MovieChat Forums > Love & Friendship (2016) Discussion > I realize I am not the target audience.....

I realize I am not the target audience...but I hated it...

posted 9 years ago by nunchux
39 replies | jump to latest

I'm fairly certain if you are a fan of Jane Austen, then you will enjoy this, but it only reinforced my dislike of this genre rather than surprised me.

I feel like it works better as a comedy than a drama because all of the characters are one-dimensional. They are the same people at the beginning of the film as they are at the end...

While there were a few women laughing hysterically, most of the theater was silent, so I'm not sure how effective a comedy it is. Comedy depends a lot on relating to the characters. Turning to your friend and saying, "that's so funny because it's true". The "truth" comes from relating to their experience, and I do not relate to these characters at all.

This is just my personal opinion. I'm happy for those who did enjoy it.

[–] Julie-30 9 years ago

But it's not supposed to be a drama. Whoever said it is has obviously never read the book it's based on. The book is very funny.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] randommovies2002 9 years ago

It's a comedy of manners, not a romcom.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Julie-30 9 years ago

Read the book. Lady Susan never changes. As Random says, it's a comedy of manners, not a romcon or some sort of drama filled with meaning. It's pure entertainment.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] SpyderMama 9 years ago

LOL, I go to movies all the time by myself! I prefer to go during the week at the earliest time. It nice- no crowds, in and out fast, and the best part for me-best seat in the house always! Even when I was working 3- 11 pm nursing shifts, I would sometimes to a movie before my shift started. I hate going on the weekends, matinee or evening-always too many peeps (talking, cell phone light, etc. Funny the little kids dont bother me- its the adults who know better that bug me LOL) I do go on the weekends if family or friends want to see the same movie as much as I do though- because I enjoy spending time with them.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Julie-30 9 years ago

Only the first book features a poor girl. The other three books in the series have heroines who have pots of money. Two of them are American (and that put them at a disadvantage) and the 4th heroine is painfully shy and she stutters. I'm not sure how you got the idea that all 4 Wallflowers are poor.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Julie-30 9 years ago

A wallflower is a girl whom no one asks to dance at a ball. She's sitting up against the wall. She can be shy or just quiet and reserved, or even unattractive. But the term has zippo to do with whether or not she has money. As Casey Stengel used to say, you can look it up. :-)

I love that series. I've read every book multiple times. There is also a sort of prequel involving Marcus's sister (Again the Magic), as well as a 5th book called "A Wallflower Christmas" featuring Lillian and Daisy's brother.

You may also like Julia Quinn's Bridgerton series. So. Much. Fun.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

Actually the word wallflower simply means 'a lady who spend the whole evening sitting by the wall instead of dancing', for whatever reason. It might be because she doesn't want to dance, or it might be because nobody is asking her to. And of course there are any number of possible reasons nobody is asking her. She could be ugly or unfashionable; she could be an outsider who nobody knows; she could on the contrary have such a bad reputation nobody wants to be seen dancing with her; she could just be so penniless that no man is interested in paying court to her.

That's what the word means, and has meant since at least 1820.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Htos_Drol 9 years ago

Saw it today in a theater with about 15 other patrons. A few audible group laughs. The lady who sat one seat away from me literally chuckled after every line. (and chit-chatted with her husband during most of the film)

How do they find me and why do they always sit next to me?

[–] Julie-30 9 years ago

I saw it last Monday in LA at the Landmark Theater. About 1/3 of the way through 4 or 5 older ladies came in and were talking in their outside voices. They whined that they couldn't see when they were climbing over us to get to their seats. I looked up and said "if you'd gotten here on time, you wouldn't have to worry about it being so dark."

And then she had the nerve to whine to her friends that I had been rude to her. And, of course, they stage-whispered through the entire thing. It turns out that they walked into the wrong theater -- this was the 11:55 a.m. show and they'd wanted the 12-something show. The room number is printed plainly on the tickets. I cannot see how they and/or the usher messed this one up.

I've said it a zillion times -- old people (and this is coming from someone who is pushing 60) are worse than children. Children need to be taught to be polite. Old people should already know how.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] Htos_Drol 9 years ago

Good observation. I, too, have noticed that older folks (senior citizens) tend to talk more in the theater than others. I usually go to a matinee on Sunday mornings and cross paths with several other regulars. One senior couple seems unable to hear the dialogue, so they keep asking each other, 'What did he say'? Of course, when they're trying to figure it out, they miss the next line, the line after that, and so on... Another senior couple always tries to guess the plot before it unfolds, while a third couple seems to feel the need to narrate the story as it goes along. Of course, these all occur near me in their outside voices. grrr

Perhaps it's because that's how they carry on at home and are oblivious that they do it in public?

[–] Julie-30 9 years ago

Movie prices aren't cheap and they keep going up. And I'm just sick and tired of paying to listen to their conversations.

