Genres

Visitors Review

Rachel Day 2012-05-21 07:53:15

I recommend it

If you are a fan of Jane austen films then i definately recommend you watch this one, it had class and style, the acters fufilled there potential even if some were a little irritating in doing so, the only critisism i have is of the nightmares which can ruin the intensive plot and make the main character appear a little deluded or even eccentric, however, the charming plot is crafted cleverly so the overall effect is enchanting to watch, a truly great movie with a good mix of suspence, mystery and romance with a proper conclusion to sum it all up.

eponinelle 2012-05-20 23:37:31

Loved it!!!

I was kinda disappointed with 'Mansfield Park', so I was definitelyhoping for an improvement when I tuned into 'Northanger Abbey'. I was instantly hooked. As a lover of romantic stories, I loved thecute relationship between Henry and Catherine. (The kiss at the end isv.sweet!). Felicity Jones was great as Catherine Morland, and so was JJ Field asHenry Tilney. I think they had great chemistry, (and I love the bitwhere he strokes the mud off her face.) I would like to see more ofthem in the near future.I found the fantasy sequences v. intriguing- it was like seeing rightinto Catherine's warped imagination.so... 10/10.

lancecat 2012-05-20 09:32:34

Excellent Fun!

I was lucky enough to be in the UK the evening this aired on ITV. MyBritish friend and I both sat up to watch and we were both satisfied.Between the two of us, I'm the "Janeite" but she truly enjoyed thisadaptation as well. It's important to remember that Jane Austen's bookswill always outshine the movie adaptations. It's impossible to do fulljustice to her writing. Northanger Abbey has always been a secretfavorite - I realize it's not as "serious" as the other 5 books, but Imust admit I've got a real fondness for Henry Tilney. JJ Field fillsthe role perfectly and stands out as the star in my opinion. FelicityJones is also very good as Catherine. The supporting actors areexceptional - and I agree with others that it's a shame we don't seemore of William Beck as John Thorpe, absolutely brilliant casting! I'mlooking forward to all three adaptations coming to the states - and I'dencourage anyone to try this version of Northanger Abbey out!

vongab 2012-05-19 21:36:17

Read the book.

Having just read the book I thought it would be a good idea to see ifthere had been made any TV adaptations of the book. Finding that therehad indeed I decided to watch it. And too be honest it turned out to bequite a disappointment. I think my disappointment was mostly due to thefact that I had had just read the book and was actually able toremember the story and therefore being able to see that this adaptationdidn't have much to do with it. The general is being described as acoldblooded vampire and the story is being overdramatized, not at allin the spirit of Jane Austen. The acting is however descent and some ofthe roles have been well casted.I found the book a lot more entertaining and it being so short i foundit very strange that they should choose to alter so much.

