The Jane Austen Book Club (2007) User Reviews

Delicious

[david-beukes · 8/10 · 12 December 2007]

I like movies with spaceships in, preferably exploding at some point. Also shooting, sword fighting and violent death. Oh, and car chases. And if I can't have the above, then can there at least be some explicit sex please?

And yet I loved this movie.

I loved the nerdiness, I loved the intimacy, I loved watching it unfold exactly as you know it's going to. And the chemistry between Hugh Dancy and the gorgeous Maria Bello crackles off the screen.

I know, I know, you could level this movie without much effort. You wouldn't even need that big of a stick. But you find yourself not caring.

This film is pure pleasure, start to finish. I gladly relinquish one of my Man cards for saying that. I'm off to watch something with guns in to compensate, though.

One half the world does not understand the pleasures of the other....

[surreyhill · 8/10 · 25 September 2007]

Let's get one thing out of the way, first. This IS largely a chick-flick, although many men who go to see it are likely to get caught up in at least one of the subplots. The litmus test is Love, Actually--if you enjoyed that movie, and are a man, I imagine you'll like this one as well. There are several attractive females, some lesbian domestic affection scenes handled with remarkable matter-of-factness, and the film (and novel) handles the male characters gently and with love.

But it is a movie that with primary appeal to two groups--chicks and Jane Austen devotees, including the male ones. Are there enough of these to make a movie a success? Yes, there are.

Jane Austen's work stays current because she wrote about timeless themes--how do you choose the best person to marry? Is love enough, or even required for lifelong contentment? How do you deal with difficult or embarrassing family members? How best to handle a family crisis? How do you learn to tell true friends and quality persons from those who are perhaps flashy and amusing, but will end up betraying your friendship and trust or, heaven forfend, tempting you to abandon your own principles? Whether you live in the age of Blackberries and Hybrid SUV's, or the age of sealing wax and barouches, every person comes smack up against many or most of these vexing problems throughout their lives.

The conceit of this movie and the book it is based upon is that a shared love and appreciation of the works of Jane Austen can provide the currency through the exchange of which modern women (and a few selected men) can confront, share, and come to better understand their personal challenges and in the process, form bonds of friendship or even romance. The strength of this movie is that even if you have a tough time with that conceit, you will still enjoy the humor of it, and the strong performances. It's pleasant to watch, like curling up with a favorite book and a frothy cup of chocolate. It is true to Jane—no explosions, the villains aren't completely evil, the primary problems of the characters stem from incomplete or willfully-faulty understanding of themselves and those around them, there is no melodrama or Gothic touches except of the parody sort, and the lone death happens off screen.

I have this weird little theory about why P&P is the MOST beloved of all of Austen's books. Sure, Darcy is a smoldering hunk of tightly-controlled passion and Lizzie is as spirited and intelligent a heroine as ever nanced through a foot of mud to get to the bedside of an ailing sister, but that's not it.

In all the other Austen pairings, you had a sense that they were pairings which would truly happen in real life because deep down we know nothing has really changed from Austen's day--women's beauty and youth and social standing is factored into a certain equation which determines how handsome, wealthy, charming, accomplished, or respected a man she is able to aspire to. In no case, other than P&P, does this basic equation get violated. Lady Catherine De Bourg had it right. A shocking match, indeed! The Lizzie/Darcy romance, therefore, is the lone Cinderella story, and don't give me Edmund and Fanny, as Edmund was a younger son most in need of a virtuous wife who wouldn't ever embarrass him and was never laid out as a man of wildly attractive appearance while virtuous Fanny's looks were improved enough to attract the flirtatious Henry Crawford.

So, we women, all of us, are madly in love with P&P precisely because it is the ultimate fantasy of this amazing guy who will love us JUST FOR OUR QUICK WIT, GOOD HEART, and FINE EYES. There are no Mr. Darcy's, just like there are no characters of the sort commonly played by John Cusack, so get over it, already. There is possibly a Mr. Rochester, but remember, he had a crazy wife locked in the attic, a creepy housekeeper, an insipid ward, a bit of a sarcastic streak, and was once played on screen by a pudgy Orson Wells. In other words, a lot of baggage. And he still wasn't able to be brought up to scratch by Plain Jane Eyre until his fine big house had been burned down, his eyes put out, and his arm messed up. Now THAT is reality.

It is true in real life that single dog breeders can, and do, meet nice men and fall in love and maybe even get married. It is also true that nice, handsome, heterosexual men join book clubs*.

