Normally BBC productions of Jane Austen are pretty good but Northanger Abbey is just odd. What were they thinking? This film has little of Austen's charm and ironically mimics the Gothic novels that Austen so wonderfully mocked. Not only that, the "gothic" sequences are tacky, over-the-top, and frankly silly. The actress playing Miss Morland is poorly cast with no obvious appeal to attract the attentions of an eligible bachelor, and though I rather liked the creepy Peter Firth as Mr. Tilney, he is not a bit like the novel, even when delivering dialog straight out of the book. Robert Hardy as General Tilney turned in one of his few terribly "ham" performances. This film was so bizarre and strange that I actually watched it again just to savor how freakishly wrong it was.
56 Reviews
Disappointing
didi-518 November 2005
Jane Austen's novel is a satirical sweep at the Gothic novels then the fashion for young ladies to read, and her heroine Catherine Moreland is no exception. In her fantasy world there are always happy endings and intrigue, and she expects to find this as she accompanies the Allens to Bath.
However, this adaptation misses the point of Austen's novel entirely, and is dull and ponderous (even at its short running time of an hour and a half). Katharine Schlesinger is irritating as Catherine, all wide eyes and empty head; while Peter Firth is nothing like my idea of Henry Tilney. Good to see Googie Withers, Robert Hardy, et al in supporting roles though, even if they are given little to do.
And who on earth thought electronic music would be suitable to play over the opening credits? An appalling choice and totally out of step with the source material.
However, this adaptation misses the point of Austen's novel entirely, and is dull and ponderous (even at its short running time of an hour and a half). Katharine Schlesinger is irritating as Catherine, all wide eyes and empty head; while Peter Firth is nothing like my idea of Henry Tilney. Good to see Googie Withers, Robert Hardy, et al in supporting roles though, even if they are given little to do.
And who on earth thought electronic music would be suitable to play over the opening credits? An appalling choice and totally out of step with the source material.
1987 production proves superior to 2007 successor
Turfseer26 February 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Once again I find myself in the minority choosing one particular Jane Austen film adaptation over another. In this case I am persuaded that the joint 1987 A&E and BBC made for TV production is superior to the 2007 collaboration between Granada Productions and WGBH Boston.
Austen set her novel at the end of the 18th century at the time she wrote it-but it wasn't published until after her death approximately twenty years later.
Northanger Abbey is the story of a 17 year old girl, Catherine (Cathy) Moreland (Katharine Schlesinger) who whiles away her days enraptured by Gothic romance novels. The tale of the inexperienced Catherine and what happens to her was designed by Austen to satirically debunk the melodramatic stories that her heroine was drawn to.
With her parents' permission, Catherine gets the opportunity to take a trip to the town of Bath accompanied by the Allen's, a well-off childless couple played by Googie Withers and Geoffrey Chater. The two thespians with their cheerful demeanor prove to be far more engaging and realistic than the less effusive Desmond Barrit and Sylvestra Le Touzel in the 2007 version.
When Mrs. Allen takes Catherine to a ball hoping to broaden her horizons, note that the scene in the 1987 version is half the length of its successor. The earlier version has an economy of style with the dialogue moving at a fast clip. No such luck in 2007 in which the film's scenarists attempted to emulate Austen's drawn-out interior narrative. Of course that works much better in a novel than in a screenplay.
Perhaps where the 1987 version "gets it right" the best is the casting of Peter Firth as Minister Henry Tilney and his father the General (Robert Hardy). Henry is rightly depicted as far more mature and sophisticated than the naïve, innocent Catherine. Unlike the 2007 version, Henry is often times sarcastic and makes fun of Catherine. In contrast JJ Field plays Henry completely straight as the typical romantic hero of the Gothic novels that Austen was attempting to mock.
Similarly Hardy is perfect as the General hiding the seething anger beneath the surface through the mask of false manners. Liam Cunningham in 2007 unfortunately can only scowl and plays the General as basically a one-dimensional villain.
The interaction between Catherine and Henry prove to be the most engaging part of Austen's narrative. The sub-plot involving The Thorpe's perhaps is not as effective. After all the duplicitous Isabella is depicted rejecting Catherine's brother James and that happens off-screen. Not much suspense there-however, it's obvious that Austen interjected the Isabella sub-plot to emphasize Catherine's growing realization that the world did not run according to plan as depicted in the romance novels of the time.
Both Cassie Stuart and Carey Mulligan do a decent enough job as Isabella but I'm partial to Jonathan Coy as John Thorpe over William Beck in the 2007 version as he seems a bit more manipulative and sinister as someone who's just plain angry.
Many have indicated preference for Felicity Jones over Katharine Schlesinger in the role of Catherine. Is there really much difference? Both ably convey a wide-eyed teenager besotted with an older man.
I also noted that in the 1987 version Henry's break with his father is shown in great detail in contrast to it being glossed over in 2007. How to interpret Henry's reversal in asking for Catherine's hand? At one point he berated Catherine for "misinterpreting" the relationship between his father and his deceased mother.
I suppose he became less defensive after thinking about the true nature of his parents' relationship. Indeed he acknowledges to Catherine that her gut feeling about his father's shabby treatment of his wife was basically accurate. Coupled with his father's poor treatment of Catherine by kicking her out of Northanger Abbey probably led to guilt feelings and asking for her hand in marriage was partially his way of making things up to her.
Austen's novel may not have been as good as some of her other one's but I enjoyed the film nonetheless as a glimpse into the manners and mores of late 18th century England.
Austen set her novel at the end of the 18th century at the time she wrote it-but it wasn't published until after her death approximately twenty years later.
