy fueled by a wonderful performance from John Malkovich, who is very funny, especially when he's lying on a bed composing his own obituary, and during a phone call to his parents where he wants to borrow money but ends up not asking for any. Andie McDowall is sweet and beautiful as Tina, who wants to be taken care of but realizes she's in the relationship for more than that.
Very charming and stylish comedy, not a laugh out loud one, but a sophisticated one that has some warmth underneath it. -
leplatypus8 March 2006Or should I say, "my cup of tea", because the major turn-off of this movie is its too-much British character. You can tell easily that's a production from BBC: slow, conservative (the rich & the poor), uptight, colors lavished, intemporal (you can't pinpoint the time from the scenes or the locations: it can happen now or in 1950 or in 1850.....) Now, the story is irrelevant: what's the matter with rich / spoiled / idle people whose only worry is their money ? A good movie is at least for me, one from I can find inspiration for my life, and this one gives me nothing... There isn't humor, or irony only a cold examination of the facts.
The only survivor is the deaf character, for whom the actress gives a strong performance: without any words, you know what are precisely her feelings.... -
nuntukamen18 December 2004It is difficult for me to comprehend why there is only one viewer comment for this film, or why it is rated under a six. If an excellent film is about entertainment, intelligence, great acting and a terrific story with a treasury of clever humor that expounds the deeper meaning of a good relationship between a man and a woman over wealth and selfishly egotistical success, then this is a standout film that achieves a richness of artistic accomplishment that very few films do. No one truly sees the beauty of the bronze statue except the lowly and weathered housekeeper, a financially struggling mute, unable to express the profound feelings that are moving within her in words, but Rudi Davies sure gets it across with her expression and eyes. I had to drive 30 miles to the Cedar Lee Theater, Cleveland's only real art house, during it's original release, but after the film was over I realized it would have been worthwhile if I would have had to walk...some films are just that special
-
I have to give credit to Andie McDowell and John Malkovich, American citizens, who are living it up in the lapse of luxury in London, England. They are living beyond their means and owe plenty of money to their creditors especially the hotel.
Anyway, Tina has a statue which is worth thousands but doesn't protect it very well. It lays about in their hotel suite. When a deaf chambermaid take the statue, Tina and her partner's plan to stage a fake robbery to collect the insurance gets thwarted. They don't trust each other when it comes to the statue.
While the film is fine, it's not great but bearable and almost forgettable. The cast does the best with a weak script. I enjoy the London locales. The girl who played the chambermaid does a fantastic and believable job in creating sympathy. She lives with her brother in a small flat in London, England. Getting the statue doesn't buy happiness for anybody involved. -
SimonJack14 September 2022I had difficulty watching "The Object of Beauty" to the end. What kept me going was the little bit of intrigue about Jenny, the deaf-mute hotel maid who steals the statue. That little subplot, with the unknown outcome of theft, is all that kept this film together. And, it's what kept my interest in watching to the end. Otherwise, scenes of eating, drinking, and sex that repeat ad nauseam could hardly make for an interesting story.
A few viewers saw something of social commentary in the movie -- that it poked fun at materialism. I didn't see that. What I did see seemed to be almost a celebration of hedonism and self-centeredness. The producers may have intended criticism of that way of living (I can't call it a lifestyle - while they lived it up in style, there was no real "life" in them). But that didn't come across as obvious. Whatever intent there may have been, the film seemed to me to be mostly about two people who lead hedonistic, pointless lives without regard to or consideration for other people. Indeed, their attitude toward all others in the hotel is demeaning and dismissive.
Some reviewers commented on romance, comedy and the acting. The script clearly showed two people who didn't live for each other, but simply in companionship with one another. That's not love, but "using." Is that the romance some saw? I didn't laugh once in this film, or even smile once. I didn't hear any real clever or witty dialog. If it was a satire, it was so far over my head (very possible, I admit) that I didn't get it. But, I don't think this film was quite that sophisticated. It just doesn't have any comedy that I could see.
A couple called it an intelligent film. But I couldn't find any intelligence in two characters living high on the hog and constantly avoiding, skirting, maneuvering around, conniving and cajoling with people to keep from paying their bills or confronting reality. On the surface, they seemed calm, but they worried about their next move all the time. Surely, that's not an "intelligent" film, is it? As to the acting, I saw nothing special or exceptional. One other reviewer noted that Malkovich and MacDowell were their usual selves. They seemed to me - Malkovich as Jake, especially - to just blithely move from scene to scene.
This movie has no energy. Not in the script, the actors or the direction. There is no real drama, and certainly no comedy. The dialog between Jake and Tina was mostly meaningless and drivel. And watching a couple's continuous indulgence in food, drink and sex just isn't my idea of entertainment. I give it four stars for the subplot and the supporting cast in the hotel.
(Note: I originally posted this review on February 10, 2014, and it was still there on May 19, 2019, when I was looking up another reviewer. As of then, it had 1 of 2 people who found it useful. But on September 13, 2022, it saw that it had been removed. I had marked it with Spoilers Warning, and had no violations of IMDb editorial policy or rules, as any reader now can see. Perhaps some sort of glitch happened and it just got dropped. Even IMDb isn't spared computer glitches. I've had it happen twice before, that I know of, when I have resubmitted my reviews several years after my original submission, and had accrued some numbers of other reviewers who found them useful or not.) -
lor_13 June 2023My review was written In March 1991 after watching the film at a Times Square screening room.