But this movie serves up impossibly cute Hugh Dancy in the role of an implausibly unattached, adorably geeky Grigg Harris who loves reading, older women, and can dance gracefully despite being too clumsy to artfully sip a cocktail. The statistical probability of such an attractive and unspoiled man (one who admits he is willing to be "directed") like this joining your book club and then actually wanting to develop a romantic relationship with an unattached woman older than himself is approximately the same as seeing one of the Dragonriders of Pern barnstorming over an Iowa cornfield.

In the RL JABC, Grigg would be gay and Allegra would be straight and Bernadette would be queuing up for the Early Bird Special at Cracker Barrel. And your cheating ex-spouse, Jimmy Smits, ain't never coming back, and if he did, it would be after a series of weepy drunken whiny pathetic phone calls at 3am. There will be no "letter". This movie is a little bit cruel to imply otherwise.

But that's OK. The world would be a very unkind place without at least the notion of dragons and rocketships, Darcys and Griggs. And that is why we loved it.

*with wife.

Enjoyable to watch with a great ensemble cast

[wxgirl55 · 8/10 · 14 September 2007]

I saw this movie at the Toronto Int'l Film Festival and made a point of learning as little as possible about what it was about and who was in it. Such a refreshing way to be invited into a story.

Though this movie will never win an academy award and it's premise revolves around a well-known British author, this is a very "Hollywood" movie.

The ensemble cast is like a large-scale painting with each character portraying different colours and brush strokes. Their diversity brings perspective and depth to the story.

I loved Bernadette's (Kathy Baker) ballsy and ebullient pseudo-matriarchal figure; and I silently cheered for Jocelyn (Maria Bello) to break out of her disciplined and 'in-control' habits, but it was Emily Blunt's portrayal of Prudie that shone a light giving the sharpest and most emotional contrast of all. She, who steadfastly distanced herself from the social class she grew up in, and worked tirelessly to elevate herself "to the manor born", convinced herself, with her stylish bob, Chanel-esquire attire and fanciful forays into french phrasology, that she was beyond the mundane and ordinary. She convinced me she was both strong and fragile, and my heart broke along with hers. What a lovely performance.

This isn't high-brow film by any means. The audience's biggest challenge is listening for and extracting the many Austen quotes that get zipped and zinged throughout the film. We are ultimately drawn to watching the ever-changing relationships, like petri dishes being poked and provoked.

This movie will be enjoyable even for those unfamiliar with Jane Austen's novels. A visually appealing, emotionally satisfying, safe and somewhat predictable film. Most likely to be pegged as a chick flick because it's heavy on relationships. Guys' loss.

Delightful for Common Viewers, but Certainly Wonderful for Jane Austen's Fans

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 8 August 2012]

In California, the favorite dog of the lonely Jocelyn (Maria Bello) dies and she meets her best friends in the funeral: the six times divorced Bernadette (Kathy Baker); the housewife Sylvia (Amy Brenneman) and her lesbian daughter Allegra (Maggie Grace); and the young French teacher Prudie (Emily Blunt), whose mother is a dysfunctional woman.

When Sylvia's husband Daniel (Jimmy Smits) dumps her for a younger woman, Bernadette and Jocelyn organize a reading club of Jane Austen to distract her with Allegra and Prudie. Meanwhile the sci-fi fan Grigg (Hugh Dancy), who owns a software company and was raised with three sisters, flirts with Jocelyn and she invites him to join the club with the intention of introducing him to Sylvia. They plan to read and discuss the novels "Sense and Sensibility" (1811), "Pride and Prejudice" (1813), "Mansfield Park" (1814), "Emma (1816), "Northanger Abbey" (1818) and "Persuasion" (1818), one per month.

Meanwhile, Prudie's marriage with Dean (Marc Blucas) is in crisis and she flirts with the student Trey (Kevin Zegers). Aleggra falls in love for Corinne (Parisa Fitz-Henley) and tells her private life to her affair. But Jocelyn does not understand the feelings of Grigg. While reading the novels, their lives entwine with the characters of the writer, leading each one of them to find what is looking for in love.

"The Jane Austen Book Club" is a delightful film for common viewers, but certainly wonderful for Jane Austen's fans. The story about love, second chance and Jane Austen novels has one of the most pleasant and charismatic cast that I have ever seen, with very beautiful and charming mature and young actresses and great actors having top-notch performances. In the end, the film gives the desire of reading Jane Austen's novels. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Clube de Leitura de Jane Austen" ("The Jane Austen's Reading Club")

Getting in touch with my inner Austen.