LouE15 2012-05-16 08:42:52

Watchable and enjoyable period piece

Huzzah! - another adaptation: for Austen fans there can never beenough. Still…I gulped a little when I heard that ITV were doing a JaneAusten season. ITV tend to drastically abridge their period dramas, andthey can end up slightly cheap-looking, losing integrity whencontrasted with the more solid and sober (and timeless?) productions ofthe BBC.Northanger Abbey was Austen's first proper novel, but her last to bepublished; very much a turn of the (19th) century novel, showing someof the roughness of that time, before ladies became entirely encased inthe strict rules society saw fit to impose. It's fitting that a cheeky,confident and funny writer (Andrew Davies) gets to have a bit of funwith this one some 200 years later. In it, Catherine Morland, a young,naïve girl from a quiet village, gets her first taste of many things ona trip to Bath, and learns both life lessons and something about lovethrough her contact with two very different families she meets there;the grasping, manipulative Thorpes and the thoughtful and sophisticatedTilneys.The two leads, Felicity Jones as Catherine Morland, and J J Field asHenry Tilney, are beautifully cast. Felicity Jones' youth, pretty looksand inexperience served her character very well. Her 'modern' tone hasbeen criticised, but whilst an older actress might have delivered thelines with greater accuracy, we'd have lost Jones' juvenile wonder andhumour. She delivered (almost all) her lines nicely, and although atmoments she looked almost simple, staring up blankly with her mouthopen, in a way this was appropriate. Nothing in Catherine Morland'sprevious limited experience prepared her for the life of Bath or for afamily like the Tilneys – she may well gape. I loved the dreamsequences where her constant absorption in Gothic horrors spills overinto her imagination: her reading was teaching her to look for horroreverywhere.J J Field was wonderful in the BBC's recent adaptation of PhilipPullman's excellent "The Ruby in the Smoke", and shows again that hecan play the leading man with great charm and naturalistic ease - along career in the making I think. Re-reading the book I'm struck bythe affectionate details with which Austen made Henry Tilney lovable,such as his messy rooms and his keen sense of humour. I think Fieldgoes a long way towards putting this on screen, despite shockinglyill-fitting clothes and a script very constrained for time, missingdialogue which would have drawn out his growing attachment toCatherine. Austen has Henry tell Catherine that she "is superior ingood nature to all the world". In this version her youth and looksalone seem to be the reason for her appeal.The minor characters were mostly well-played and well drawn; especiallyEleanor Tilney, who brought great dignity to her role. Some concessionshave certainly been made to an audience deemed incapable of readingsubtlety or of tolerating lengthy or literary dialogue. But certainadditions were really funny and delightful: Catherine rolling her eyesand curling her lip at Captain Tilney's rudeness; her little sisterannouncing, hand on hips and with a nice swing of her little head;"CATHY. Mama says will you bring Mr Tilney to the DRAWING room." Herwithering glare at Henry when they are all seated, in awkward silence,is genius: go girl.Adaptations don't need to be slavish. The BBC's rather lurid 1986version took just as many liberties, and more than warranted a revisit.Overall I found this a delightful adaptation, delivered with verve andspirit, so well done ITV, please, more of this, less of the abridgedand dumbed-down rubbish!

Ms_Q 2012-05-15 16:58:47

Appalling update

"Northanger Abbey" is one of my favorite Austen novels, because it sowittily satirizes the melodramatic phase that many teen-aged girls gothrough, even today. So I was particularly looking forward to thisdramatization. It wasn't long before I realized that the movie haswarped Austen's work into exactly the kind of story she was satirizing.It isn't an issue of adapting the work for the screen, but of"updating" by deliberately increasing the melodramatic and sexualaspects of the work, which resulted in a treatment that is exactly theopposite of what Austen wrote. For instance, when Catherine sees Henry at the ball in Bath with awoman, in the novel it specifically states that she is denied thepleasure of blanching and looking stricken because she knows that thewoman cannot be anyone other than his sister. In the movie, sheblanches and looks stricken and only recovers when the woman isintroduced as his sister. Catherine meets Eleanor's forbidden loverearly in the novel at Bath, when they are walking with Henry. He begsCatherine not to reveal the meeting to his father. Not only did thisnot take place in the novel -- the young man is not even mentioneduntil the last page of the novel! -- Austen would never havecountenanced such deception of a parent by any of her heroes orheroines. It is, however, a staple of the Gothic romance novel.Northanger Abbey is presented as exactly what it is not; unfortunatelyfor the filmmaker, it was merely an abbey, not a sinister Gothiccastle, but he did not let that little detail get in his way. GeneralTilney is explicitly painted as a cold and greedy tyrant who onlymarried his wife for her money and made her life a living hell,something which cannot be supported by the novel. Catherine is thrown out of the Abbey in the middle of the night, ratherthan the next morning; anything for melodrama. And then there isIsabella's blatant seduction by Frederick. So much more melodramaticand "accessible" to a modern audience than a mere flirtation. Suchtravesties lead one to contemplate urging changes to the copyrightlaws, and to wonder why it is that filmmakers think that they canimprove upon what the generations have already tested and pronouncedperfect.

