The only levels on which this adaptation succeeds is that it opens the play up so it feels less theatrical. However the new script on retains only a scattering of the Noel Coward dialogue and the new stuff makes all the characters unlikable and tedious. They've even made Madame Arcati's character far less quirky and quite bland. Can't image who the makers think this will appeal to. Traditional Coward fans will hate it and it has nothing to recommend it to anyone else.
Add a Review
-
afroude-0961914 November 2020
-
Moviegoer1911 May 2021Any time we see a movie, we have to suspend disbelief in order to get into the fictional world of a film (that's not a documentary). The huge problem with Blithe Spirit is that much of it was so unbelievable as to make it almost impossible to suspend disbelief and therefore impossible to watch.
Basically, the main theme of this version of Noel Coward's play, is that after the main male character's deceased ex-wife is summoned forth from a medium who's supposed to be a fraud (Judi Dench), said deceased ex-wife sets out to get between her former husband and his now (living) wife. For me, the big problem here was that the husband, a crime-writer, acts in such a stupid and irrational way that the whole film just seems ridiculous. Plus, the former wife, played to the hilt by Leslie Mann, was a stereotype of the vengeful scorned wife, even though anyone who is rational would recognize that that's not what she really was.
Specifically, once he has "seen" the ghost of his former wife and realizes others don't see her, he should have altered his behavior accordingly. Instead he keeps repeating the same moronic behavior over and over which just served to make me angry. Did the director and/or scriptwriter really think an audience would go for this?
Despite this major flaw, the film was visually engaging and busy enough to keep me watching despite my annoyance. -
schorschi10010 April 2021I watched it without having watched the first film, shot in 1945 with Rutherford as Madam Arcati, before. The film is unfortunately not funny, which in my opinion lies in the fact that the new adaptation the story changed a lot, adding unnecessary plot elements, overall making it boring. In fact the key part, namely that the maid is the actual psychic is completely removed from the story, and the coming back of Madam Arcati's long dead husband is a new completely unnecessary, yet predictable and not funny twist. The death of Charles, although being the last scene of the 1945 film too, is actually absent in the play (which thankfully one can still watch on youtube with an excellent cast). Nonetheless, in the old film it is just a one-minute add-on which does not destroy the plot (it is an obvious and common thing to do at the time), which is not the case with the new one.
The story is supposed to take place in the 1930s, in a villa which looks anything but that (something between Bauhaus and Minimalism). Since the majority of the scenes were shot there, this insignificant mistake is perceived throughout the film, in an annoying way.
Although everyone's acting is excellent, the plot too blunt to save the day. If you want to watch it then go for the 1945 film, or even better, for the TV play. -
heratyplant24 January 2021To the people who say 'it's not that bad' or 'I have no feelings about the 1945 version', that's fine, enjoy a new movie, my complaint is that why do studios keep rewriting, changing & ruining classics - JUST WRITE SOMETHING NEW!!!
The original version is perfection & an utter joy.
This new version is a total mess, some of the casting isn't great either; it changes parts of the story in such an unnecessary way that they may as well just have WRITTEN SOMETHING NEW, do you get the idea?!
The majority of modern audiences will have no knowledge of the original & the people who do, would hate any changes, so you're making nobody happy, maybe WRITE SOMETHING NEW??? -
Foxtrot-Alpha77716 January 2021If you liked the stage play then I would imagine you would have a few issues with this film, however if you are not aware of the play or the 1945 film based upon the play then you will probably like this version. I never really liked the original film so not that emotional about comparing the two but many prefer the first attempt.
Does this capture Noel Cowards wit, not really but that maybe no bad thing.
Enjoy it for what it is, a simple story with a lacklustre ending to while away some time. -
diane_grist15 January 2021Not a patch on the 1945 version I'm afraid. Even the wonderful Judi Dench can't match Margaret Rutherford as Madame Arcati and sadly Dan Stevens is nowhere near as sauve as Rex Harrison. Elvira seems quite horrible as opposed to mischievous. A case of style over substance.