[Blueghost · 11 October 2007]

An enjoyable film that, for the genre it's in, was not very predictable, and in this way was a very pleasant watch. I really wasn't sure what to expect. I figured with Jane Austen's named tagged onto it it'd be some kind of emotional film with lots of angst. Perhaps it might be a period piece. But this isn't what I got.

I have to admit that I've never cracked a Jane Austen novel, but had seen many a British import on PBS rendering Austen's works for the small screen. And I half expected a costume drama to unfold on the screen, but got something that was a little more cliché in one way, but very unique in another.

The film uses Austen's plots as set piece examples from which the characters learn, apply to their personal lives, and grow. I have to say that I saw some aspects of my own personal life ingrained in this film. One might call it art imitating life, imitating art, only to imitate life once more. As an audience member whose been through some unique experiences as of recent, I found it heart felt. But I digress.

The film is respectably shot. Warm lighting compliments respectable though average cinematography. But then again the film isn't about wowing the audience with stunning visuals. It's about presenting characters and how they relate to one of the great writers of all time and her works.

The humor revolves around the unexpected, as do the more tragic and hurtful points. But even here there's a sort of unpredictable-predictability that, because of its exuberance, can be accepted for what it is. The characters behave as expected, but are surprised with the audience when the unexpected pops up. We can sympathize with them and their situations. It's what might be called the ultimate in character empathy--Austen style.

And isn't that one of Austen's great hallmarks? Her ability to create characters one can believe and sympathize with on all levels? Austen's books are used to create a tapestry of themes to navigate the highs and woes of life. The film's irreverent narrative remains intelligent, adult, somewhat prosaic and marginally didactic, but highly enjoyable for the most part.

A respectable chick-flick. :-) Enjoy!

Not Just for Jane Austen Fans

[brenttraft · 7/10 · 5 October 2007]

I'm not a Jane Austen fan. I have not read any of the books and I have only seen two movies based on the books. However, I liked "The Jane Austen Book Club" more than either of those movies.

While it is not particularly realistic, the characters are interesting and likable, the acting is good, and it is not filled with violence and vulgarity, something that seems to be hard to find in the movie theater right now.

All the actors are good but Emily Blunt really stands out. She could end up being a big star. And who knew that Maggie Grace was a real actress and not just the bimbo she played on "Lost."

"The Jane Austen Fan Club" is not a masterpiece and you can probably wait for it to show up on video, but with the poor variety currently available in the theaters, it is the best thing out right now.

Book a showing of this very worthy film, you will not be disappointed

[inkblot11 · 8/10 · 11 October 2007]

Sylvia (Amy Brenneman) and her husband, Daniel (Jimmy Smits) have been married for a little over 20 years. But, one day, Daniel drops the big bombshells that he is seeing another woman and that he wants a divorce. Sylvia is heartbroken, so much so that her young, beautiful, lesbian daughter Allegra moves back home to keep an eye on her. Close friend, Jocelyn (Maria Bello) is also hovering over Sylvia and decides to create a book club so that the jilted lady will be surrounded by friends, conversation, and hope. Joining the club is a six-time divorcée (Kathy Baker), an uptight young French teacher, Prudie (Emily Blunt), and Allegra herself. But, because they decide the club will be devoted to Jane Austen and her six books, they need one more member to put someone in charge of each, distinct book discussion. Therefore, Jocelyn invites Grigg (Hugh Dancy), an attractive young man she met at a hotel bar, to join them. In truth, he has eyes for Jocelyn and, although a science fiction fan, would read almost anything to get to know her better. Thus, the discussions start, but the repartee is, at times, only a brief breather from the continuing problems of the club members. These troubles include death, near-infidelity, sky-diving crashes, crazy mothers, and more. Will the club work to the benefit of its members? This is a lovely film about the friends and relationships that make human existence bearable. As the bosom buddies, the movie's fine cast members are all quite wonderful, with Blunt, especially, still managing to make her flawed, confused character, endearing. The California setting is beautiful, naturally, and so are the costumes. Then, too, the script is lively and refined, echoing Austen's great books. Indeed, there is enough of Jane's novels worked into the film's content to satisfy the fans of her highly esteemed works. In short, book yourself a showing of this film and invited your friends to join you at the viewing. Forgive me, but you will "club yourself" if you don't!

Book-of-the-Month Club

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 17 July 2010]

Jane Austen, the English author, left a body of work that, to this day, seems unsurpassed by any other novelist of her time. She was not a prolific writer, and yet, her six novels have survived the passing of time; they have become a must read for English literature studies. Bernadette, a Californian lady that loves the works of Jane Austen proposes to start a book club in which each member would lead the discussion of one of the six novels that must be read. Her only problem is she can only count with two other friends. Bernadette is set in getting the rest of the group by sheer determination that pays off in unexpected, and satisfactory ways.