Northanger Abbey is the story of a 17 year old girl, Catherine (Cathy) Moreland (Katharine Schlesinger) who whiles away her days enraptured by Gothic romance novels. The tale of the inexperienced Catherine and what happens to her was designed by Austen to satirically debunk the melodramatic stories that her heroine was drawn to.
With her parents' permission, Catherine gets the opportunity to take a trip to the town of Bath accompanied by the Allen's, a well-off childless couple played by Googie Withers and Geoffrey Chater. The two thespians with their cheerful demeanor prove to be far more engaging and realistic than the less effusive Desmond Barrit and Sylvestra Le Touzel in the 2007 version.
When Mrs. Allen takes Catherine to a ball hoping to broaden her horizons, note that the scene in the 1987 version is half the length of its successor. The earlier version has an economy of style with the dialogue moving at a fast clip. No such luck in 2007 in which the film's scenarists attempted to emulate Austen's drawn-out interior narrative. Of course that works much better in a novel than in a screenplay.
Perhaps where the 1987 version "gets it right" the best is the casting of Peter Firth as Minister Henry Tilney and his father the General (Robert Hardy). Henry is rightly depicted as far more mature and sophisticated than the naïve, innocent Catherine. Unlike the 2007 version, Henry is often times sarcastic and makes fun of Catherine. In contrast JJ Field plays Henry completely straight as the typical romantic hero of the Gothic novels that Austen was attempting to mock.
Similarly Hardy is perfect as the General hiding the seething anger beneath the surface through the mask of false manners. Liam Cunningham in 2007 unfortunately can only scowl and plays the General as basically a one-dimensional villain.
The interaction between Catherine and Henry prove to be the most engaging part of Austen's narrative. The sub-plot involving The Thorpe's perhaps is not as effective. After all the duplicitous Isabella is depicted rejecting Catherine's brother James and that happens off-screen. Not much suspense there-however, it's obvious that Austen interjected the Isabella sub-plot to emphasize Catherine's growing realization that the world did not run according to plan as depicted in the romance novels of the time.
Both Cassie Stuart and Carey Mulligan do a decent enough job as Isabella but I'm partial to Jonathan Coy as John Thorpe over William Beck in the 2007 version as he seems a bit more manipulative and sinister as someone who's just plain angry.
Many have indicated preference for Felicity Jones over Katharine Schlesinger in the role of Catherine. Is there really much difference? Both ably convey a wide-eyed teenager besotted with an older man.
I also noted that in the 1987 version Henry's break with his father is shown in great detail in contrast to it being glossed over in 2007. How to interpret Henry's reversal in asking for Catherine's hand? At one point he berated Catherine for "misinterpreting" the relationship between his father and his deceased mother.
I suppose he became less defensive after thinking about the true nature of his parents' relationship. Indeed he acknowledges to Catherine that her gut feeling about his father's shabby treatment of his wife was basically accurate. Coupled with his father's poor treatment of Catherine by kicking her out of Northanger Abbey probably led to guilt feelings and asking for her hand in marriage was partially his way of making things up to her.
Austen's novel may not have been as good as some of her other one's but I enjoyed the film nonetheless as a glimpse into the manners and mores of late 18th century England.
Yes, it's a little strange
Sofistali17 July 2011
The errors of this film have been pointed out a myriad of times in previous reviews: The Marchioness is an added character with little apparent use. The Abbey was NOT supposed to be the creepy castle of Gothic lore, but a disappointingly normal and modern building that Catherine's imagination tries to make frightening, but cannot. Most of the actors are hamming it up left and right (I actually found that amusing in a not-so-negative way. Isabella Thorpe is not one whit more obvious than Lucy Steele in the celebrated Emma Thompson version.) The music is weird and entirely too present
had they toned it down a bit it wouldn't have been so intrusive.
What saved it for me was Peter Firth. Yes, he was affected and simpering, but personally, I found him sexy as all get out. When he first appeared, I had never seen him before, and didn't think he was handsome at all, nor right for the part of Henry Tilney. But when he smiles at Catherine, it looks so warm, so genuine, that I stopped chewing my popcorn for a moment and thought "Oh, I take it back. He's cute!" He's got wonderful lips, too.
And despite what others have said, he portrayed Tilney pretty much as the book does, in my opinion. Tilney is a strange fellow, folks. He's rarely serious, says bizarre things one right after another, quips and smirks, and masks his feelings utterly. I am certain he grows up to be Mr. Bennet. I never liked him till I saw this adaptation, but now, he's rather my favorite. But only if he looks like Peter Firth.
What saved it for me was Peter Firth. Yes, he was affected and simpering, but personally, I found him sexy as all get out. When he first appeared, I had never seen him before, and didn't think he was handsome at all, nor right for the part of Henry Tilney. But when he smiles at Catherine, it looks so warm, so genuine, that I stopped chewing my popcorn for a moment and thought "Oh, I take it back. He's cute!" He's got wonderful lips, too.
And despite what others have said, he portrayed Tilney pretty much as the book does, in my opinion. Tilney is a strange fellow, folks. He's rarely serious, says bizarre things one right after another, quips and smirks, and masks his feelings utterly. I am certain he grows up to be Mr. Bennet. I never liked him till I saw this adaptation, but now, he's rather my favorite. But only if he looks like Peter Firth.
Completely strips Austen's satire of its spirit
Greta-Garbo10 July 2005
Sometimes, changes to novels when they're made into films are not only necessary, but a good thing. However, in the case of Northanger Abbey, it's a very, very bad thing. Not only is the story itself ripped to shreds, but the satire is almost completely absent from the film, and it's mixture of romance and intrigue doesn't even touch upon the biting commentary that Austen put into her work. It fails to be amusing or satirical at all, and instead turns the character's fascination with her fantasy world into mostly a drama.
