American couple Jake and Tina are living in an expensive London hotel above their means, incurring a sizeable debt. When they are asked to pay a lavish dinner bill and Jake's card is declined, he suggests they sell Tina's tiny, expensive Henry Moore sculpture to cover the debt. After they hatch a scheme to claim the sculpture was stolen in order to collect insurance on it, the sculpture mysteriously goes missing.
Similar titles
Reviews
I 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.
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.
It was a real trial sitting through the entire duration of this tiresome film. It doesn't come even close to being successful as a comedy, and as a drama it is pointless and absurd. Additionally, the story could have been easily told in an hour; many events and characters are irrelevant and only prolong the suffering.The film gets annoying as soon as the deaf-mute maid steals "the object of beauty"; we find out at the end that she stole it because it spoke to her - what a load of crap. In the meantime, she returns it, then re-steals it! (Why Malkovich simply didn't put it in a safe place as soon as he found it remains unexplained.) The flaws and inconsistencies in the characterization grow as the film "progresses", and the whole thing is a waste of time.
This movie disappointed me. It's billed as a 'low key comedy', but ends up being so low key, you wonder (with the exception of a couple of scenes) where the comedy is. Most of my disappointment, however, stems from the script - aside from the chambermaid and her brother, I simply did not care what happened to the characters. The juxtaposition of the two ways of life was excellent - but it's too obvious where the scriptwriter's sympathies lie.