ladybanana8 2012-05-10 20:18:45

Charming, but So-So

Altogether a decent adaptation of Northanger Abbey, but not the best. Afew quibbling details took away some of my enjoyment but on the whole,it was good hour-and-a-half of literary fun and looks to be better thannext week's Mansfield Park.Pros: 1. It was well-cast.JJ Feild was, appearance-wise, pitch-perfect as my beloved HenryTilney. He looks just as Jane Austen described him: dark haired, tall,though he stooped a bit much for one whose "address was good." Also, hewas pleasing to the eye without being jaw-droppingly handsome. I likedhis voice very much -- it was similar in pitch actually to MarkDymond's, which seemed to indicate kinship, to me, anyway. On hisinterpretation, it may have been a bit too morose at times for myconception of Henry -- he always struck me as buoyantly confident --but while I generally see Henry as a bit zanier, I rather liked Feild'smore deadpan spin.Felicity Jones also was a good bit of casting. She looked likeCatherine Morland as I imagined her -- freshly pretty without beingoverwhelmingly so -- and I liked very much her Catherine. She wasinnocent without being irritatingly saccharine, and I found hertransition as believable as it possibly could be in the compressedamount of time.Mark Dymond was very dashing as Frederick Tilney, Carey Mulligan andCatherine Walker as Isabella and Eleanor played their contrasting partsastonishingly well, Sylvestra La Touzel was amusingly shallow, andWilliam Beck was appropriately boorish and stupid. Good.2. The good parts of the dream sequences. I liked the illumination ofCatherine's fantasies, although I really would have liked to hear moreof the witty dialogue between Catherine and Henry and a scene atWoodston more along the lines of the book. We fall in love withPemberley and Darcy, with Donwell Abbey and Knightley; I really wantedto see Henry in his native environment.3. Dancing and women's costumes. Very nicely done. Catherine's dresseswere appropriately simple for her character, Eleanor's were rich yetmodest, and Isabella's were characteristically flamboyant. As for thedancing, heck, it adds some movement to the Bath scenes.4. The fact they mostly managed to stick to the tone of the book.Mostly.Cons: 1. The unneeded sexual references. While not particularlygratuitous -- except for that rather un-Austen-like scene with Isabellaand Frederick at the end -- I found them more distracting thananything.2. The cut of the dialogue. The best parts were the dialogue; the bestpart of ANY Jane Austen book is often the dialogue. Why cut a goodthing? I was totally looking forward to some Henryesque sarcasticmonologues.3. Northanger Abbey. It was SUPPOSED to be modern and pleasant incontrast to Catherine's suppositions. So when I saw dark, creepyinteriors, it fell flat for me.4. The characterization of General Tilney. While he is an unpleasant,greedy man, he was not evil; he accepted Henry and Catherine in the endfor goodness' sake. Instead, they made him a one-dimensional,metaphorical "vampire" and more a villain along the lines of whatCatherine imagined instead of the "realistic" antagonist he was.5. The compression of the ending. It moved too swiftly, and I foundHenry's proposal a little odd and halting -- since Henry is older thanCatherine, I would expect him to be more, I don't know exactly, suave?or maybe I'm being unrealistic. The kiss was awkward, but it sort ofworked in its awkwardness.In essence, certain flaws -- the after-sex scene with Isabella andFrederick, the characterization of General Tilney, the occasionalunevenness of Henry's portrayal, the references to Byron, etc. --occasionally teeter the movie slightly into the direction of themelodrama it ISN'T supposed to be, but mostly it succeeds. And heck, Ienjoyed myself somewhat, though I suspect Jane probably rolled in hergrave a couple of times.

stormy_gail 2012-05-10 06:22:32

loved the movie

loved this movie! J Field and felicity Jones did an awesome job andhave brought back romance to a movie..clean and tastefully done.henry's character was witty and you can't help being drawn to him andCatherine's character is complete innocence...unfortunately for me, iwatched it too many times,,thank you for such a romantic, witty, andinnocent movie..look forward to seeing more work by these actors,although in Canada we don't seem to get as much as i would like..goodluck to these very talented actors. i would have loved to see more ofthe countryside of the movie, apparently it was filmed in ireland,wouldhave loved to see more od the beautiful buildings such as woodston.