-
martimusross20 January 2021Blithe Sprit
So many reviews on here fail to just get it, this play/farce was written by Noel Coward, in 1941 as an antidote to WW2 and presented on the West End stage. Noel Coward very much in the style of Oscar Wilde writes light whimsical repartee between the characters and it really is a celebration of language.
This movie, set in the 1937, just does not tick the boxes that light up modern audiences. This is a most unfair way to judge it, the plot was well executed, the acting crisp, with a light touch delivery was really quite splendid.
It your looking for a car chase, criminal masterminds and superheroes in spandex look elsewhere.
I'm giving this a jolly well done 7 -
Dreadful remake without any of the charm of the original. The cast are usually fantastic but are lost in this farce. Awful ending, wooden script....Avoid
-
mmoorcroft-8511515 January 2021I have just watched this remake and thoroughly enjoyed a good romp. Please don't harp on about the original & how good it was. Enjoy the cast hamming it up ( no bad thing for a comedy) and great period sets. Loved it!
-
grahammcainsh24 November 2021A bad attempt at redoing a classic.
They have changed the whole meaning of a great idea. Charles is now a sarcastic alcoholic talentless buffoon with no wit or intelligence. And for some reason they have fleshed out Madam Arcati and made her a hopeless con artist.
This is not Blithe Spirit. It's a bad version of a cross between Ghost and Bedazzled.
If you want to see Blithe Spirit, watch the Rex Harrison classic. -
iwilliams816 January 2021It would be wrong to simply recreate the original film/play and copy the excellent performance of Margaret Rutherford and I'm delighted that this film does not. It takes the premise of Noel Coward's and, with tongue firmly planted in its cheek, improves upon it immensely.
The characters are all fleshed out far more than in the original. For example, Ruth in the play and original film is dull, boring and flat. Isla Fisher brings a more believable portrayal and relishes the character. Judi Dench's Madame Arcarti is less chaotic than Rutherford but equally enjoyable. Leslie Mann's Elvira brings true threat born from jealousy but keeps it within the realms of the comedic nature of the film
Yes, it's a farce and it's supposed to be. No, this is nothing like the original, but what would be the point? Both versions have their merits and can be enjoyed equally. -
Oeuvre_Klika16 March 2021I have never seen the original play or movie, so I'm not making a comparison. I think the main problem of this movie is that it lacks in rhythm. It felt too long despite being only an hour and a half. However, I still had a good time watching it. There are some true laugh-out-loud moments and everyone gives a good comedic performance. Also, the costumes and sets are gorgeous. Apparently, there have been a lot of changes from the original story, but I thought this story was good. My rhythm issue came more from some of the dialogue and the editing, I think. You won't be wasting your time watching it, but don't expect a masterpiece.
-
ivantheeditor12 June 2021I didn't laugh even once. It wasn't even a dark comedy. There simply weren't any jokes in it. Like, none. The production value is top notch and the acting is pretty good but that's about all there is to it. The story is quite boring actually. Nothing original. Judy Dench is great of course.
-
nogodnomasters9 December 2020This is a remake of the Noel Coward play which has been done better. Famous author Charles Condomine (Dan Stevens) has had writer's block since the death of his wife Elvira (Leslie Mann). Her ghost is revived by Judi Dench to the dismay of his second wife Isla Fisher.
Actors seemed to be just going through the motions. I was hoping they would have done a modernized version instead of keeping it in 1937. I failed to have a good laugh. -
Blithe Spirit, loosely based on Noel Coward's classic farce. We have Dan Stevens as a writer who's trying to turn his novel into a screenplay. He has an empty-headed wife (Isla Fsher) who swans about the estate. With friends, they go to see a show Madame Arcati (Judi Dench) is putting on, but her act goes wrong and she's exposed as a phony. Because Stevens is thinking a lot about his dead first wife (Leslie Mann) he gets Arcati to come to the house (a sprawling art deco thing) for a seance. Of course she summons the dead wife who, although it's 1937, has a #metoo sensibility.