The group that Bernadette assembles could not so much different. Jocelyn, a dog breeder, leads a lonely life in her rural place. Sylvia, a librarian, discovers her husband Daniel wants to leave her. Her daughter Allegra agrees to join, perhaps a bit reluctantly. Prudie, the uptight teacher, whose marriage seems to be disintegrating before her eyes, is talked into coming aboard. The last member Bernadette finds is not a woman, but a computer specialist, Grigg, whose taste runs more into science fiction. Bernadette feels the last member will be good to boost Sylvia's morale who is depressed after Daniel's desertion.

Director Robin Swicord, who also adapted the original novel by Karen Joy Fowler, shows an affinity to the material that is no small achievement. Ms. Swicord's second film is an enjoyable time because it involves the viewer in unexpected ways. The narrative brings parallel between the work of Jane Austin and the characters that are trying to make sense of the meaning of it. Another coup for Ms. Swicord is the incredible talented cast that was put together to bring to life a story that in someone else's hands would not have had the impact this film has on many levels. It is a highly feminine work, but it should not scare discriminating fans.

Kathy Baker, who plays Bernadette, is a welcome addition to any film. The luminous Maria Bello, another excellent actress, does justice to her Jocelyn. Emily Blunt is perfectly snobbish as Prudie. Amy Braverman and Maggie Grace appear as mother and daughter, Sylvia and Allegra. The other principal, Hugh Dancy, does a surprising turn as Grigg. Jimmy Smits is seen as Daniel.

Robin Swicord's understanding with the material and her love for Jane Austen made a rewarding film that will delight audiences of all ages.

Jane Austen in California

[Red-125 · 8/10 · 8 October 2007]

The Jane Austen Book Club (2007) was directed by Robin Swicord, who also wrote the screenplay. Thanks to movie adaptations--some great, some so-so--Jane Austen has found a wider audience than she could ever have guessed. Now, second-generation books and films are being made about Austen and her novels. "The Jane Austen Book Club" is one of these.

The premise of the film is simple but irresistible. Six Californians decide to get together once a month to discuss each one of Austen's six novels in turn. The group has some cohesiveness--most of the people are friends, and the group includes a mother and her daughter. However, there is a newcomer--a young man--who is not familiar with Austen, but is charming enough, and eager enough, to be accepted because the group lacks a sixth member.

All of the women are in a lesser or greater crisis at some point in the movie, and the film intertwines their problems with the problems faced by Austen's heroines. The parallel is apt enough--the women, like Austen's heroines, are attractive and reasonably comfortable financially. Most of their problems center around love, or lack of love, which, again, follows Austen's plots.

There's a problem with the movie--every one of the main characters is extremely attractive. Surely, there must be some average-appearing women and men in the Sacramento area. One of the actors--Emily Blunt-- is so beautiful that it's hard to believe she's real. It's also hard to believe that she would have married--and would stay with--her insensitive lout of a husband. (I've never seen Blunt in a film before. When I checked her images in Google, she just looked like one more very attractive young actor. In this movie, she's other-worldly.) I would have liked the movie more if some of the characters had the appearance of people you meet in the real world.

The film will work better if you know Jane Austen's novels and characters. However, even if you don't, "The Jane Austen Book Club" is still worth seeing. Incidentally, it's not a chick-flick. I don't see why men would like the movie any less then women. It's a good film for anyone who likes to read and likes to think.

Half of a good movie

[jmc4769 · 6/10 · 6 October 2007]

Jane Austin Book Club is half of a good movie. I like Jane Austen and I wanted to like this movie. It had good acting. It had more character development than you see in most movies. And I personally like movies with a lot of talking. The problem is that out of the six members of the book club, three were unlikable. Allegra is a hedonistic, self-centered woman who has trouble maintaining long term relationships. Bernadette is a supercilious know-it-all. And Prudie, the most problematic member of the club, is so neurotic and so clueless that you wince every time she opens her mouth. If you're going to put a neurotic main character in a movie, he or she needs to at least be charming enough to offset the mental issues. In an ensemble cast, it simply doesn't work to have so many unlikable characters. Another big problem I had with the movie is that the ending is right out of fantasy land. No way this is gonna happen in the real world. Still, most Jane Austen fans will probably like the film and I would recommend it to them because of the many references to her novels.

Pleasant; Characters and Resolution Did Not Convince, Engage or Arouse Feeling

[Danusha_Goska · 5/10 · 2 July 2008]

"The Jane Austen Book Club" was a pleasant movie, one I didn't mind watching once but would not want to watch again. There were a couple of very good lines, and the actors are all, without exception, fine. Production values are high.

