MovieChat Forums > Northanger Abbey (2008) Discussion > Does anyone else think this film is awfu...

Does anyone else think this film is awful?

posted 18 years ago by Ireth_h
82 replies | jump to latest

This is some 18th century version of a soap opera, not Jane Austen. And like in some kind of storytelling-at-speed contest. The film is merely a (pretty exaggerated) summary of the book, and not a film in itself. This is ridiculous!!!
They shouldn't try and make a film if there's no concept behind it. And if the concept is meant to be trying to keep to the book (as I get it, this is the case), than they obviously haven't understood it. You should read the book and compare the two. In my opinion, the very essence is missing. And quite annoying, too...

[–] acesodapop 17 years ago

honestly, i thought it was kind of adorable ahaha, i did northanger abbey for an english presentation in 10th grade and it brings back weirdly fond memories of a book that i didn't actually like terribly much at that age!

the actress who played catherine was terribly pretty, but at least they got that she was PLAINLY pretty rather than, uh, gorgeous? i guess. she was really cute in any case, and i liked her chemistry with mr. tilney, who was A STONE COLD FOX. with sexy big ears. (i don't know i have weird taste leave me alone)

the gothic scenes were ridiculous and camp and i loved them, i er didn't quite get the apparently obvious sexual overtones to the scenes that everyone has got but that may be because i'm completely oblivious to that kind of stuff. i wouldn't go so far to say that catherine was having an almost-orgasm, i mean!! she was just really, really excited! (??)

john thorpe was SUCH A CREEPING CREEPSTER god. literally, every time he came on screen i shouted "aughh HE'S SUCH A CREEPER" and my family looked at me strangely.

i loved it! i am very well going to imagine JJ feild as mr. tilney in my mind from now on, and probably felicity jones too. and the guy who played john thorpe as well, unfortunately, because i am going to have nightmares about that man leering at me for the next few weeks. aughh

HOBO REVOLUTION

[–] 1980sGirl 15 years ago

I totally agree acesodapop!!!

I read the book long before seeing any screen adaptations...I saw the 1987 version 1st and it was pretty good....but I loved this one, even though it was shorter and rushed, it was beautiful and very well-acted and charming!

[–] randommovies2002 15 years ago

er didn't quite get the apparently obvious sexual overtones to the scenes that everyone has got but that may be because i'm completely oblivious to that kind of stuff. i wouldn't go so far to say that catherine was having an almost-orgasm, i mean!! she was just really, really excited! (??)

I'm guessing you watched this on PBS or on US dvd region 1. The scene being referred to was cut from the US PBS broadcast, and does not appear on the US dvd. It's not the only scene cut--one of the sweetest scenes (apple-picking) was also cut from the broadcast!

I think you can still watch the full film, without cuts, on youtube (in segments).

[–] iamweaver 15 years ago

I actually got a nice giggle when I saw the cut scene. Catherine's sexual naivete was really well played in that scene, I think.

Mr. Tilney had *much* more control than any man I know (certainly including me :) ).

[–] randommovies2002 15 years ago

LOL!

[–] plopez_13 17 years ago

Yes! Somebody agrees with me!!!

I really didn't like it at all

1. Bad script! ALL of my favorite lines were cut out. For what? To make space for Catherine's "imaginations" Also, they focused way too much on the sex and not much at all on the parody.

2. THE "imaginations" I hated all her orgasms and sex dreams. I mean, that is exactly the reason why I like Jane Austen. Because she shows stuff like it is, it isn't like all those other cheap romance novels which are like 70% sex and 30% sexual thoughts which you buy for like $5 dollars at Wal-Mart.

3. The actors. Yes, they were all good looking, but they all looked lame. Every scene, they looked like they were bored. 80% of the time, the actors were expressionless.

4. The font at the beginning of the adaptation was too thing, and blue?! I thought I was watching a fan-video, not an adaptation.

5. General directing. I saw too many things the director tried to copy from the 2005 P&P. I mean, the women wearing white dresses, the men in black. The filtering of the scenery to make it really bright during the day and dark and blue during the night, etc. etc.

6. Screen time. It was short enough as it is, and all those "imaginations" made it even worse. They just took up WAY too much space.

Yes, I think they should make a new adaptation by 2010. But a film adaptation that would be made by anyone except Andrew Davies. I hate all his adaptations. I feel like I'm not watching Austen, but rather some dirty fan fiction.