This affects the romance as well. It's meandering and aimless. Chemistry and interest are never established. The reasons Tilney is attracted to Catherine are completely absent from the film, leaving the audience to wonder what it is he sees in her at all.
Hopefully some day soon, we'll get a more faithful version if Austen's satire.
This affects the romance as well. It's meandering and aimless. Chemistry and interest are never established. The reasons Tilney is attracted to Catherine are completely absent from the film, leaving the audience to wonder what it is he sees in her at all.
Hopefully some day soon, we'll get a more faithful version if Austen's satire.
Poor Jane
Pickwick121 October 2003
Poor Jane Austen ought to be glad she's not around to see this dreadful wreck of an adaptation. So many great Jane Austen movies have come out recently that this one deserves to be permanently buried along with two other movies I despise-The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit and the 1969 version of David Copperfield. My main beef with the movie is that it completely misses the point of the book. Jane Austen was poking fun at the Gothic mania in her society, and much of the novel is tongue in cheek. The movie, however, is serious and comes across terribly melodramatically. The lighthearted, fun-poking flavor of Austen's writing is completely and conspicuously absent from this ponderous foray iinto horror meets period drama. The scenes of Catherine's imagination are both gratuitous and uninteresting. Also, Henry Tilney is dreadfully unappealing. Why, I ask, would anyone fall for him? If you are looking for a fun-filled Jane Austen evening, watch Emma instead!
What were they smoking?
marspeach17 January 2010
The filmmakers were clearly on drugs. That's the only explanation I have. How else do you explain this travesty of a Jane Austen adaptation? Northanger Abbey is a parody of a Gothic novel. But this film was made as if it WERE a Gothic novel. The bizarre music and dream sequences to me suggest drug-induced hallucinations rather than a naive, innocent girl with an overactive imagination, as Catherine of the novel is...
The actress who played Catherine just stands around bug-eyed all the time. Peter Firth looks at least 10 years too old to play Henry and he actually seemed a bit on the gay side to me. I don't see the attraction between him and Catherine. John Thorpe's portrayal was rather odd but Isabella actually wasn't that bad. But nothing could save this PIECE OF CRAP movie! One more thing- This film invents a character not in the book, a French friend of General Tilney's, "The Marchioness." Why exactly they added her is beyond me. Must have been the drugs. She is scary-looking beyond belief, with white foundation, red lips and black lines randomly painted on her face (dimples?).
You'd think this would at least be entertaining in a "so bad it's good" quality but unfortunately, it's not. It's just BAD.
The actress who played Catherine just stands around bug-eyed all the time. Peter Firth looks at least 10 years too old to play Henry and he actually seemed a bit on the gay side to me. I don't see the attraction between him and Catherine. John Thorpe's portrayal was rather odd but Isabella actually wasn't that bad. But nothing could save this PIECE OF CRAP movie! One more thing- This film invents a character not in the book, a French friend of General Tilney's, "The Marchioness." Why exactly they added her is beyond me. Must have been the drugs. She is scary-looking beyond belief, with white foundation, red lips and black lines randomly painted on her face (dimples?).
You'd think this would at least be entertaining in a "so bad it's good" quality but unfortunately, it's not. It's just BAD.
Give it a chance!
hilfridrusilla24 January 2023
The other reviews have judged this production quite harshly. I disagree. It's from 1987, and was produced as part of a BBC television series, so it's unfair to compare it with much bigger budget features. I found it charming, and faithful to the novel. This novel is different from the usual Austen. It was written as a homage to the Gothic novels of the day and so it's more dramatic and less nuanced. It's a fun, short novel rather than a serious novel. This production captures the wonder and excitement of a naive girl making her first foray into society. The movie characters that are black and white villains are also villainous in the novel. Don't be put off by the low rating. It's worth a view.
Somebody please film a GOOD version!
nebbo3 October 2005
My first hugely disappointing BBC/Jane Austen flick. The tone is off, the costumes are off, the hair is off, the music is from outer space, and Robert Hardy, bless him, looks like he's really annoyed to be in such a stinker. Even some of the casting is off. No, I take that back, a good director can make a silk purse out of a sows ear, so to speak. The performances in this thing are so over the top and melodramatic that it's almost a farce of a Jane Austen story, which is ironic since Northanger Abbey is a sort of homage/send up of the early Gothic novel. I wanted to slap the female lead after awhile; who made the decision that she should be such a ninny? I had to watch Pride & Prejudice ('95) immediately to get the bad taste out of my mouth. Phew!
1986 vs 2007
Kuroel4 March 2010
I'd like to begin my review with the notion that I have not read the actual novel, but have seen the 2007 BBC version of Northanger Abbey, which I enjoyed exceedingly. Northanger Abbey is probably closest to Brontë's style out of all the other works by Austen. Darker in tone yet remaining romantic and mischievous in the true Austen spirit.
What I found most disagreeable with the 1986 version, first off, was the soundtrack. 80's electric guitar in period Austen drama, seriously?! The obvious influence of the time of filming in clothing, hair and make-up I can bear, but the electric guitar? No.