The characters and resolution didn't convince or engage me, though. I just did not believe, at any point, that these were real people. I especially did not believe the final scene. "He ended up with her? I don't think so," was what I kept thinking. I didn't believe the final couplings, and I did not care.

I had the same problem with this movie that I had with the book on which it was based. Both book and movie felt like writerly exercises to me. I felt as if the writer, Karen Joy Fowler, got this neato schematic idea in her writing class, "Aha! A book club of bourgeois people who read Jane Austen and fall in love!" and went about filling in the pieces of that puzzle without ever investing any of the characters with real human warmth.

One characterization stands out, though. Emily Blunt as a depressive woman with a bad mother, a mediocre marriage, and a temptation to do very bad things, creates a moody air all by herself. It's as if she came in from the set of a daring indy movie. I hope she's given chances in the future to live up to the promise she shows here.

Literacy, Fast and Furious

[dalefried · 9/10 · 8 October 2007]

What to think of a film that has the most literary references than any since 'Love and Death'. The danger here is that those with little knowledge of Jane Austen will have no understanding of what is going on since the dialogue twists and turns on discussions of characters and themes in 200 year old novels.

But unlike a Woody Allen punch line comedy full of in-context jokes, you do not need a complete understanding of Austen to appreciate this literate work. The reason Jane Austen interests people two centuries later are the universality of her themes. Seeing these themes played out can work at many levels. Addicts will revel in the dialogue's appreciative in jokes. Those with some experience like me will pick up things here and there while enjoying the whirling dervish playing out in the verbal repartee. Neophytes will simply enjoy the characters living out these timeless motifs likely leaving desirous to learn more.

Some have complained about the lack of directorial artifices to woo us here and there. What better way to emphasize the literacy of it all by letting good actors use wordplays to move us instead. If this is too subtle for you, 'American Gangster' awaits.

Others have complained about obvious symbolism in the characters. A woman trapped in her time, Austen wailed subtly against her capture by focusing thematically on one potential way out through love and relationships. The film and the book it is based on strive to provide a meaningful glimpse into the core themes of this wonderful writer and how for the most part these strivings remain among us as lively as ever. If the characters are archetypes, they are necessarily so and once understood become more powerful in their abstraction.

But it is their likability that rues the day and throughout you feel for them as they traipse through their foibles. The fixer who cares more for the happiness of others than her own, a defense mechanism against longed for passion. The mother who wades through the ultimate disappointment with courage that makes her stronger when her dreams of marital bliss return. The aggressive young lesbian courageously bouncing between adventures until disappointed into seeking another. The young teacher walking to the edge of a potentially luxurious mistake and passionately imploring her man to save her from herself through Austen. The older woman wanting to keep tasting because the effort, though difficult, is worth it. And in the middle, the almost goofy, literature driven, emo-dreamboat who attracts them all in various ways though suffering from an almost paralyzing inhibition ultimately resolved

Unfortunately most men won't get it or even take the time to appreciate it all. In my screening, women outnumbered men 17-2. In the end this intelligent, optimistic feminism may have too small an audience to save itself from obscurity, but if it ends up a voice in the wilderness, it is far better left said than not.

Inoffensive Romance

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 24 February 2018]

A tap root into the subterranean strata of popularity in (1) Jane Austen and (2) "Sex and the City", both apparently having peaked at about the same time as this film was released. I'll bet Jane Austen never wrote such a clumsy sentence as the one I just finished writing.

Five women -- all in varying degrees of domestic distress -- discover that they have a common interest in Jane Austen's novels and form a club to discuss them one at a time. They even invite a guy who pretty much holds his own. There are rough parallels between Austen's plots and the romantic careers of the club's members. I'll have to assume the parallels are there because they've been so often alluded to. I've never read any of the books. I've seen most of the available film versions but the characters and narratives are similar enough that I get them mixed up, just as I do with Dickens.

You'll probably enjoy it more if you're already an Austen fan because some of the comments that crop up during the club meetings sound as if they make sense, although it may be going too far to suggest that the separation of eggs in the preparation of flan is symbolic of the divorce of somebody's parents. None of the performances really stand out but Emily Blunt is always oddly appealing and Maria Bello is precisely emotional enough.

Too Choppy

[bigverybadtom · 2/10 · 20 July 2013]

This might have made for a decent movie, but the choppy and over fast pace made everything too confusing to follow, and after a half hour my mother and I gave up on it.

