Rating: 
Summary: Could have been better
Review: I have seen all of the Jane Austen films I could get my hands on. And this has been the most disappointing of them all. The music did not seem to match the story at all. And the quality had something to be desired. Although the story was very good. It just needs a bit of work to be up to the Jane Austen standards.
Rating: 
Summary: A beautiful artistic representation
Review: The film makers used their talents of putting a new perspective on the whole world of Jane Austen. To Limit her works to simply the time and place they came from can at times be a stifling media for a film producer who actually wants to be more creative with the film media rather than simply telling a story.
Rating:
Summary: Not up to Jane Austin Enthusiasts' Standards
Review: Very disappointed in this film. The movie spent too much time on the fanticy portions of the book than the reality. Got lost a few times. There was much more charater interaction in the book as well as other adapted films of Jane Austin's books than this movie. The acting was fair but as one charater in P & P said, "Her teeeth are tolerable, but not out of the common wasy." Next time I won't read the book first before I get the movie. Then I won't be disappointed. Not up to Jane Austin enthusiasts' standards.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't waste your time on this one
Review: I'm looking forward to Miramax's version of this novel from Jane Austen. This film version was a complete waste of time. After watching it, and I can't believe I sat through the whole thing, I wanted to get up remove the tape from the VCR, and crush the tape. Since the tape was a friend's, I could not. The film felt like a cheap meshing of "Alice in Wonderland", "Dynasty", with flimsy associations with the novel "Northanger Abbey". Don't waste your time or money.
Rating:
Summary: What a disappointment!
Review: This must be the low patch of movies based on Jane Austen's novels. After enjoying "Pride & Prejudice", "Sense & Sensibility", BBC's "Emma", and "Persuasion", I really expected this movie to be of a higher standard. Except for some fine moments from the lead actress, the acting is poor, and the quality of the filming is lousy. Some scenes from the book are redone with such minute detail that they're boring, while other important scenes are skipped altogether (i.e. the scene when Catherine learns she is to be sent home by post unaccompanied). I'm more upset by the time I wasted watching the movie than the money I wasted buying it.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I am a big fan of period films, and of Jane Austin, so I was looking forward to seeing this movie. It was disappointing. While the acting is very good, the production is very poor. What I objected to especially was the music, which was completely wrong for the period, and made me feel as though I was viewing a bad made-for-t.v. movie. This is no "Pride and Prejudice".
Rating: 
Summary: An appealing, light fable
Review: This is a pleasant, good-natured fable with a better ending than most fables have. Every now and then the camera gives you a lovely shot, but although it's a pretty film it's not breathtaking. Peter Firth is a charming Henry, with a sister so agreeable one wants to see more of her. Katherine Schlesinger is a very pretty, artless and sweet Catherine Morland. Robert Hardy, who is always memorable, clearly had fun being a rather contemptible villain. In Northanger Abbey, the main characters are warm and very human, while the story is smarter than they are and very sarcastic. In this rendition, the sweetness of the characters was conveyed far more successfully than the ironic wit of the original story. It's by no means a brilliant film, as it seems all films are unfairly expected to be, but it is pleasant, light entertainment, with moral lessons (about honesty and good judgement) that are not absolutely beaten to death.
Rating:
Summary: Highly enjoyable--what is it with people?
