Altogether a decent adaptation of Northanger Abbey, but not the best. A few quibbling details took away some of my enjoyment but on the whole, it was good hour-and-a-half of literary fun and looks to be better than next week's Mansfield Park.
Pros: 1. It was well-cast.
JJ Feild was, appearance-wise, pitch-perfect as my beloved Henry Tilney. He looks just as Jane Austen described him: dark haired, tall, though he stooped a bit much for one whose "address was good." Also, he was pleasing to the eye without being jaw-droppingly handsome. I liked his voice very much -- it was similar in pitch actually to Mark Dymond's, which seemed to indicate kinship, to me, anyway. On his interpretation, it may have been a bit too morose at times for my conception of Henry -- he always struck me as buoyantly confident -- but while I generally see Henry as a bit zanier, I rather liked Feild's more deadpan spin.
Felicity Jones also was a good bit of casting. She looked like Catherine Morland as I imagined her -- freshly pretty without being overwhelmingly so -- and I liked very much her Catherine. She was innocent without being irritatingly saccharine, and I found her transition as believable as it possibly could be in the compressed amount of time.
Mark Dymond was very dashing as Frederick Tilney, Carey Mulligan and Catherine Walker as Isabella and Eleanor played their contrasting parts astonishingly well, Sylvestra La Touzel was amusingly shallow, and William Beck was appropriately boorish and stupid. Good.
2. The good parts of the dream sequences. I liked the illumination of Catherine's fantasies, although I really would have liked to hear more of the witty dialogue between Catherine and Henry and a scene at Woodston more along the lines of the book. We fall in love with Pemberley and Darcy, with Donwell Abbey and Knightley; I really wanted to see Henry in his native environment.
3. Dancing and women's costumes. Very nicely done. Catherine's dresses were appropriately simple for her character, Eleanor's were rich yet modest, and Isabella's were characteristically flamboyant. As for the dancing, heck, it adds some movement to the Bath scenes.
4. The fact they mostly managed to stick to the tone of the book. Mostly.
Cons: 1. The unneeded sexual references. While not particularly gratuitous -- except for that rather un-Austen-like scene with Isabella and Frederick at the end -- I found them more distracting than anything.
2. The cut of the dialogue. The best parts were the dialogue; the best part of ANY Jane Austen book is often the dialogue. Why cut a good thing? I was totally looking forward to some Henryesque sarcastic monologues.
3. Northanger Abbey. It was SUPPOSED to be modern and pleasant in contrast to Catherine's suppositions. So when I saw dark, creepy interiors, it fell flat for me.
4. The characterization of General Tilney. While he is an unpleasant, greedy man, he was not evil; he accepted Henry and Catherine in the end for goodness' sake. Instead, they made him a one-dimensional, metaphorical "vampire" and more a villain along the lines of what Catherine imagined instead of the "realistic" antagonist he was.
5. The compression of the ending. It moved too swiftly, and I found Henry's proposal a little odd and halting -- since Henry is older than Catherine, I would expect him to be more, I don't know exactly, suave? or maybe I'm being unrealistic. The kiss was awkward, but it sort of worked in its awkwardness.
In essence, certain flaws -- the after-sex scene with Isabella and Frederick, the characterization of General Tilney, the occasional unevenness of Henry's portrayal, the references to Byron, etc. -- occasionally teeter the movie slightly into the direction of the melodrama it ISN'T supposed to be, but mostly it succeeds. And heck, I enjoyed myself somewhat, though I suspect Jane probably rolled in her grave a couple of times.
Pros: 1. It was well-cast.
JJ Feild was, appearance-wise, pitch-perfect as my beloved Henry Tilney. He looks just as Jane Austen described him: dark haired, tall, though he stooped a bit much for one whose "address was good." Also, he was pleasing to the eye without being jaw-droppingly handsome. I liked his voice very much -- it was similar in pitch actually to Mark Dymond's, which seemed to indicate kinship, to me, anyway. On his interpretation, it may have been a bit too morose at times for my conception of Henry -- he always struck me as buoyantly confident -- but while I generally see Henry as a bit zanier, I rather liked Feild's more deadpan spin.
Felicity Jones also was a good bit of casting. She looked like Catherine Morland as I imagined her -- freshly pretty without being overwhelmingly so -- and I liked very much her Catherine. She was innocent without being irritatingly saccharine, and I found her transition as believable as it possibly could be in the compressed amount of time.
Mark Dymond was very dashing as Frederick Tilney, Carey Mulligan and Catherine Walker as Isabella and Eleanor played their contrasting parts astonishingly well, Sylvestra La Touzel was amusingly shallow, and William Beck was appropriately boorish and stupid. Good.
2. The good parts of the dream sequences. I liked the illumination of Catherine's fantasies, although I really would have liked to hear more of the witty dialogue between Catherine and Henry and a scene at Woodston more along the lines of the book. We fall in love with Pemberley and Darcy, with Donwell Abbey and Knightley; I really wanted to see Henry in his native environment.
3. Dancing and women's costumes. Very nicely done. Catherine's dresses were appropriately simple for her character, Eleanor's were rich yet modest, and Isabella's were characteristically flamboyant. As for the dancing, heck, it adds some movement to the Bath scenes.
4. The fact they mostly managed to stick to the tone of the book. Mostly.
Cons: 1. The unneeded sexual references. While not particularly gratuitous -- except for that rather un-Austen-like scene with Isabella and Frederick at the end -- I found them more distracting than anything.
2. The cut of the dialogue. The best parts were the dialogue; the best part of ANY Jane Austen book is often the dialogue. Why cut a good thing? I was totally looking forward to some Henryesque sarcastic monologues.
3. Northanger Abbey. It was SUPPOSED to be modern and pleasant in contrast to Catherine's suppositions. So when I saw dark, creepy interiors, it fell flat for me.
4. The characterization of General Tilney. While he is an unpleasant, greedy man, he was not evil; he accepted Henry and Catherine in the end for goodness' sake. Instead, they made him a one-dimensional, metaphorical "vampire" and more a villain along the lines of what Catherine imagined instead of the "realistic" antagonist he was.
5. The compression of the ending. It moved too swiftly, and I found Henry's proposal a little odd and halting -- since Henry is older than Catherine, I would expect him to be more, I don't know exactly, suave? or maybe I'm being unrealistic. The kiss was awkward, but it sort of worked in its awkwardness.
In essence, certain flaws -- the after-sex scene with Isabella and Frederick, the characterization of General Tilney, the occasional unevenness of Henry's portrayal, the references to Byron, etc. -- occasionally teeter the movie slightly into the direction of the melodrama it ISN'T supposed to be, but mostly it succeeds. And heck, I enjoyed myself somewhat, though I suspect Jane probably rolled in her grave a couple of times.