I have not read the novel it was based on, and I have read maybe one or two Jane Austen books (and that was for school decades ago), but the idea sounded interesting. But other reviewers here have said that the movie fails to follow the novel it was based on, and the stories of the main characters did not necessarily correspond to what happened in any Jane Austen stories (as the box for the movie implied was the case).

Though they were ahead of their time for their era, it is difficult to believe the most liberal-minded authors of that era would have covered lesbianism, or for that matter, bestiality (as implied by the remark about the dog taking care of a woman's sexual needs). Don't bother.

Book club members' delight

[harry_tk_yung · 29 September 2007]

Those familiar with Jane Austen's six novels will get more (but not necessarily much more) out of this movie, but it's people who have experienced book clubs that will really get a kick out of it. To audience that is neither, this is still an enjoyable (I hate to use the term but cannot think of a better one) chick flick.

As the title suggests, the story evolves around the book club meetings but this is really one of those familiar ensemble pieces. But first the book club: six members are needed to cover all six of Austen's novels, each taking primary responsibility for one, to be discussed in six consecutive monthly meetings at various venues (one of which ended up being a hospital ward!). There are 4 initial members who know each other while the remaining two are drafted through chances encounters.

BERNADETTE the founder is a sophisticated woman who has married six time and has purportedly seen it all. Her two Austen enthusiast friends are JOCELYN, a woman of independent spirit and a dog breeder by profession and SYLVIA who on the surface has a happy family but is in fact on the verge of a separation with a husband who is looking for a new relationship after 30 years of happy married life. ALLEGRA is Sylvia's daughter, a lesbian. As these four set out to look for two more members, Bernadette has an encounter with PRUDIE, another Austen enthusiast with a husband who has just disappointed her by canceling out a business trip to Paris (on which she can accompany him) because he has to travel with the boss to watch a basketball game. Finally, GRIGG, the only male member and an "Austen virgin", encounters Jocelyn in a bar, in a certain amount of mutual attraction. With Grigg being a computer geek and Sci-Fi fan, he agrees to read Austen's "girlie books" in the hope that Jocelyn will give Ursula K. LeGuin's "The left hand of darkness" a try.

There is no point for me to go into details. The audience will have a pretty good idea of what they expect to see. The six members have their own predicaments and situations and they are all projected through the Austen stories and characters during the discussions. Within the six of them, we see relationships and interactions from simply conflicting opinions about the novels to much more personal involvements. Outside these six book club members, there is more than another half dozen characters playing out various situation life dramas with them. The movie is light, easy flowing and very funny at times. In the end, everything is nicely resolved because there is no problem in life and relationships that cannot be set right by a well written letter, as any deserving Jane Austen fan can tell you. By the end of the movie, you would have enjoyed it so much that you wouldn't mind that it has not gone any deeper.

The actings are all competent and effective. Playing Jocelyn is Mario Bello who is comfortable with both mainstream (World Trade Centre) and not-so-mainstream (A history of violence) material. Playing the woman outwardly fully in control but has a lot of feeling bottled up is not a big challenge for her. Kathy Baker, whose sensuous persona in "Edward scissorhands" I still remember, has an easy time with Bernadette, a facilitator role in both the book club and the movie. Emily Blunt, who served notice with "The Devil wears Prada", is good as Prudie, a troubled wife who feels being neglected and is at a crossroad. Hugh Dancy, whom I remember most as Galahad in "King Arthur" (2004), is the brightest spot in the movie as Grigg, not necessarily because he is the sole male member of the club, but more to do with his sunshine persona. Amy Brenneman shines as Sylvia, giving a little more to the role of the betrayed wife. Maggie Grace makes an effective contribution to the ensemble cast with her role of pretty young thing Allegra.

As I said, there are more than another half a dozen characters but the one that must be mentioned is Prudie's mother whose mere presence spells trouble. This is just a cameo role but when this is played by Lynn Redgrave, you get more than your money's worth.

Refreshingly different!

[gabriella-60786 · 7/10 · 1 November 2022]

I have noticed a disturbing and frequent pattern in movies whereby it is depicted as normal for an old man (usually unattractive and overweight) to be in a romantic relationship with a much younger (always attractive and slim) girl. But it's extremely rare to see this in the reverse and when you do see it, it is never a 'normal' relationship, but always something purely sexual, unhealthy and fleeting. I'm assuming that is because it is not of interest nor does it fulfil the fantasies/daydreams of the typical older, overweight and un-attractive men who run the Hollywood film industry.

So, it was such a lovely breath of fresh air to finally have a script where two main characters, an older woman with a younger man, have a healthy, sweet and normal romantic relationship, that is depicted to last. This is far more common and 'normal' in modern real life than depicted in Hollywood movies, not to mention much more interesting to the large female audience.