Things turn slapsticky, and although the stars try hard, it doesn't work. One moment the ghosty wife can't slap Stevens because she's only ectoplasm but the next minute she can play a piano. Worst of all is the version of Arcati. Dench plays her as an aggrieved victim who's sham has been discovered and she's resentful. Bleh. The various Arcati's of film, TV, and stage, have generally played her as a swooping eccentric who's on the dotty side: Margaret Rutherford, Mildred Natwick, Ruth Gordon, Angela Lansbury, Penelope Keith.
This version plays like a sitcom, with the three main characters as madcaps and Dench's shuffling dud of a medium as an unfunny subplot. -
ronbell-2398417 January 2021I enjoyed it. I saw the original a couple of times over the years and it's no better than this effort. Fun movie.
-
krzysiektom11 July 2021Huge disappointment. The cinema room was half full, only one or two viewers chuckled once or twice during the entire film. It's dull and devoid of real fun, I even wonder if this film should be described as comedy.
-
bronpuca12 June 2021Overall, this was a cute movie. I haven't seen the original, so as a first time watcher, I'm genuinely confused. Charles wasn't a bad guy. He didn't ask for any of this. The way it ended left me with so many questions! And Madame A, that was highly anticlimactic.
-
gjp-6661015 January 2021This version did not keep any of the coward humour or elegance his works were known for . I've seen various adaptations of this text but this went too far away from that
-
shark-2108726 January 2021I thought it was going to be a stuffy movie, but it turned out quite watchable. I had to pause the movie where the husband first meets with his wife's father and her father ends up punching him because I couldn't stop laughing. The rest of the movie never quite reaches that level of comedy again but stays interesting and unpredictable (assuming no reference point to a classic recreation.)
-
tocanepauli15 January 2021I found this rather boring and childish (or slapstick) it is like stage play on film.. just couldn't get into the characters, or the sheer buffoonery of the play. I have not seen the earlier "versions" of this, but they must be better than this! Waste of fine talent......
-
shojill1924 January 2021Whilst I love previous theatre and film versions, this was delightful. Loved Dan embodying the hapless writer! Great cast, all did a superb job. What a beautiful art deco style home location that gave an authenticity to the ambience. Breathtaking, gentle humour, detailed and high quality movie.
-
sheridaglover26 February 2021I adore Noel Coward. I have performed in and directed works by Noel Coward and I love the biting wit and crackling dialogue. Had they done this as a straight-on version of the play, I would have really enjoyed this cast in that play. This, however, could easily have had the heading "suggested by the works of Noel Coward". It took the basic premise, smoothed out some of the period humor and added a bunch of unneccessary updates. As a Noel Coward piece, it's basically low-rent Cliffs Notes. However, as a quirky comedy that involves ghosts and a less-than-capable medium, it doesn't suck. The cast is amusing, and Leslie Mann was designed to play characters in this period. She could be a Carole Lombard for a new generation. I agree with several reviewers that Dame Judi Dench was terribly underused. Her Madame Arcadi was not the delicious character Coward wrote. It's not art, and it sure as heck isn't Noel Coward. But it was fun, a nice way to spend an evening and a visual treat for costumes, hair and makeup. And honestly, who doesn't love Leslie Mann in anything close to a screwball comedy? There were lots of added plot points that were underdeveloped to the point of "why bother?"(Garden show?) but as filler they didn't detract much. The ending seemed like someone saw a clock and decided it was time to finish it off. Watch the Rex Harrison version of you want to experience Noel Coward's artistry. Watch this to see pretty people in pretty clothes doing silly stuff.
-
lmclean-6846020 October 2020I love Noel Coward and Judi Dench and have found Dan Stevens appealing, so I rushed off to the drive-in to see the world premiere. It was bad. Both the stage and film versions I've seen of this before had me rolling in the aisles, but I laughed twice seeing this film. The pace was slow and Coward should be fast. They gave Judi Dench dreary lines and a dreary plotline. Why, when she's such a gifted comedian? I didn't appreciate the modern touches. The whole thing annoyed me no end. We watched the trailer for the old movie version and laughed more at it than at this whole movie. We plan to stream the old movie soon.
-
mhallbrewer198531 May 2021So much more could have been done with this. Some characters were poorly cast. It was underwhelming. The concept is good but it missed the mark in my opinion.