"The Object of Beauty" is a throwback to the romantic comedies of Swinging London cinema, but lacks the punch of the best of that late '60s genre. It has only modest prospects among sophisticated theatrical audiences, with a much better outlook in ancillary exposure.
Following up his "The Sheltering Sky" performance with another drifting character, John Malkovich toplines as a ne'er-do-well holed up in a swank London hotel with his mate Andie MacDowell. Everyone assumes the two of them are married, but MacDowell is still hitched to estranged hubby Peter Riegert.
With amiable comedy situations to sugarcoat the opening reels, not much happens as the duo dine in the hotel's expensive restaurant, Malkovich worries about his broker selling him out on dubious investments and he carefully dodges the hotel manager (Joss Ackland) with inquiries about paying a portion of their bill.
Plot concerns the title object, a small Henry Moore figurine that MacDowell received from Riegert as a present and which Malkovich desperately wants to sell or use for an insurance scam to cover his hotel tab and ongoing business reverses.
Key script contrivance has a deaf-mute maid (Rudi Davies), newly hired at the hotel, becoming obsessed with the Moore sculpture and stealing it for a keepsake. This sets into motion trite complications, notably developing a wedge (as corny as O. Henry's "The Gift of the Magi") between Malkovich and MacDowell as each believes the other has pocketed the $50,000 art work.
A subplot involving Davies and her punk-styled brother strains heavily for pathos. Another unsuccessful side issue is Malkovich's selfish affair with MacDowell's best friend Lolita Davidovich, who makes the most of her one-dimensional part. (She replaced Elizabeth Perkins in the role.)
As in "Sheltering Sky", Malkovich ably brings out the unsympathetic nature of his antihero, but the script doesn't help him much in balancing that with any compelling reason for identification. It's hard to care about someone whose future lies in produce sitting on a dock in Sierra Leone.
The viewer will instantly side with MacDowell, whose natural beauty is augmented here by a feisty violent streak whenever Malkovich steps over the line (which is frequent). In addition to Davidovich, Davies, Ackland, officious hotel dick Bill Paterson and no-nonsense insurance inspector Jack Shepherd turn in pro turns.
Filmmaker Michael Lindsay-Hogg, whose diverse credits range from the Beatles' "Let It Be" to farce ("Nasty Habits"), develops effective individual scenes but fails to create a reason for sustained interest in his characters. Result is a mildly diverting but empty picture. Daid Watkin, whose experience in the genre dates back to Richard Lester's classic "The Knack", has photographed the deceptively carefree setting with aplomb. -
WilliamJE13 November 2021None of the main characters in The Object of Beauty are likable. I usually don't care for this in a film. The Object of Beauty is a bit of an exception. While the film is just all right, it did keep me interested through out.
-
HotToastyRag25 July 2019In this '90s caper romance, John Malkovich and Andie MacDowell star as a happy couple who love to live in the lap of luxury. They can't always afford to, but that doesn't stop them. When they completely run out of money and can't even pretend to pay their bills anymore, they have to come up with a scheme. If you think they should just get real jobs and learn how to budget, you're not going to like this movie.
If you like seeing extravagant people who talk or swindle their way out of paying their bills, you probably will like this movie. What will John and Andie think of next? Andie has one prized possession, hence the title, and when things get really rough, they just might think of using it to help keep their finances afloat-but not in the way you're thinking. Interested? Rent this one for date night or when you're in the mood for something fun like Gambit. -
smatysia7 October 2021I remember liking this film more on first viewing many years ago. I still liked it, but maybe not as much. Some people called it slow-moving, I prefer thoughtful. Malkovich once said it was among his favorites, but perhaps he was just being contrary. The titular object. A Henry Moore statuette, seemed to me to be singularly ugly, an almost certainly deliberate irony. Oh, and for those who commented on the nude scene by Andie MacDowell, be advised that it wasn't her.
-
Bacardi127 June 2006This is by far one of my favorite little films, & just yesterday I bought it on DVD for a mere pittance ($6 & change)& settled in happily to enjoy it again. Only once in a blue moon does it turn up on artsy/independent film-type channels, so don't hold your breath looking for it on TV.
Everyone in this film is perfectly cast, & what makes it come together so beautifully is that each character in this piece exhibits faults & foibles, as we all do. It's so refreshing to watch something entertaining where the characters are portrayed as "real" - albeit flawed - people. In addition, the jazz musical score throughout the film fits the mood like a glove.
My favorite not-to-be-missed extremely funny scene? John Malkovich's "Jake", in a moment of depressed exasperation, talking aloud to himself composing his own obituary. I laugh every time I hear it - his delivery is perfect. Another favorite scene, very poignant, is when Mr. Malkovich's "Jake" phones his parents, after an apparently long absence, with the apparent intention of requesting monetary assistance. From the one-sided conversation you hear, you get an automatic insight into "Jake"'s upbringing, & perhaps why he's taken the path he has. Even though short, it's an extremely moving & insightful scene.