Secondly, I was not impressed by some of the performances. I think that, for the most part, actors did well, considering what the script was obviously going for. However, I was disappointed in Peter Firth as Henry Tilney. In the beginning, he appears as Austen had probably intended him to. Elegant and genteel but slightly impish. I loved the warm smile he flashes at Catherine when they first meet. Henry is supposed to be slightly more cultivated and grown compared to Catherine, somewhat brother-like, and tease her for being the silly young girl she is. In the 2007 version, JJ Field's Henry truly gives the impression that he is caring even though he takes much delight in the fact that Catherine takes him far too seriously for her own good. Henry seems affectionate towards Catherine, but not necessarily romantically interested. In comparison, Peter Firth complete over-acts his Henry with the extremely obvious long ogles at Catherine and exaggerated gestures. Peter Firth seems to sneer rather than jest at her. There's no chemistry. Catherine appears ignorant and naive and Henry cynical and sardonic. In the 1986 version, Henry is slick toady who's little mean to Catherine. It just doesn't work. And Peter Firth just simply does not have the commanding authority (what Henry is supposed to have) in presence as JJ Field genuinely has.
Thirdly, I think there was overall some problems with the casting (my god, did they not have attractive men back in the 80's!). I did not care for the script for the 1986 version having seen the 2007 version, which works better in every department. In the 1986 all the characters have no depth to speak of, they are plainly good or bad. In the 2007, the viewer is kept guessing of the characters' intentions.
Recommended to obsessive Austen fans, for others, please see the 2007 version.
What I found most disagreeable with the 1986 version, first off, was the soundtrack. 80's electric guitar in period Austen drama, seriously?! The obvious influence of the time of filming in clothing, hair and make-up I can bear, but the electric guitar? No.
Secondly, I was not impressed by some of the performances. I think that, for the most part, actors did well, considering what the script was obviously going for. However, I was disappointed in Peter Firth as Henry Tilney. In the beginning, he appears as Austen had probably intended him to. Elegant and genteel but slightly impish. I loved the warm smile he flashes at Catherine when they first meet. Henry is supposed to be slightly more cultivated and grown compared to Catherine, somewhat brother-like, and tease her for being the silly young girl she is. In the 2007 version, JJ Field's Henry truly gives the impression that he is caring even though he takes much delight in the fact that Catherine takes him far too seriously for her own good. Henry seems affectionate towards Catherine, but not necessarily romantically interested. In comparison, Peter Firth complete over-acts his Henry with the extremely obvious long ogles at Catherine and exaggerated gestures. Peter Firth seems to sneer rather than jest at her. There's no chemistry. Catherine appears ignorant and naive and Henry cynical and sardonic. In the 1986 version, Henry is slick toady who's little mean to Catherine. It just doesn't work. And Peter Firth just simply does not have the commanding authority (what Henry is supposed to have) in presence as JJ Field genuinely has.
Thirdly, I think there was overall some problems with the casting (my god, did they not have attractive men back in the 80's!). I did not care for the script for the 1986 version having seen the 2007 version, which works better in every department. In the 1986 all the characters have no depth to speak of, they are plainly good or bad. In the 2007, the viewer is kept guessing of the characters' intentions.
Recommended to obsessive Austen fans, for others, please see the 2007 version.
Don't let this movie poison your DVD player
snickersnee0625 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
My mom, my cousins, and I are pretty big Jane Austen fans. We know all the words to the 1995 Pride and Prejudice masterpiece, and have watched Gwyneth Paltrow's Emma an embarrassing number of times. I've read all the books, and I've even sat through Sense and Sensibility and Persuasion a few times. So my mom and I thought it would be nice to see Northanger Abbey on film.
Bad idea! This is just about the worst movie I've ever seen. It's even worse than the 1998 version of Alice Through the Looking Glass, or the 1939 Nancy Drew movie I bought at Wal-Mart for $1 (my previous "worst movies.") The first thing wrong, which you notice in the opening scene, is that the "heroine," Catherine, has a gruesome and weird imagination, inspired by trashy novels that a Jane Austen heroine would never touch. Throughout the novel, she has dreams (day and night) in which she is carried off by some hideous man with a greasy wig, dragged across a field headed for God-knows-what-all, and suddenly rescued by a dashing guy on a white horse.
The second thing any viewer of the movie will instantly notice is the high-pitched wailing and saxophone music that is supposed to be the soundtrack. No dainty classical music or English country dances here! It is also evident, almost at first glance, that the actress (for lack of a better word) chosen to play Catherine is completely off. First, she is rather unattractive, and is rendered even more so by her un-Austenlike behavior. Her looks and movements are just wacky! Plus, they're completely affected and unbelievable.
This sad lack of acting skills affects pretty much all of the actors in the film. Not even Mr. Tilney, the supposed "dashing young suitor" is decent.
As more and more characters are introduced, a strange taste in costumes on the part of the filmmakers becomes evident. Huge, Marie Antoinette-style headdresses clash with the (for the most part) correctly styled Empire gowns. A French woman, apparently a friend of General Tilney's, is made up all in black as some sort of ancient Goth nightmare--she bears a striking similarity to Michael Jackson in a black dress. Her appearance is made even sillier by a HUGE half-moon beauty mark on her cheek. I also had to wonder about the historical accuracy of the bright red lipstick that almost all of the women were wearing.
Another anomaly that kept my mom and I howling with laughter for about ten minutes was the "bathing" scene. The first thing we noticed was that men and women were bathing in a big bathhouse together--probably not very likely in the early 1800s. Then we saw that all the women seemed to be wearing large china or plastic plates, worn around their necks with strings. The plates floated horizontally on the water, containing some mysterious pieces of...something. We guessed it was soap, then aromatic herbs, then finally, when the mystery substance began disappearing between shots, we deduced it was food. But I'm still not sure.
And that's not even half of what's wrong with Northanger Abbey. My warning to anyone who is considering renting this movie: stay your hand. And if anyone is considering BUYING it--well, I don't even know what to say to that.
You'd think that when the actors and others making this film got about 1/4 of the way through, they'd realize what a monster they were creating and stop. Unfortunately, they didn't, and Northanger Abbey was let out into the world.