marspeach 2012-05-09 07:21:29

Great cast but too sexed up

After 20 years with the horrible 1987 version as the only adaptation ofNorthanger Abbey, many fans were eagerly anticipating the new 2007version. I was a little nervous about Andrew Davies writing the script,given his tendency to sex things up, but the cast looked really good.And then I saw it… Suffice it to say- I was totally right! Most of thecast was really good, especially JJ Feild as Henry Tilney…but it wasreally sexed up. Most of this was in the form of Catherine's dreams,but there was something else too. One scene in particular was justplain wrong! Why, Andrew Davies, why? He seemed to interpret the storyto be Catherine's sexual awakening. Sorry, I didn't see any of that inthe book- it was a comedy! This version has funny moments too, but it'sreally all the sexed up scenes that bothered me. Davies seemed to havemissed the point, but at least not as badly as the 1987 creators did.I wouldn't call this adaptation terrible, or anything. It just wasn'tas great as it could have been. It was filmed in Dublin, because Iguess they were too cheap to actually go to Bath (yet somehow the 1987version could afford it? And even Persuasion that was filmed at thesame time?) I did like that we got a nice little introduction that wasclose to what was in the book. There was even an epilogue- but it wasso short, blink and you'll miss it! I think what annoys me so muchabout this movie is not how "bad" it was, but how bad it was comparedto how good it could have been! With such a great cast, it could havebeen really excellent. Instead it was a disappointment.

Neil Doyle 2012-05-08 09:30:31

Pleasant version of the Austen tale...richly detailed settings...

NORTHANGER ABBEY is a charming version of the Jane Austen tale,covering somewhat familiar Austen territory in its tale of a youngwoman who comes to a vast estate and falls in love with an aristocraticyoung man who is willing to give up his inheritance to marry her, if hemust.It's beautifully lensed in color with excellent vistas of the Englishcountryside and some impeccable performances from a first rate cast.FELICITY JONES and JJ FIELD are excellent as the young lovers, whetherexchanging dialog that is on the humorous side or deadly serious, andCATHERINE WALKER is fine as Jones' confidante, Eleanor.Time constraints make it impossible to ever do full justice to Austen'sstories, but fans of the author should find this an enchanting enoughversion of the tale to satisfy Janite admirers, even if there are manyomissions in the telling.Very worthwhile, with high quality production values throughout.

jupitergal2 2012-05-05 01:01:17

Enjoyable - much better than the 1986 version

Though it is no blockbuster, and won't have the appeal to both sexesthat the 1995 Pride and Prejudice and even Sense and Sensibility did,it was, overall, a good production and worthy adaptation and, as anAusten purist, I was satisfied. It was handled far more adeptly thanthe 1986 version, which was heavy-handed and vulgar. I thought FelicityJones and JJ Feild were both likable and well cast. None of the castmembers stood out as inappropriate, though General Tilney might havebeen just a bit too much of a Jareth-the-Goblin-King (did he remindanyone else of David Bowie in that role?) yet, though he came close tobeing a bit too obvious a villain, he didn't quite go too far.I've been waiting for a good adaptation of this novel for a long time.I've always enjoyed the timelessness of the characters, and how teensof 200 years ago are so very much like teens of today. I'm surprisedthis one hasn't been adapted into a modern teen movie, as Clueless wasfrom Emma. I was worried, after reading some reviews, that I wouldn'tlike Andrew Davies' adaptation here, though I loved his Pride andPrejudice. I thought this might be too much like Patricia Rozema's veryun-Austen Mansfield Park, historically inaccurate, overly melodramaticand poorly scripted (though the acting, costumes and settings werefine. Kudos to Rozema for an experiment to show the similarity betweenwomen of that time and slavery, but it was a poor fit.) This is muchmore true to Jane Austen, and I'm breathing a sigh of relief. I'llprobably buy the DVD to add to my Austen collection, as I think thisone would be fun to share with my teenage nieces.

