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...

[–] pamjp 15 years ago

Nah, I love it. I actually DO think it captures the original spirit of the book which like many fans of "the Old Jackass" (oh please, people, JA's words, not mine), I've read dozens of times. The humor is subtle, as in the novel, and the score is wonderful. I thought this Catharine was truly perfect, innocent and gullible but only because of her age - and as she matures, becomes a woman of good sense like her parents.

Henry Tilney is a bit too good looking perhaps, but I'm willing to forgive him. :)

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] christeline1 15 years ago

Nope. Thought it was awesome!

Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[–] andypaul_gill 13 years ago

Watched this for the first time last night having seen multiple versions of the other five novels and read the books. Northanger is the only one where I hadn't read it or seen it before.

Have to say I didn't enjoy it very much. Everything seemed way too obvious and flagged up - Mr. Thorpe would be a cad after money, Miss. Thorpe would have a dalliance with Captain Tilney, General Tilney invited her to the Abbey because he thought she was rich - there were no surprises and no suspene. I don't know if it was that explicit in the book, or if Davies thought he needed to spell it out, but it didn't have the subtlety of other Austen adaptations.

Secondly, I thought the acting was really good throughout but for one exception - the main character, Catherine. She seemed really modern, her facial experessions over the top, and for a character who I'm guessing was meant to be rather silly, at times she looked too sharp and knowing rather than naive. Comparing her to Charity Wakefield in S&S or Julia Salwalha in P&P - even Kate Beckinsale in Emma - all of whom played naive, romantic, 'silly' girls, they seemed to fit in with the other actors around them while the girl playing Catherine unfortunately stood out like a sore thumb. But that's just my opinion and it seems many liked her in the role. Perhaps it was because, having seen her in Chalet Girls, to me she brought baggage with her.

[–] greenegg 12 years ago

Ovation is showing the 2007 version again, and I still detest it. Felicity Jones can't act her way out of a paper bag, and will someone please get the girl to an orthodontist, asap? Watching those enormous beaver teeth protruding from her horsey mouth proved profoundly irritating. I've never been a fan of the open-mouthed school of acting. Several of the actors seemed equally afflicted. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I find people who cannot close their mouths distracting. That is one of the many reasons I cannot sit through any Julia Roberts film, aside from the fact I find her acting atrocious, too. In the age of Invisalign, there is simply no excuse for people to walk around that way. Again, I found the pace ridiculous, as though people were engaging in a contest to see who could mouth their lines the fastest.

Despite its few flaws, the 1986 version still outdoes this Andrew Davies mess.

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!

[–] TheInbetweener 12 years ago

Absolutely. And I think the worst thing about it is Felicity Jones. Never has there been such an unsuitable Austen heroine since Billie Piper in Mansfield Park. She's this insipid, chattering little fool - she looks ridiculous and about 12 years old with the squirrely cheeks, and this petulant high-pitched voice. They should have cast Carey Mulligan as her! Entirely different film if they had. Felicity Jones had no subtlety and nuance, none of the refinement that you expect from, if not a level-headed then at least a well-bred and engaging woman. It was insufferable, and not even JJ Feilds could make it less vapid and ridiculous.

Compare her performance to Charity Wakefield's and Hattie Morahan's in 2008's Sense and Sensibility - passionate, elegant and complex performances. What went wrong with this casting?

[–] Ilario1 11 years ago

I love this movie and I love Felicity Jones in this role.

"What happens to a dream deferred?"

[–] rizdek 11 years ago

Wow! Me too. I liked Katherine as Catherine, but Felicity is better. I believed she was who she was playing.

[–] WaterlooBridge 10 years ago

Uh no. I enjoyed it very much. The tone of the movie was light, just like the novel. If anything the movie was more heavier than the book. Its a wonderful film.

[–] obliviousblues 10 years ago

Out of the three films to come out of ITV's 2007 Austen season (Northanger Abbey, Mansfield Park, and Persuasion), Northanger Abbey is easily the best. Between Billie Piper's obviously bottle blonde hair flying out behind her whenever she was running around and the huge chunks of novel missing, Mansfield Park was much, much worse (Hayley Atwell and Blake Ritson are the only two reasons you should watch that adaptation). I don't think P&P05 is a great adaptation (Lizzy as a tomboy? Shifting the time period to the late 1700s? Rosamund's Jane and Keira's Lizzy acting so very modern?) but it has some beautiful cinematography and great moments in there.

Novels and films are two different mediums, you never going to be able to translate one to the other perfectly. Despite the fact that all three aren't really Austen's work, they do have their merits.

[–] Tomatish 10 years ago

I did not expect much better from Andrew Davies, but I was rather surprised he deleted the part were Catherine stands up to John Thorpe when he changed her plans with the Tilneys for her. It is so essential for the character in my opinion. Before it, Catherine was just the silly girl who reads too many novels. After it, she became the girl who believes everyone is essentially good but when faced with wrongdoing, she (for the lack of a better word) kicks ass.

Btw, did any one else cringe at "a man on a white horse"?

Sometimes I wonder if Davies just thinks of Austen as chick lit.