When will you suppose you will leave ME behind? - TW JG

[–] Julytwelve 17 years ago

point #5. I thought it was tradition at the time for all unmarried maids to wear white at dances.

[–] Unwanted_Birdtamer 17 years ago

Not necessarily. White, because of the care needed to retain the color, and also because of the intensive embroidery and handwork that went into most of the gowns, was a sign of social status. White was worn more in the evening than during the day--kind of the equivalent of modern black cocktail dresses. So it wasn't to do with one's marital status whether or not one wore white, but the fashionable and elite.

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.

[–] Mandyjam 17 years ago

High quality white muslin was definitely a status symmbol, but even so, it was particularly the choice for a young unmarried woman, rather than a wealthy matron, who might wear satin, in contrast to her daughters.

"great minds think differently"

[–] lemis89 17 years ago

Yeah this version was too hasty in my opinion...but what do you do with such a dashing Mr Tilney? hahah!

[–] soo-soo 16 years ago

I loved watching this ( confession: mostly because of the gorgeous JJ Feild), but it did drive me to go and reread the book and I came to some suprising, to me, conclusions in that I thought some of the changes were for the better (forgive me, Miss Austen), in terms of narrative for a fimed version:

1. the motivations of General Tilney were a lot clearer both in his encouragement and then his dismissal of Catherine,
2.Captain Tilney's character was a bit wishy-washy in the book and having him as an out and out cad worked better,
3. the Gothic dream sequences were wonderful in showing how these shocking novels had influenced Catherine's mind
4. Elenor's secret suitor is indirectly introduced during the country walk in the woods, rather that at the end. Makes much more sense of Elenor's position.

Andrew Davies is great on structure and extracting the essence of character but it's a pity when he goes over the top with some of the sexual energy - the charm of these period dramas is the excitement of repressed sexual tension built from a glance or a well timed ambiguous remark. When it is just impossible for the time (Isabelle throwing away her only commodity for advancement, her virtue and reputation , when she goes to bed with Captain Tilney) it is just so preposterous that it is clunky and interupts the flow. An

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rizdek 16 years ago

No, not awful at all. There are aspects of the 86 version I like better, but I liked Felicity Jones portrayal of Catherine and Sylvestra Le Touzel as Mrs Allen. I liked the proposal at the end better, but not a lot better. Basically, I like both version equally well.

my god its full of stars

[–] randommovies2002 16 years ago

That's about how I feel, although I will say that there are fewer things to really hate in this version than in the other version. The music, the marchionesse, the cartwheels, some of teh acting bother me more in 1986 than the addition of The Monk, not shooting on location in Bath, and the sexualization of Catherine bother me in this version. I guess the later version's faults are easier for me to ignore (since I can fast forward them more easily than I can get rid of teh music in 1986!).

[–] Julie-30 16 years ago

I've still never seen the Peter Firth version, so I feel comfortable talking about how much I disliked this one.

[–] scaragh 16 years ago

I quite enjoyed this adaptation. This was actually my first introduction to Northanger Abbey, though, and I was lucky enough to watch the full-length British release before I saw the cut American version.

So I cant really compare to previous Northanger Abbey versions, but I must say this one made me fall in love with the story, and I can't wait to start reading it after I finish "Emma". I figured there would be quite a few differences between movie and book, simply based on the fact that this was so different from other Austen novels and adaptations I've come across. There was much more sexiness, and Thorpe did say damn quite a bit, which caught my attention (though I looked it up in the book, and he does say it, just not as much).

But this one was quite fun, and even though it was short, it's quick pace worked well with that. I thought the actors were wonderful, particularly JJ Feild, who was charming and oh so amusing. William Beck was also wonderfully creepy (so creepy!) as John Thorpe, although I'm prejudiced as I loved him in BBC's Robin Hood first.

My opinion may change when I read the book, and I do hope they can finally do a long version someday, but film adaptations obviously means someone has taken liberties with a story, and in this case, it turned out wonderfully.

[–] rizdek 16 years ago

I know I already commented, but I do wish someone would make another longer version to capture all the elements of the book. Also, It would balance out the other JA stories, of which I have 3 movie versions each...except I have 4 P&P versions.

and now (July 2012) I have 4 versions of Emma. Maybe NA will catch up.

my god its full of stars

[–] jelloinmybelly 15 years ago

Only version of this book I have seen so I can only base it on how the many other versions of JA movies which I think it was pretty well done.

Just because I rock doesn't mean I'm made of stone