galensaysyes 2012-05-04 21:49:21

Okay, but not very

This, I had high hopes for, having recently read and enjoyed the novelall over again, and remembering that I had thought the first film of itpretty poor. The remake improves on it in two respects: the firstCatherine looked rather amateurish and the one here is okay; and thecamera-work in the earlier film looked rather amateurish and here italso is okay. In most other respects, especially the casting, thisversion is worse.The most conspicuous failure is the treatment of the rattle, JohnThorpe, the novel's funniest character. That he is a rattle, whichAusten is at pains to point out, is the fact that makes him funny, andwhich leads him to the two acts that precipitate the crisis of thestory. For some reason the film ignores this altogether. It diminisheshim into Joe the fat boy, so that his act (now reduced from two to one)no longer proceeds from his character; in fact it makes no sense atall.And in the novel, did Thorpe tell Catherine that The Monk was "hotstuff"? It sounds incongruous and I don't remember it. And did CaptainTilney seduce and abandon Isabella? I'd rather remembered that he ledher on to please his own vanity and then left with his regiment.Isabella, the film does somewhat better by than it does her brother,the Tilneys' father (who has turned into Rawdon Crawley), and most ofthe other characters; she's at least recognizable, but more randy thanI remembered her, and in other respects watered down, with hermonologues shorn to next to nothing, so that she's no longer funny. Infact nothing in the film is funny, although much in the book is; andwhereas the book sparkles and delights--it's the one published novel ofAusten's that retains some of the buoyancy of her juvenilia--the filmhas a puzzlingly grim edge and leaves a dour aftertaste. Surely moregaiety could have been carried over? But I must say that in general I don't understand the principles behindthis new set of Austen films. The running times are so brief thatobviously much had to be cut, but did the characters have to be thefirst casualties? And why couldn't the denouements, so well judged inthe novels, have been kept as they were? I would tremble for "MansfieldPark" (which we Yanks haven't seen yet), if not for the comfort ofknowing that it can't have had worse done to it than it had previously;also, that it's got Rose Tyler for protection.

crazy_smart 2012-05-02 00:39:45

A thrilling and bang-up-to-date adaption of a fantastic book.

Northanger Abbey is not just one of my favourite Jane Austen books, butalso one of my favourite books full stop. So, when hearing of an ITVadaption, I was in equal parts excited and nervous.Well, after seeing it I can only praise it. The cast performedextremely well - especially JJ Field as the charming and likable HenryTilney, and Felicity Jones as the naive and excitable Catherine Morland- the direction was top class, and the narrative - though not alwaysfaithful to the book - was pretty much faultless.Some people may be disappointed in the less-faithful parts of thefeature, but I felt that they fit in very well with Ms. Austen's novel.They were charming and felt very up-to-date in a way that would appealto both Jane Austen lover's, and people who just wanted to watch a goodfilm on Sunday night.If you haven't seen this, then I highly recommend it, and I know that Icertainly will be buying the DVD.

helenaa-beee 2012-05-01 07:27:30

Amazing

I loved this adaption of Northanger Abby. I keep pretty close to thebook though it wasn't exactly the same but none of the movies are. Iloved JJ Feild as Henry Tilney he was perfect for the role and FelicityJones did an excellent job as Catherine. And loved Catherine's fantasyscenes they fit really well into the story. The only thing is that ifelt it was rather rushed i mean add an another 30 min to an hour andit would of been even better. I loved the ending scene out of all therest. It was more romantic then in the book(heres the scene) HenryTilney: Let me instead tell you what I said to him. I told himthat I felt myself bound to you, by honor, by affection, and by a loveso strong that nothing he could do could deter me from ... CatherineMorland: From what? Henry Tilney: Before I go on I should tell you there's a pretty goodchance he'll disinherit me. I fear I may never be a rich man Catherine. Catherine Morland: Please, go on with what you were going to say! Henry Tilney: Will you marry me Catherine? Catherine Morland: Yes! Yes I will! Yes! (they kiss, and she backs him into a wall in her passion). Over all VERY GOOD Adaption.

