There are many imaginative, passionate, first-rate Austen adaptations out there. The production values on this film just don't measure up. Somehow the costumes, lighting, sets and direction never gel to create the kind of "entering another world" experience that the viewer craves.
Anne Hathaway is a very lovely woman, but she is no Jane Austen. Hathaway is not only not believable as Jane Austen, she is not believable as a writer. She just does not convey the cerebral, verbally-obsessed nature of a writer.
Her body language is all wrong. Watching Hathaway pose, slump, and gesture like a twenty-first century American girl reminds the viewer how well notable stars of previous, well-done Austen adaptations, like Amanda Root, Jennifer Ehle, and Emma Thompson used their bodies in conveying the corporeal realities of nineteenth century feminine life.
James McAvoy is a very charismatic new star, and I try to see every movie featuring him that I can, but he just never works here, at least partly because the movie is based roughly on Austen's real life, so his character is written to ultimately disappoint both the audience and Jane, but also because he and Hathaway have no chemistry.
The movie's greatest flub is Mr. Wisley. As discussion boards show, viewers liked Mr. Wisley, and for good reason. The movie is supposed to want us to applaud how it deals with Mr. Wisley, and we don't.
Given that the movie is based on a real person's autobiography, it paints itself into corner, and the resolution we would like to see, we can't. Jane treats Mr. Wisley poorly, and gives no sign that she appreciates his depths, because he is superficially lacking in charm and grace. Would the real Jane Austen have been so blind? It's hard to respect the Jane Austen in this film who can't see Mr. Wisley's true value, but who chases after a man who can never make her happy.
Anna Maxwell Martin, who was so good in "North and South," is very fine as Cassandra, Jane's older sister. James Cromwell, as Jane's father, is as excellent as he always is. Julie Walters is both lovable and believable as Jane's mother.
Anne Hathaway is a very lovely woman, but she is no Jane Austen. Hathaway is not only not believable as Jane Austen, she is not believable as a writer. She just does not convey the cerebral, verbally-obsessed nature of a writer.
Her body language is all wrong. Watching Hathaway pose, slump, and gesture like a twenty-first century American girl reminds the viewer how well notable stars of previous, well-done Austen adaptations, like Amanda Root, Jennifer Ehle, and Emma Thompson used their bodies in conveying the corporeal realities of nineteenth century feminine life.
James McAvoy is a very charismatic new star, and I try to see every movie featuring him that I can, but he just never works here, at least partly because the movie is based roughly on Austen's real life, so his character is written to ultimately disappoint both the audience and Jane, but also because he and Hathaway have no chemistry.
The movie's greatest flub is Mr. Wisley. As discussion boards show, viewers liked Mr. Wisley, and for good reason. The movie is supposed to want us to applaud how it deals with Mr. Wisley, and we don't.
Given that the movie is based on a real person's autobiography, it paints itself into corner, and the resolution we would like to see, we can't. Jane treats Mr. Wisley poorly, and gives no sign that she appreciates his depths, because he is superficially lacking in charm and grace. Would the real Jane Austen have been so blind? It's hard to respect the Jane Austen in this film who can't see Mr. Wisley's true value, but who chases after a man who can never make her happy.
Anna Maxwell Martin, who was so good in "North and South," is very fine as Cassandra, Jane's older sister. James Cromwell, as Jane's father, is as excellent as he always is. Julie Walters is both lovable and believable as Jane's mother.