This movie is definitely worth renting if you can find it - but for the money, it's also worth adding to one's permanent DVD collection. -
StephenTaylor7 December 2005One of the most underrated movies of all time. I am amazed at how many people can watch this film and not get the point. The Object of Beauty is an intelligent conversation about rich and poor, selfishness and giving, and basically how to be! How to behave as a human being. The language of the film is irony, specifically situational irony. It is ironic that Malkovic's character refers to himself as a pig being placed in a very sweaty position. Pig's don't sweat! It is ironic that the female deaf character claims that the inanimate sculpture spoke to her. It is ironic that while John's character is reporting the theft of the statue we learn that he has stolen an object of beauty from another man; MacDowell's character. Ironic even more that the insurance investigator is used to bring this info forward. You will enjoy this film much more if you pay attention to the irony of the value placed by different characters upon this Henry Moore sculpture. It is worth nothing to some, only money to others, an emotional commitment to another, and an object of aspiration to one other. All of these perspectives speak to each other, and it is a very interesting conversation.
-
Gluepack30 January 2010Not the usual fare for PPV on Bulsatcom in Bulgaria and, with Malkovich currently appearing every few seconds on CNN, in ads for one of their items about him (I've seen the item and he is sickeningly pretentious), I was in two minds whether or not to use my last (free) token to watch it.
My God! I am glad I did. Malkovich and MacDowell gave superlative performances in a beautifully written, directed and acted piece where even the minor roles combined to make this a masterpiece of story and film. Not just "even" the minor roles, as these were excellent performances by Joss Ackland, Ricci Harnett, Bill Paterson, Roger Lloyd-Pack, etc., etc., yes even the few lines from Pip Torrens as the art evaluator. Rudi Davies was excellent (not sure why we haven't seen anything from her in the last fifteen years).
Well, my free token ran out three minutes before the end. Pity! -
monk-28 January 1999a smart, little chekhovian drama about greed and infidelity. malkovich and mcdowell play themselves: a cold, calculating bastard and a spoiled, falsely naive princess. a great little film that deserves to be mentioned more often.
-
gabivali2215 April 2007The Object of Beauty (1991) it has all that is needed for a movie to keep you interested I love it. Its funny, interesting and romantic kind of...and let's not forget who is playing : John Malkovich & Andie MacDowell I recommend it. Enjoy
synopsis:
American couple Jake and Tina are living in an expensive London hotel way beyond what they can afford. When they were asked to pay the bill, Jake wants to sell Tina's 20.000 pound Henry Moore sculpture, but she is not happy about that. The deaf-mute hotel maid admires the sculpture for its beauty rather than its value. When the sculpture goes missing, the couple start fighting over it... Written by Sami Al-Taher {staher2000@yahoo.com}
Charming comedy about how a couple's relationship waivers in tandem with the disposition of their statuette. With no fixed abode, Jake and Tina live in hotels across the world. With a large bill due, and money in short supply, their plan to "steal" their Henry Moore statue and claim against it is thwarted when someone else steals it first! They soon start distrusting each other's motives as they search for the statue, and keep trying to get its valuation boosted while avoiding the bill. With no sign of it, they start to drift apart, despite being in love, and don't reconcile until it reappears one day - having been stolen by a deaf-mute maid, who feels the statue "spoke" to her. Written by Cynan Rees {cynanrees@hotmail.com} -
devo9918 November 2006I watched this for the first time on DVD last night and early this morning. I totally fell in love with Jenny and wanted to take her into my world and live happily ever after. I am sorry that more wasn't concluded with her at the end. Jake and Tina other wise should have been swept out to sea by a tsunami at the end. Jenny portrayed the commonalty & frailty of most of humanity(her brother being the subversive side of the rest of the commoners). Jake of course was the corporation and greed aspect of humanity with Tina being the human lemmings that follow the Jake side of life. I am sure though that if Tina had realized the true reason why Jenny took the statue she would have probably given it to her.(NOT!!) Tina's self-obsession during the encounter with Jenny just shows how shallow she really is. Glad I watched this movie and goes again to prove that the the Yanks still don't know how to make a good movie. Well not since D.W. Griffith that is. DEVO the guy who will never see ET.
-
bejasus20 October 2012This film probably has the highest ratio of great lines/minute of any film other than "Withnail and I." If you liked "Withnail and I," you might like this one. For all their differences, the two films share many of the same characteristics: a great script, a couple of grifters as main characters, quotable lines, funny scenes, and one or two moments that will break your heart. The two main characters in this film are also scroungers -- but at a high-end London hotel. The film follows them as they try to climb out of a hole they've dug for themselves, but the plot is less important than the characters. It's a great cast, working with a clever script. Like "Withnail and I," it's funny and ironic, but about love and hopes and individual identity underneath all that. Some of the scenes -- the funny ones and the bittersweet ones -- have stayed with me for years. I think it is John Malkovich's best role (which is saying something); Andi McDowell's also (which is saying less, but she is well nigh perfect in this).