James Hitchcock 2012-04-27 06:06:41

Reality and Illusion

This was one of three Jane Austen adaptations produced by the Britishtelevision station ITV in 2007, the others being "Mansfield Park" and"Persuasion". Together with Joe Wright's "Pride and Prejudice" from2005, the Bollywood adaptation "Bride and Prejudice" and the biopic"Becoming Jane", these can be regarded as part of a second cycle ofAusten films, the first having taken place in the middle and latenineties. I think the reason why ITV chose these three novels is that,cinematically speaking, they are less familiar than Austen's otherworks. I am not aware of any previous film of "Northanger Abbey" and,although versions of "Persuasion" and "Mansfield Park" were made duringthe first great Austen cycle, neither aroused as much interest as, say,the Emma Thompson/Kate Winslet "Sense and Sensibility" or the GwynethPaltrow "Emma".Austen's heroines can be divided into two categories. On the one handthere are lively, high-spirited ones like Elizabeth Bennett, EmmaWoodhouse or Marianne Dashwood; on the other there are quieter, moredemure ones like Fanny Price, Anne Elliot or Marianne's sister Elinor.The makers of "Northanger Abbey" were fortunate in that the novel'sheroine, Catherine Morland, falls firmly into the first category, asAusten's quieter heroines can be difficult to bring to life on thescreen. Only Emma Thompson has really succeeded in this, largely bymaking Elinor considerably older than she is in the novel. The twoversions of "Mansfield Park" both try transfer Fanny into the outgoing,extrovert category, but both versions were heavily criticised by puristJaneites. One of Austen's aims in writing the novel was to satirise the Romanticmovement in literature, particularly the vogue for "Gothic" novels bythe likes of Ann Radcliffe and Matthew Lewis. (This vogue had grippedEngland in the 1790s, when Austen's novel was originally written, andpersisted into the 1810s, when it was finally published). Unlike mostof the other stately homes which feature in Austen's works, NorthangerAbbey, the house which gives its name to the book, is not a Classicalmansion but a rambling Gothic castle. When the naïve teenage heroineCatherine is invited to stay at the Abbey, the home of her friends theTilney family, her over-fertile imagination leads her to believe thatshe is living in a Gothic romance and that her stern, forbidding host,General Tilney, is guilty of the murder of his wife, who died suddenlyseveral years earlier. This satire on the Gothic was only part of Austen's wider theme, thedifference between reality and illusion. The novel tells the story ofCatherine's coming-of-age, of how she learns not only the differencebetween fiction and real life but also the difference between whatpeople seem and what they really are. Several people whom Catherinebelieves she can trust turn out to be thoroughly untrustworthy. Herclose friend Isabella, who shares and encourages her taste for Gothicfiction, turns out to be shallow and fickle. Isabella's brother John isan unreliable braggart and gossip. Captain Frederick Tilney, theGeneral's elder son, appears to be a gallant army officer, but turnsout to be a heartless seducer. Even the General himself, although hemay not be a murderer, turns out to be arrogant, snobbish andthoroughly unpleasant. On the other hand, some of Catherine's friendsprove their true worth, such as the General's daughter Eleanor and hisyounger clergyman son Henry, who eventually wins Catherine's heart. In my view, "Northanger Abbey" is the strongest of the three ITV Austenadaptations. "Persuasion" was just dull, and its heroine Sally Hawkinsduller still. As for "Mansfield Park", I personally (unlike many) likedBillie Piper's interpretation of the role of Fanny, but I felt that shereceived little support from the other cast members, apart from HayleyAttwell's Mary Crawford. In "Northanger Abbey", however, although thereare no well-known names among the cast, the acting is all of a highstandard. Felicity Jones made a fresh and delightful heroine and shereceived good support from, among others, J J Feild as Henry, CareyMulligan as Isabella and Liam Cunningham as the autocratic General. I have in the past been critical of some of Andrew Davies' adaptationsof literary works for the screen, such as the recent "BridesheadRevisited", but in this case he did a good job, producing anintelligent screenplay with a fine understanding of Austen's novel. Theone thing I did not like was the "bathtub" scene, but then Davies likesto get a bit of sex into all his adaptations. 7/10

mooning_out_the_window 2012-04-26 14:07:45

Redeeming ITV

This adaptation of Northanger Abbey has gone a long way to redeemingITV's Jane Austen Season after a severely poor start with MansfieldPark starring Billie Piper. Where as Mansfield Park was dull andlifeless, Northanger Abbey was lively and highly amusing. It wasactually funny, and kept well to the spirit of the book. NewcomerFelicity Jones was brilliant as Catherine Morland, so too was JJ Fieldas Henry Tilney and Catherine Walker as Eleanor Tilney. In fact thewhole cast did a great job of entertaining throughout. The script wasbrilliant, and you felt that Andrew Davies was really enjoying himselfwhen adapting Austen's novel. When I see Davies' name attached to aperiod drama I feel safe that it will be done competently and in goodtaste, and Northanger Abbey was. My only criticism, which isn't so mucha criticism more of my wanting it to continue, is that the ending wascut a little short. Of course this was due to time restraints. This isITV's best period drama for a very long time. Not since Emma have theydone one so good. This is certainly one I would recommend to bothAusten enthusiasts and newcomers alike, it truly is accessible to all,and can be enjoyed by many!

schnickie 2012-04-24 17:31:54

It's a great drama adaptation!

