Rating: 
Summary: Beware Jane Austen Purists!!
Review: I read this novel because I am a Jane Austen fan, however I found that this version did not do the novel justice. The director took a great deal of "artistic license", of which none was for the best. I found the acting only mediocre and as I wrote before, the "artistic license" taken was for the deprivation of the movie. The scenery was, for the credit of the movie, beautiful. However, while reading the novel, I viewed both the characters and the surroundings in a much different light. Overall, I would not recommend this movie - I would however, with high regard recommend the book to you.
Rating:
Summary: What happened here??
Review: This is perhaps the worst adaptation of a Jane Austen novel I have ever seen. Mind you, what is there isn't all that bad - the casting and acting is acceptable, some things are actually nicely handled, but the content is almost thoroughly mutilated... some of the best (and most imporatant) parts of the novel are omitted! And the ending is just tacked on (after the massive cuts) - and I mean literally tacked on, since the problems that are brought up are not developed and resolved (as in the novel) - it just ends! Most unsatisfying.
Having seen this film several times over the years, I am left with the impression that something must have happened during production which caused them to terminate it prematurely.. (ran out of time? lack of funds?)
Its a shame - had the novel been fully presented things would have been different. As is, it is disappointing and a poor representation of the original. Not recommended at all.
And lets not even begin to comment on the absolutely abysmal and inappropriate soundtrack...
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing!
Review: We all know that the BBC, with some funding from A&E, could do a great adaptation of this film (hint, hint)! But since they don't seem to be interested in doing that, fans of the Jane Austen novel this film is based on, will have to refer to this made-for-British-TV version for a quick Northanger Abbey 'fix'.Which is not a bad way to describe the nature of this film. Its screenplay is the bare bones of JA's classic novel, which leaves much of her satire, -- not to mention her witty dialogue,-- out. What was an intriguing and entertaining satire on the popular Gothic novels of its time, was made into a dreamlike, slightly creepy, light romance. Entertaining for what it is; deeply satisfying it is not. However, there are good things about this film, that JA fans will enjoy. The biggest of these is the strength of the film's cast. The acting is superb, and the actors well suited to their roles. Peter Firth is perfectly charming as Henry Tilney, and though deprived of some of JA's better lines from the novel, conveys those he has with just the right passion for a romantic hero. And the heroine, played wonderfully by Katharine Schlesinger, is just as the novel imagined, innocent and eager to greet the world, all wide eyes and innocence. The supporting cast is also fine, especially Googie Withers as Mrs. Allen, and the Thorpe siblings. Other high points are the lush and colorful costumes, and the vivid and romantic setting. All the opulence of dress from the 1790's, the novel's timeframe, is preserved, including piles of curls on the head, and garrish make-up. The Roman bath scene is a unique and interesting look at what one of the popular health spas of yesterday were like. And in spite of the inappropriateness of substituting a castle for an abbey, who wouldn't want to be a guest in one like this, or think it a likely place for adventure and romance for the heroine of a Gothic tale, which Catherine Morland so wants to be? There have been just complaints about this film. The soundtrack is a departure from the JA film norm, and takes some getting used to. John Thorpe is a leering villian, instead of a bumbling fool, as in the novel. The Gothic daydream scenes are sometimes jarring and even disturbing, different from the novel's lighter, satirical tone. But overall these little quirks, along with others, seem to work, within the peculiar context of the film's truncated, but still Gothic and romantic, world. Even the Marchioness's strange appearance adds a pinch of dream flavor to this Gothic soup. This film is probably best viewed as its own entity, and not as an adaptation of the novel. For JA fans, a more faithful version is needed (please!) but this has strong parts enough for occasional viewing as a curiosity (or just to give the Pride and Prejudice dvd a rest)! Like the Gothic romance novels of Mrs. Radcliffe, which this film in part satirizes, it should be enjoyed by quick consumption, and like that list of laundry bills in a mysterious, old trunk, not too seriously.
Rating: 
Summary: A different feel from the book
Review: I acknowledge that good films don't have to follow their original scripts exactly, but this one was lacking in the spirit Jane Austen wrote it in. The characters of General Tilney and Catherine Morland are preserved, but Catherine has strange and bloody fantasies that don't match up with her character in the novel. The saxophone that's wailing as you watch the pastoral English scenery makes you cringe, and the creepy soundtrack is better fitting for a horror movie. Eleanor Tilney acts at once assertive and submissive, unlike her original whose timidity and obedience helped show the depth of the general's control. And the marchioness with the Kiss makeup and the boy doing cartwheels were not created by Austen and came out of left field. More than anything, the gory and creepy feel doesn't match up with the lighthearted satirical tone of the novel, thereby missing the point of the story. The ending seems to fit into the type of out-there romantic and gothic writing that Austen intended to make fun of. Let's hope a better version is made someday.
|