Bad idea! This is just about the worst movie I've ever seen. It's even worse than the 1998 version of Alice Through the Looking Glass, or the 1939 Nancy Drew movie I bought at Wal-Mart for $1 (my previous "worst movies.") The first thing wrong, which you notice in the opening scene, is that the "heroine," Catherine, has a gruesome and weird imagination, inspired by trashy novels that a Jane Austen heroine would never touch. Throughout the novel, she has dreams (day and night) in which she is carried off by some hideous man with a greasy wig, dragged across a field headed for God-knows-what-all, and suddenly rescued by a dashing guy on a white horse.
The second thing any viewer of the movie will instantly notice is the high-pitched wailing and saxophone music that is supposed to be the soundtrack. No dainty classical music or English country dances here! It is also evident, almost at first glance, that the actress (for lack of a better word) chosen to play Catherine is completely off. First, she is rather unattractive, and is rendered even more so by her un-Austenlike behavior. Her looks and movements are just wacky! Plus, they're completely affected and unbelievable.
This sad lack of acting skills affects pretty much all of the actors in the film. Not even Mr. Tilney, the supposed "dashing young suitor" is decent.
As more and more characters are introduced, a strange taste in costumes on the part of the filmmakers becomes evident. Huge, Marie Antoinette-style headdresses clash with the (for the most part) correctly styled Empire gowns. A French woman, apparently a friend of General Tilney's, is made up all in black as some sort of ancient Goth nightmare--she bears a striking similarity to Michael Jackson in a black dress. Her appearance is made even sillier by a HUGE half-moon beauty mark on her cheek. I also had to wonder about the historical accuracy of the bright red lipstick that almost all of the women were wearing.
Another anomaly that kept my mom and I howling with laughter for about ten minutes was the "bathing" scene. The first thing we noticed was that men and women were bathing in a big bathhouse together--probably not very likely in the early 1800s. Then we saw that all the women seemed to be wearing large china or plastic plates, worn around their necks with strings. The plates floated horizontally on the water, containing some mysterious pieces of...something. We guessed it was soap, then aromatic herbs, then finally, when the mystery substance began disappearing between shots, we deduced it was food. But I'm still not sure.
And that's not even half of what's wrong with Northanger Abbey. My warning to anyone who is considering renting this movie: stay your hand. And if anyone is considering BUYING it--well, I don't even know what to say to that.
You'd think that when the actors and others making this film got about 1/4 of the way through, they'd realize what a monster they were creating and stop. Unfortunately, they didn't, and Northanger Abbey was let out into the world.
Lovely musical score
kirsty_uk31 December 2000
Although it strays away from the book a little, you can't help but love the atmospheric music and settings.
The scenes in Bath are just how they should be. Although if you have watched it as many times as I have you notice that the background people are the same in each scene, but that aside, I like the scene where they are in the Hot Baths, but did the men and women really bathe together like that? You could see all the men perched around the outside leering at the women. It also seemed strange that they all had their hats on, but perhaps this was the style at the time. The ballroom scenes were very nice, the dancing and the outfits looked beautiful. I especially liked Catherine's dress in the first ballroom scene.
Northanger Abbey looked suitably imposing, but I enjoyed the Bath scenes better.
Schlesinger gives a good but not exceptional performance as Catherine Morland. Googie Withers gives the best performance as Mrs Allen I feel.
Ugh Peter Firth as Mr Tilney, he just talks a load of rubbish, and is not a clergyman as he should be, it's hard to think of him being in love with Catherine, but then the book never really gave that impression either.
General Tilney is played reasonably well by Hardy, and Stuart also gives a sort of good performance as Isabella. Ingrid Lacey did not give a good performance as Elinor Tilney. As for John Thorpe, well he gives the impression of a seedy and lustful man, perhaps not the character portrayed in the book, but I quite like it.
I can handle scenes being cut from a book adaptation, but when new scenes and characters are added it usually annoys me. The marchioness! I hate her. She is not part of the Northanger story and neither is her cartwheeling page boy.
some of the script is peculiar. When Catherine is asking Elinor Tilney about her Mothers death she asks "I suppose you saw the body? How did it appear?" What a silly thing to say! Elinor's calm response is stupid too.
anyway please tell me if you agree or disagree with me
The scenes in Bath are just how they should be. Although if you have watched it as many times as I have you notice that the background people are the same in each scene, but that aside, I like the scene where they are in the Hot Baths, but did the men and women really bathe together like that? You could see all the men perched around the outside leering at the women. It also seemed strange that they all had their hats on, but perhaps this was the style at the time. The ballroom scenes were very nice, the dancing and the outfits looked beautiful. I especially liked Catherine's dress in the first ballroom scene.
Northanger Abbey looked suitably imposing, but I enjoyed the Bath scenes better.
Schlesinger gives a good but not exceptional performance as Catherine Morland. Googie Withers gives the best performance as Mrs Allen I feel.
Ugh Peter Firth as Mr Tilney, he just talks a load of rubbish, and is not a clergyman as he should be, it's hard to think of him being in love with Catherine, but then the book never really gave that impression either.
General Tilney is played reasonably well by Hardy, and Stuart also gives a sort of good performance as Isabella. Ingrid Lacey did not give a good performance as Elinor Tilney. As for John Thorpe, well he gives the impression of a seedy and lustful man, perhaps not the character portrayed in the book, but I quite like it.