I thought this was a wonderful adaptation of Jane Austen's classic.Being my favourite novel i was very concerned to learn that ITV haddecided to remake this story, my fears were however very unfounded.There was not a decent adaptation of this book in existence, there isnow. The script was very good, retaining the sharp humour shown in thebook, though this is not surprising as the script writer was AndrewDavies. I felt the cast were well chosen and acted well, especially JJFeild as Mr Tilney. Apart from the slightly irritating dream sequenceswhich every screen adaptation of this story feels obliged to add, itmade very satisfying viewing and saw me running to the DVD shop when itwas released.

Veronica Praecox 2012-04-24 04:14:42

Absorbing show about nothing

It is a real art if the director together with actors are able tofather a agreeable show based on a trivial story. In the middle of themovie, we realize the half of the time is gone, but nothing stillhappened. The team was able to create the tension so appealing that weare absorbed, even without any grandiose plot and without anyimpassioned actions. The second half of the movie is filled by actionsmore moving, obviously very well known due to its literal master. Thereis a touch of misfortune, a typical British frightening countrysideserves as a suitable background. All necessary components for aromantic novel are present. As an interpreting of J. Austen, the movieplays with many internal thoughts belonging to people within a romantictradition of the end of 18th century. It seems these conversationalgames can last forever, never mind what's going on anywhere else.Evident, but quite pleasant case of escapism. The whole movie is a niceadventure, but with a touch of honesty, it is also a bit waste of time.

stormygail50 2012-04-22 06:46:52

scenery

i truly loved this movie. i thought it was done and carried you alongwith Catherine as she fell in love with henry. i wish that it had goneinto a little more detail at times, but i am sure that timerestrictions played a big part in that. the actors did a good job inportraying their characters, although i found some of this disjointedas well at times, such as when henry, Eleanor and Catherine come backfrom their walk and the general comes down the stairs to invite her tonorthanger Abby, it is as if Eleanor and henry have disappeared insteadof standing beside Catherine as they would have been normally, i mustsay i loved the way that Catherine backed henry into shrubbery as shewas kissing him, although i wish they had gone into Eleanor's romance alittle more. but overall i am glad i bought this movie as well.

ThatDoesntMatter 2012-04-21 17:42:26

Not Jane Austen's story at all

I did not watch this completely. I could not bear it. Everything waswrong.At first I thought: Interesting take on Henry Tilney, make him a littlemore ...glib, I think, fits.But then I found it false and implausible - bad acting did not help.Mrs Allen is too sweet. Missed the chance for authentic portrayal - sheis a superficial, self-centered, nice enough simpleton, such a greatfoundation for caricature (Jane Austen was a genius at that!) Mr Allen too wordy in general.Isabella is FAR TOO NICE. She is supposed to be chatty, self-centeredin a bad way, befriending Catherine with her own motives in mind.John Thorpe - completely wrong - oh my...another chance of caricature(and fun!!!) lost.Seems to be they just took the script from the 1986 version and juicedit up a bit (not that I watched that one through...life is short, andat least I want to decide what I waste it on - not this!!!) - a Romanbath scene??? Hello??? lol Catherine - oh Catherine. I love Catherine,naive and simple as shemight be. Here she flirts, pouts and suffers from hormonal overflow -yucky! That they used a voice over with verbatim parts from the novel makesthis even more ---- HORRID!!!:-) As has been stated here: If you don't do Jane Austen to the book, leaveit! (Or take better script writers, actors and directors - I'm notadverse to interesting adaptations - like Clueless for Emma - but thisis unnecessary drab)