Emily Blunt's acting is fantastic.

Very nice! Sensable AND sensitive

[bopdog · 7/10 · 15 November 2007]

I have never read Jane Austin. Although I did have a senior Librarian at the British Library, where I am a "registered" scholar-reader, crack a funny and original joke about her to me once. The joke was slow, off-the-cuff (he made it up on the spot), and so droll in the way he told it "au naturel" and spontaneous. HE probably was chortling for the rest of the day. For him it probably was the height of hilarity. I was impressed, and charmed, even though the joke itself was pretty mild. Much like this movie.

The modern day Jane Austen book club members act out love lives and turmoil (and triumphs) very much in parallel with a Jane Austin book, as I understand their plots to be (I have seen them all in movies, but never in print). This reminded me of Shakespeare in Love, where the modern writers performed a brilliant art that went beyond mere parroting or mimicry. I suspect a Jane Austen reader/fan would recognize much, and see in-jokes and intelligent references that I missed. But, I think it is saying something good about the movie to note that I learned something about Austin's books, but also followed the plot, was thoroughly entertained and interested throughout, and felt a involved with what happened. Again, I'm not part of the Austin cognoscenti, but I at least felt "in on the jokes" and in on the plot as well. I was included by the movie.

Some of the plot points veered toward the girlie for a moment, but never completely went off down that road. That is, with the chatty older lady Kathy Baker's character initially showing contempt for men, and hints of a lesbian theme, at first I was ready for a rant. Or at least a put-down of males, like the last 10 minutes of "Steel Magnolias." But everybody lightened up, and basically respect and affection was shown to all, ultimately. Although, returning for a moment to the lesbian thing, I did not for one minute actually buy that the daughter, Allegra, was gay--- not that there would be anything wrong with that (note the Seinfeld reference). But as a comment on the movie, on the narrative and the portrayals, it just didn't FEEL real or true. Not even "movie true." But the actors were competent and otherwise convincing, all around, so I found myself able to dismiss that dissonant note with relative ease.

If you are a guy, don't be afraid of this movie. It's pleasant, and about real-enough things that concern us, too. After all, for most of us, relationships involve men and women, so here's something that is a bit about both, but the perspective is nonetheless clearly from the distaff side, which intrigued me. I enjoyed it! BTW--- I went to a special "art series" showing at the cinema where I am visiting. I went alone. Throughout the movie, however, I could hear many female voices laughing, and seemingly chuckling with agreement when certain truths and characters' foibles were brought to light--- and never in a mean way. So maybe it rings true for the ladies as well.

A brilliant and emotional film

[fdarcy · 10/10 · 18 May 2010]

I don't know if this is one of the best films I have seen. But this is certainly one of the most intelligent. films based on books (and I'm referring to Austen books, I didn't read the novel it's based upon) tend to be irritating, often insulting the original books and the intelligence of their readers. when the film tries to stay "loyal", in many occasions it is nothing but a poor shadow of the original book.

This film is nothing of this sort. Those who made it really loved and understood Jane Austen (and literature in general). Anyone of admires her books will find in this movie lots to think about. And still, it is also a movie, with beautiful and interesting characters, none of them is made ridiculous or flat.

Small movie, but worth every second of watching.

Jolly

[ThomasDrufke · 7/10 · 11 September 2019]

The Jane Austen Book Club is a largely harmless, mostly enjoyable addition to the rom-com-dram genre, and one with enough cleverness to be commended. Heck, it's significantly harder to make original romance films than most other genres, so there's something to be said about a film that feels unique in a tired (but hopefully still surviving) genre. And perhaps the best way to describe this film is 'Jolly', it's just so pleasantly enjoyable, while not being overly complicated or intricate. I'll take it.

7.4/10

Never got into Austen, but the film still read well.

[sudburHUY · 8/10 · 22 September 2007]

This harmoniously concocted movie features as many 'novel' film making devices as it does Jane Austen novels. Although I have yet to read one Jane Austen novel -feeling like the odd one out during last night's Gala presentation at Cinefest- I very much enjoyed this movie. I think it will serve as a great conversation piece for not only movie goers, but also film and literature classes. However, it is nowhere near the likes of "Shakesphere In Love"... The acting in this film was overall good, but not great. Feist offers a nice track near the end of the movie, which was a nice surprise. Robin Swicord does a wonderful job directing her own screenplay.

I'd join this club.