I can handle scenes being cut from a book adaptation, but when new scenes and characters are added it usually annoys me. The marchioness! I hate her. She is not part of the Northanger story and neither is her cartwheeling page boy.
some of the script is peculiar. When Catherine is asking Elinor Tilney about her Mothers death she asks "I suppose you saw the body? How did it appear?" What a silly thing to say! Elinor's calm response is stupid too.
anyway please tell me if you agree or disagree with me
Better than the 2007 adaptation
Doc_Ostrow17 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I have read all of Jane Austen's novels several times.
Although Pride and Prejudice (1995) is my favorite adaptation of the novel, Andrew Davies has not always written good scripts. He tries to "sex up" his adaptations and includes plot spoilers. Darcy is not supposed to be shown looking in London for Wickham until Lydia reveals that he was at her wedding. Sense & Sensibility (2008) shows Willoughby having sex with Eliza at the beginning! We are not supposed to know that Willoughby is a seducer and cad until Col. Brandon reveals the truth.
Northanger Abbey (2007) implies that Captain Frederic Tilney had sex with Isabella Thorpe (she is nude under the bed sheets). Isabella was a gold digger and she would never have sex before marriage in that era. Jane Austen certainly never implied that. Catherine Morland has a dream sequence where she is in a bathtub and she later stands up nude in front of Henry Tilney. That never occurred in the novel. None of the film was shot in Bath. I would rate Northanger Abbey (2007) as a 5.
Northanger Abbey (1987) is not perfect. The Marchioness and the pageboy are not needed. The music is not period appropriate, although I do like it, especially at the end. I'm glad that much of the film is shot in Bath, although it is inaccurate to show the Roman Baths because those were not discovered in that era. The dream sequences clearly show that Catherine is obsessed with The Mysteries of Udolpho by Ann Radcliffe. I've never read that novel but I have a 46 page graphic comic that tells the story. Katharine Schlesinger is good for the role of Catherine (their names are almost the same!). Peter Firth is good as the witty Henry and I especially like the way he teases her. I like his speech (mostly from the novel) when he suspects that Catherine thinks that General Tilney murdered Henry's mother. I like his argument with the General near the end of the movie. However, my favorite scene is at the end when the beautiful music is playing, Henry and Catherine talk, and a tear falls from her eye when he kisses her.
Anyone who voted 1 for this movie has not seen Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966) or Robot Monster (1953). Those movies deserve a 1. I consider those voters too extreme. I don't think this movie deserves a 10 either, so I'm giving it a 7.
Although Pride and Prejudice (1995) is my favorite adaptation of the novel, Andrew Davies has not always written good scripts. He tries to "sex up" his adaptations and includes plot spoilers. Darcy is not supposed to be shown looking in London for Wickham until Lydia reveals that he was at her wedding. Sense & Sensibility (2008) shows Willoughby having sex with Eliza at the beginning! We are not supposed to know that Willoughby is a seducer and cad until Col. Brandon reveals the truth.
Northanger Abbey (2007) implies that Captain Frederic Tilney had sex with Isabella Thorpe (she is nude under the bed sheets). Isabella was a gold digger and she would never have sex before marriage in that era. Jane Austen certainly never implied that. Catherine Morland has a dream sequence where she is in a bathtub and she later stands up nude in front of Henry Tilney. That never occurred in the novel. None of the film was shot in Bath. I would rate Northanger Abbey (2007) as a 5.
Northanger Abbey (1987) is not perfect. The Marchioness and the pageboy are not needed. The music is not period appropriate, although I do like it, especially at the end. I'm glad that much of the film is shot in Bath, although it is inaccurate to show the Roman Baths because those were not discovered in that era. The dream sequences clearly show that Catherine is obsessed with The Mysteries of Udolpho by Ann Radcliffe. I've never read that novel but I have a 46 page graphic comic that tells the story. Katharine Schlesinger is good for the role of Catherine (their names are almost the same!). Peter Firth is good as the witty Henry and I especially like the way he teases her. I like his speech (mostly from the novel) when he suspects that Catherine thinks that General Tilney murdered Henry's mother. I like his argument with the General near the end of the movie. However, my favorite scene is at the end when the beautiful music is playing, Henry and Catherine talk, and a tear falls from her eye when he kisses her.
Anyone who voted 1 for this movie has not seen Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966) or Robot Monster (1953). Those movies deserve a 1. I consider those voters too extreme. I don't think this movie deserves a 10 either, so I'm giving it a 7.
One of the worst Jane Austen adaptations of all time...
TheLittleSongbird5 February 2012
That is alongside the 2007 adaptation of Mansfield Park. Northanger Abbey is not my favourite Jane Austen book, but I do very much like it, it has all the characteristics that make her books so great. As an adaptation this Northanger Abbey is dire. On its own terms however, it manages to be even worse. The scenery and costumes are decent enough, but I couldn't enjoy them properly because the camera work was so distractingly bad, very shaky and unfocused.
I love musical scores in period pieces, but this is one of few that I dislike, it is not only dreary but completely out of place within the setting. Northanger Abbey(1987) contains an awful script as well in my opinion, it misses the satire and wit of the book and ends up being unfunny and aimless. The adaptation may be short, maybe too short, but because of the lack of satirical wit it also is ponderous and dull.
Sadly, the story is increasingly meandering and too serious and melodramatic in tone(the anti-thesis of what it should be), the dream sequences are done in such a way you'd think the people involved were on something trippy and there are no likable characters, the marshioness especially is annoying and not needed at all, and her make-up was awful. Isabella is alright I guess but not as subtle as I would have liked. The acting fares little better.
Katherine Schlesinger is too bug-eyed for me and not innocent enough, Peter Firth as the usually charming Henry is too old and too creepy and Robert Hardy overacts wildly, further disadvantaged by how one-dimensional General Tilney is. Cassie Stuart is much better as Isabella but could've done with more subtlety. The best of the cast was Googie Withers, but she deserved much better.