They need no-talking sections in movie theaters. Either that, or special screening times for subtitled versions of movies.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] randommovies2002 9 years ago

Young people are on their phones throughout the entire film. I can't stand the distraction of the lights. It's just as rude as talking, imo. And I encounter plenty of young people talking. It's just that they're not usually at the art house cinema, so the old folks talking really stand out.

[–] SceneIt22 9 years ago

I enjoyed it and laughed quite a bit throughout the film. Some of the dialogue was pretty clever!

[–] workbumpf 9 years ago

I loved it. More surprisingly my husband loved it. Kate B was great. She really deserves to get better roles.

[–] modica 9 years ago

Not sure why the OP saw this in the first place. A jock and a bimbo sat behind me in the theater. They left during the middle. Not sure what they were doing there in the first place.

[–] Htos_Drol 9 years ago

A jock and a bimbo sat behind me in the theater.

Strange you should mention that. There was this musclebound guy who was by himself in my showing. The interesting thing about him was that the theater has assigned seating, and he kept getting 'bumped' out of his seat by actual ticket holders. So it was obvious he didn't have a ticket. He stayed for the show, so I am assuming he liked it. Maybe Jane Austen appeals to the body-builder demographic?

[–] randommovies2002 9 years ago

Maybe he was cruising.

[–] nunchux 9 years ago

So inference is that I am a jock/bimbo? Ad hominem attacks because I have a different point of view?

Look. The target audience is obviously female and Jane Austin fans. I am neither of these things, but that doesn't make me unintelligent or unable to understand.

I didn't find it remotely funny and yes, humour is subjective but it also comes from relatability. I tried, but couldn't relate to any of the caricatures (I would call them "characters" but they are very thinly developed and this is why it doesn't work as a drama either). I didn't believe anything I was watching.

[–] MarcoPalo 9 years ago

Well, I'm a 60 year old male and I was bored with it from start to finish. I heard Whit Stillman (director/screenwriter) in a radio interview yesterday and he said that he wanted it to focus on the comedy of the book and not the love story. So I went thinking that it would be like Much Ado About Nothing, or The Importance of Being Ernest or some other stories where all of the characters are loveable rogues, scheming and bickering but all drawn to each other just the same. It wasn't even close.

The only comedy in this story was the dryly delivered lines from Lady Vernon. And since I didn't like her I wasn't inclined to laugh with her. None of the others characters were funny, and Xavier's Reginald De Coursey was so dull that you never felt that he actually cared for Lady Vernon, so I couldn't believe the storyline that he was. It also lacked relationship development between the characters so you could believe the subplots. Stephen Fry, who can be hysterical with his dry humor, was hardly used and totally wasted in this movie. And Chloë Sevigny did the worst job of acting.

All in all, to those who haven't seen it, it's too late for me, save yourself.

[–] Htos_Drol 9 years ago

I agree that Chloë Sevigny was horrible choice in casting.

Lady Vernon did have some dry humor that made the audience chuckle, and I thought Sir James Martin was a riot.

[–] Julie-30 9 years ago

Nitpick alert!

She's not Lady Vernon. She's Lady Susan Vernon. There is a big difference.

Someone named Lady Vernon married a man with a title. Someone named Lady Susan Vernon is the daughter of an Earl, a Marquess or a Duke. Having her be the daughter of the upper aristocracy and now destitute is part of what makes this story tick. Why in the world is the daughter of an Earl, a Marquess or a Duke so poor? Did her family disown her? Did her father lose all his money? Did her father die without heirs and lose the title to another branch of the family whose head didn't want to take care of her? All sorts of possibilities!

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] nunchux 9 years ago

Completely agree.

[–] Tommen_Forever 8 years ago

So I went thinking that it would be like Much Ado About Nothing, or The Importance of Being Ernest or some other stories where all of the characters are loveable rogues, scheming and bickering but all drawn to each other just the same. It wasn't even close.

You were expecting something that you shouldn't have been expecting, and you'd have known that if you knew anything about the story.

I agree that Sevigny was horribly miscast though. She felt completely out of place in an ensemble of classically-trained British performers. She couldn't keep up at all.

-------------
Life doesn't imitate art, it imitates bad television

[–] clockworkcherry 9 years ago

I'm a fan of Jane Austen and I didn't like it...

[–] pbc-9 8 years ago

I am a fan of Jane Austen and was not impressed.

[–] pshafer-87322 8 years ago

I am the target audience, and I hated it. It was poorly written and poorly acted out. They butchered Lady Susan. The comedy wasn't in line with the usual wit I wold expect from a derivative of Jane Austen's work. The story is barely there. I guess if you like women quipping back and forth nonstop, you might like it. Maybe Sex and the City fans would like this? I'm really not sure what they were trying for. I love Jane Austen and generally really like the period drama genre too, so I went in ready to love it and was so disappointed.

[–] cyclgrrl 8 years ago

I do like Jane Austen (though I haven't read everything). I did not read the book.

Can you be more specific about what was present in the book that was absent in the movie?

Thanks!

[–] mezobromelia 8 years ago

OK

Tough luck, chinless