[Caps Fan · 7/10 · 11 September 2015]

I read the book of this before seeing the film (AND when I had read some, but not all, all of Jane Austen's novels). This can work to the detriment of a film, but it doesn't in this case. Both book and film are highly enjoyable.

There are a number of reasons for this. The film is, for one thing, well cast. Each part is acted well and convincingly.

In addition, despite some adjustments, the film sticks to the broad outline of the book. In it, a group of six people – one man and five women – meet over a period of six months to discuss Jane Austen's novels. They find that their lives are mirroring certain aspects of the novels' events in ways both surprising and interesting.

I thought this worked best in the dynamic between the affected French teacher Prudie and her rather bovine husband Dean. Their marriage is in trouble and Prudie is in serious danger of doing something she shouldn't with one of her male pupils. Luckily, Austen's "Persuasion" comes galloping to the rescue.

The film's last scene, set a year after the main events of the film, does wrap things up well, but is maybe a bit too packaged. Would Dean, for example, really take to reading Austen so easily?

So a nice story, excellent acting, good camera work and music. They all make for good, undemanding entertainment.

Rating: 7/10

Infatuated with self

[jakerresq · 3/10 · 29 July 2014]

Early on I sensed this film was totally infatuated with how clever, adorable, witty and wise it was. A Notting Hill misfire from the wrong side of the pond-I found the same flaws in that but at least it was clever enough to draw an occasional smile. Oh wait Lynn Redgrave did draw one but it was like laughing at people falling down stairs and you suddenly had to check yourself because you realized you were witnessing a small tragedy.The political initiatives were evident throughout from the younger man older woman mantra(even married man Smits leaves his wife for a comparably aged woman)to a beat you upside the head lesson in the coolness of being a California lesbian. I will admit that Emily Blunt was the one living entity to command my attention. Dressed like "a flight attendant"?-you bet, but boy did she pull it off-I'd fly with her to Detroit if that's what it took.

Great, wonderful, terrific

[cmgilliford · 8/10 · 11 October 2008]

Had not seen any publicity for this film so had no idea what to expect but what a breath of fresh air this film is. An amazing ensemble cast. Really hits the right balance in all ways.

It could have been a soppy Chick flick but turned out to be an intelligent and thoughtful piece of writing which the actors carried off brilliantly. Can't wait for another one by this collaboration of producers and director. Bravo.

This does not fit into any one genre I don't think. That is one of the things I enjoyed about this movie. It wasn't romance, comedy or drama but had all of those elements.

A Hollywood Treatment of a very British Theme

[wisewebwoman · 7/10 · 17 April 2008]

***very minor spoilers*** But a guilty pleasure too. Even though all the well worn and tired clichés were there. But the cast were great, the discussion of the books was interesting. The Jane-droppings were many.

I would have loved to have seen it in more sophisticated hands, even though it probably would have made far less money. The intelligent movie dilemma.

There is one man in the bookclub of six, a hunky gorgeous Hugh Dancey. Who happens to be wealthy, unattached, environmentally aware and not gay who becomes entranced with an older woman played by Maria Bello.

Emily Blunt, a Euro-wannabe, is in hots with one of her students.

An amazing Kathy Baker, is the matriarch of the group, tough belligerent and talky.

Jimmy Smits is the wandering husband with the lesbian daughter and two missing sons who never appear on film.

Everything comes together so perfectly in the end but I found an enormous sense of letdown.

All those little plot twists later and the men all convert to bookloving, dancing, contrite partners? Tongue in cheek Austen, yeah I get it. And this was hollywoodized, yeah, I get that too. Not in any life I know. Too, too sweet by half. 7 out of 10.

I don't know what Jane Austen has to do with this movie....

[grekanda29 · 1/10 · 20 February 2008]

Let me start out by saying that I'm an avid fan of Jane Austen books - that in itself should say it all. But since most people (aka those who haven't read Jane Austen) won't understand this, I'll say it more bluntly. And to me, they might as well have called this movie the Soap Opera Fan Club, or the Jackie Collins Fan Club. The books were written in the early 1800's, people, not 2008. In none of Jane's books were there even hints of men cheating and leaving their wives, lesbians, or women who lust after men like dogs in heat. I'm sorry, but I must say that I feel it's misleading to portray to those who are clueless of Jane Austen, that she was just like today's Desperate Housewives type of modern woman. She was witty and funny, often ahead of her time, true, but this movie makes her books sound like they are what they really aren't. If the movie had been titled by another book club name I could've swallowed it. However, my tolerance for such Hollywood exploitation, most who have probably never even read classic literature, (the actors who were forced to read the book ahead of time by the director DOESN'T count) is absolutely zero.