Overall, a dire adaptation and one of the worst Austen adaptations. Even with its flaws, the 2007 adaptation was far superior. 1/10 Bethany Cox
I love musical scores in period pieces, but this is one of few that I dislike, it is not only dreary but completely out of place within the setting. Northanger Abbey(1987) contains an awful script as well in my opinion, it misses the satire and wit of the book and ends up being unfunny and aimless. The adaptation may be short, maybe too short, but because of the lack of satirical wit it also is ponderous and dull.
Sadly, the story is increasingly meandering and too serious and melodramatic in tone(the anti-thesis of what it should be), the dream sequences are done in such a way you'd think the people involved were on something trippy and there are no likable characters, the marshioness especially is annoying and not needed at all, and her make-up was awful. Isabella is alright I guess but not as subtle as I would have liked. The acting fares little better.
Katherine Schlesinger is too bug-eyed for me and not innocent enough, Peter Firth as the usually charming Henry is too old and too creepy and Robert Hardy overacts wildly, further disadvantaged by how one-dimensional General Tilney is. Cassie Stuart is much better as Isabella but could've done with more subtlety. The best of the cast was Googie Withers, but she deserved much better.
Overall, a dire adaptation and one of the worst Austen adaptations. Even with its flaws, the 2007 adaptation was far superior. 1/10 Bethany Cox
Well done, elaborate, intriguing adaptation
Psyche-819 April 2001
When Jane Austen wrote 'Northanger Abbey' she intended to poke fun at the trashy Gothic literature of her day, aimed at silly, young, impressionable females. The story was meant to gradually draw the character of Catherine Morland out of the fantasy world she had built for herself, and into reality. The typical language, characters and themes of a Gothic romance were sent up the whole way through and were shown to be the epitomy of bad writing.
However, this adaptation seemed to embrace and flatter what it was that Jane Austen was attempting to satirise. It retained a gothic feel throughout and seemed to 'put back' what it was that Jane Austen was trying to 'take out'. Northanger Abbey became the mysterious castle, Henry Tilney became the intriguing Gothic hero, and the 'secret' which Catherine believed existed at the Abbey turned out to be real. One cannot help thinking that the makers of this adaptation hadn't read the book very closely as they seemed to have missed the point.
Unfortunately with an adaptation of this type, when Jane Austen was writing she was assuming that her readers would be familiar with the Gothic genre. Filmmakers today would need to explain to the audience what the Gothic genre was all about, explaining why this adaptation contains so many fantastical elements that Jane Austen was attempting to escape from.
All of this aside, it works quite well. The adaptation keeps to the storyline pretty much, and retains much of Jane Austen's witty dialogue. The music helps contribute to the eerie atmosphere very well. One cannot help but wonder at the beauty of this version. Perfectly cast and impeccably acted.
However, this adaptation seemed to embrace and flatter what it was that Jane Austen was attempting to satirise. It retained a gothic feel throughout and seemed to 'put back' what it was that Jane Austen was trying to 'take out'. Northanger Abbey became the mysterious castle, Henry Tilney became the intriguing Gothic hero, and the 'secret' which Catherine believed existed at the Abbey turned out to be real. One cannot help thinking that the makers of this adaptation hadn't read the book very closely as they seemed to have missed the point.
Unfortunately with an adaptation of this type, when Jane Austen was writing she was assuming that her readers would be familiar with the Gothic genre. Filmmakers today would need to explain to the audience what the Gothic genre was all about, explaining why this adaptation contains so many fantastical elements that Jane Austen was attempting to escape from.
All of this aside, it works quite well. The adaptation keeps to the storyline pretty much, and retains much of Jane Austen's witty dialogue. The music helps contribute to the eerie atmosphere very well. One cannot help but wonder at the beauty of this version. Perfectly cast and impeccably acted.
Probably the Worst Jane Austen Ever Committed To Film
curt-2815 September 2002
The BBC and the Arts & Entertainment Network should be ashamed of themselves for foisting this unfortunate production onto the world. The acting is, with the exception of Robert Hardy as General Tilney, amateurish at best and excruciatingly painful at worst. The costumes are over-the-top and feature some truly ghoulish excesses -- was the costume designer obsessed with feathers for women's hats? Surely EVERY woman in Bath didn't have feathers in her headpiece in the early 19th century. The production values are poor and the pacing of the film makes one feel it was hastily and clumsily edited at the last minute. Altogether an agonizing film that I had to force myself to watch to the end. It's a shame, as the producers obviously spent a lot of money on costumes and location shooting. Compared to Emma Thompson's sublime "Sense and Sensibility" or the extraordinary 1995 production of "Pride and Prejudice" or the subtle intensity of 1995's "Persuasion", this production of `Northanger Abbey' surely has Jane Austen turning in her grave.
But it registers a solid 10 on the Poopookakameter
cluin7 October 2005
Is it possible to give a 0 out of 10 rating? Because this one deserves it. While I'm not a big fan of Jane Austen's books, I sat through this one with two women who are. Well, at least we had a big laugh about how bad this film is. Robert Hardy was the only actor with any charisma in the whole thing, though he overdid it as he usually does (nearly as bad as William Shatner). But that wasn't enough to save this stinker from total suckitude. It's often hard to separate the girl's dream sequences from what is "really" happening, and so many holes are left in the story that you can barely figure out what is going on. Too many loose ends and the ending feels like a "tune in again next week" climax. The lead actress is too ditsy and weird-looking to be a heroine, the leading man is too goofy-looking and effeminate to be a convincing hero and the music sounds like some kind of cheap new-agey pet project of the director's hippy daughter (I mean saxophone??? mixed in with some kind of spacey operatic female wailing?). So, in conclusion, I suggest you blow the budget and order a DVD of this one as soon as possible. Especially if you like disappointment.
why oh why...
psychoameise23 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
... did they bother making this?