Review: I'm not certain why this movie is so low-rated. Is it a movie in the same manner as "Sense and Sensibility" and "Pride and Prejudice"? No. Is it a good movie? Yes. The movie follows young Catherine Morland, an addict of early gothic novels, with a vivid imagination. When the kindly, wealthy, childless Allens take her on a trip with them to Bath, Catherine is overjoyed. She soon befriends gushing Isabella Thorpe and her vulgar brother John, who appear to be fortune-hunters. Catherine also befriends the kindly, wealthy Tilney brother and sister, Eleanor and Henry. There is also a brother, Frederick (who is VERY interested in the newly-engaged Isabella) and their eerie, falsely-enthusiastic father General Tilney. Eleanor invites Catherine to their eerie family estate, Northanger Abbey. In the mysterious castlelike building, with a death harkening back many years, Catherine's imagination soon disrupts reality, and her slowly growing affection for Henry. I must contradict the people who said that you need to read the book to understand the movie: I haven't, and I did. This movie contains the staples often found in a Jane Austen story: witty repartee, a flurry of manners and morals, dancing and dresses, creeps and nice people, and a chastely tense romance wherein at least one of the people involved must learn a lesson. While in "Pride" it was learning about pride and prejudice, and in "Emma" it was meddling; in this particular movie, it is learning about distinguishing reality from fantasy. Katherine Schlesinger is perfect as Catherine Morland, smaller and wider-eyed than the usual blonde girls in this film. Peter Firth is sexy and sweet as Henry Tilney, who occasionally launches into monologues that both insult and compliment ("She is a disgrace to her sex... and it is a quality I will be sad to see her lose") and Ingrid Lacey is delightful as the haunted Eleanor Tilney. Cassie Stuart is good as gushy fortune-hunter Isabella Thorpe, whose constant effusion hides a mercenary little excuse for a soul; Jonathan Coy is also good, in his relatively brief role, as the rotten John Thorpe. This movie is filmed in a slightly different manner than most Jane Austen films. Reality is interspersed with Gothic fantasies and nightmares of Catherine's; however, this will be entertaining if you have even a passing knowledge of books like the "Mysteries of Udolpho." The soundtrack is relentlessly, over-the-top Gothic in a way that is downright funny. We also get to see more of Bath than in movies like "Persuasion"--I thought those gardens were extremely pretty. The movie is shot in a misty sort of way, with looming decaying buildings and white-clad heroines--it seems to be half spoof, half serious story. And as Jane Austen was a master of satire, I imagine she'd be highly amused. I'm a little surprised that the travesty of Mansfield Park is rated higher than this (watch the BBC version, where they care about the original story) as this is a darn good movie. It's not exactly like Emma, Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility; however, it's still very good.
Rating:
Summary: Worst...Austen...ever
Review: Having read all six of the works in Austen's published canon, Northanger Abbey as a book is a bit wanting (most likely a work of post-juvenalia, it lacks the mature style of her later--and better known for a reason--works; the narrative voice is very heavy-handed, and lacks the subtle, at times biting, sarcastic tone of works like Pride and Prejudice and and Emma). Having said that, this movie takes incredible liberties with the story she put on paper. The casting is terrible (in a so-bad-it's-funny-but-not-for-the-right-reasons sort of way), the direction is lacking (surely an adaptation of an Austen novel was never meant to be so melodramatic), the incidental music is over-the-top, and the whole thing is played out in a serious manner (not only is the adaptation and acting that bad, but they don't even try to give it a tongue-in-cheek spin). If you're looking for a follow-up to the BBC Pride and Prejudice miniseries from about 10 years ago, try the BBC version of Emma (not the Paltrow one), or the recent adaptation of Persuasion--despite the similarities in its title and the names of characters and places, you won't find real _Austen_ here.
Rating:
Summary: Watchable but not the best film of Austen's books
Review: I was looking forward to seeing a movie version of one of Jane Austen's novels that had not been filmed in the past decade but this one really frustrated me. While the images that play through Catherine's mind as she reads a new gothic novel are more vivid and stressed than in the book I guess that some of it was necessary in order to understand her fixation on the death of the hero's mother. But it was over done.
I also found that the characters of Cassie and her obnoxious brother were much overdone showing them more as wiley villains rather than the pathetic characters in the book who must marry for money and play the game to get it. Granted, they're not very nice people but the smirks, sneers and minxy smiles were too much.
The actors who played the Tilney's were fine and totally believable in their roles. I was please that they were portrayed will skill and understatement. But I was most disappointed in the portrayal of Catherine. Katherine Schlesinger was too pretty, too smiley and was not believable as one of many children on a country Anglican minister.
The visuals are wonderful though, of the countryside and of Bath (although I wonder if that's really what it looked like, the costuming terrific and the actors who played the Allen's perfect. And the conversation between Catherine and the Tilney's is very true to the original, especially of the day that they take a walk and a boat ride.
Would I recommend the movie? If you're a died in the wool Janeite, I would say no, but if you can get beyond the fact that it's not pure Austen and want to see a lovely story, then go for it.
|