My advice is: steer clear!
The film cuts a lot of scenes from the book - which is understandable for a movie - but instead of keeping some of the better ones from the book they decided to add some needless (and crap) ones of their own devising.
The casting is awful - excepting perhaps the actress who plays Elinor Tilney. All the characters are painfully overdone and you spend your time being irritated with the actors. Catherine is beady eyed and silly, Henry is neither young nor dashing and is a bit on the horny side for my liking, General Tilney is portrayed as a dirty old man, John Thorpe is revolting (I know he's supposed to be, but not THAT much. The actor overdoes it so badly you expect him to start drooling over Catherine any second. At one point he actually makes a "phwoarrr" noise... PLEASE!) and Isabella's attempts at acting flirty are so embarrassingly bad it makes you laugh.
The costumes are off (what's with the bright red lipstick what were they thinking?), the soundtrack is wrong and all of Austens satire is lost.
The camera-work can be described as dodgy at best and the sound recordists absolutely did not know what they were doing...
All in all: the worst Austen adaptation in being (and I have seen the latest Mansfield Park so that's saying some...)
My advice is: steer clear!
The film cuts a lot of scenes from the book - which is understandable for a movie - but instead of keeping some of the better ones from the book they decided to add some needless (and crap) ones of their own devising.
The casting is awful - excepting perhaps the actress who plays Elinor Tilney. All the characters are painfully overdone and you spend your time being irritated with the actors. Catherine is beady eyed and silly, Henry is neither young nor dashing and is a bit on the horny side for my liking, General Tilney is portrayed as a dirty old man, John Thorpe is revolting (I know he's supposed to be, but not THAT much. The actor overdoes it so badly you expect him to start drooling over Catherine any second. At one point he actually makes a "phwoarrr" noise... PLEASE!) and Isabella's attempts at acting flirty are so embarrassingly bad it makes you laugh.
The costumes are off (what's with the bright red lipstick what were they thinking?), the soundtrack is wrong and all of Austens satire is lost.
The camera-work can be described as dodgy at best and the sound recordists absolutely did not know what they were doing...
All in all: the worst Austen adaptation in being (and I have seen the latest Mansfield Park so that's saying some...)
Irony lives outside UK and Canada
brynjones-31 March 2008
I've just watched this again on the BBC Channel 4. It's not Jane Austen's best novel by any means but the film is a reasonable interpretation. I suspect the Assembly Rooms at Bath would have been rather more crowded than shown; perhaps they couldn't afford the extras. Also why does everyone shut up so that the dancing couple can have an audible conversation? I've never heard anything anyone has ever said to me when I've been dancing and I suspect it would have been the same in the 18/19th century in Bath.
I cannot believe the US/Canada reviews; they completely miss the ironic element that is in the film throughout. The "gothic" scenes are quite cleverly presented but you need to read them properly. I'm sure Jane A would be mildly amused by those reviews. A propos of nothing, does anyone else think that Peter Firth gets to look more like Colin Baker (a former Doctor Who) or vice-versa the older they both get?
I cannot believe the US/Canada reviews; they completely miss the ironic element that is in the film throughout. The "gothic" scenes are quite cleverly presented but you need to read them properly. I'm sure Jane A would be mildly amused by those reviews. A propos of nothing, does anyone else think that Peter Firth gets to look more like Colin Baker (a former Doctor Who) or vice-versa the older they both get?
oh dear god...
thefailure28 November 2000
Now and again, a film comes around purely by accident that makes you doubt your sanity. We just finished studying the novel, "Northanger Abbey", at school and decided to refresh our memory of this unexciting piece of humourless garbage with the BBC adaptation.
The funny thing about Northanger Abbey is that it actually makes you want to kill yourself. The film is NOTHING like the book, for example, the subtly evil characters seem to have been turned into transparent stereotypes. John Thorpe looks like a leprechaun on acid while Isabella plays the role of slut. Catherine, the main character, is the most depressingly stupid and irritating actress on god's earth (she looks like a coffee addict, her eyes are like basketballs) whilst Mr Tilney looks and acts like a retired porno stunt double. The plot goes completely off the rails at certain points of the film, I don't know what the hell the director was thinking when for no reason at all, a 7 year old black kid who we've never met before takes the main character out of the abbey and starts cartwheeling in front of her. Yes, that's right, cartwheeling. Nonsense of this kind is occasionally interrupted by Catherines "fantasies" in which she is being carried around a cathedral by an ogre.
Northanger Abbey is basically visual euthanasia so if you want to murder your boss or something like that, BBC have basically discovered a new way to kill someone. Northanger is a barely laughably bad film. Don't watch it unless you're in a padded cell.
The funny thing about Northanger Abbey is that it actually makes you want to kill yourself. The film is NOTHING like the book, for example, the subtly evil characters seem to have been turned into transparent stereotypes. John Thorpe looks like a leprechaun on acid while Isabella plays the role of slut. Catherine, the main character, is the most depressingly stupid and irritating actress on god's earth (she looks like a coffee addict, her eyes are like basketballs) whilst Mr Tilney looks and acts like a retired porno stunt double. The plot goes completely off the rails at certain points of the film, I don't know what the hell the director was thinking when for no reason at all, a 7 year old black kid who we've never met before takes the main character out of the abbey and starts cartwheeling in front of her. Yes, that's right, cartwheeling. Nonsense of this kind is occasionally interrupted by Catherines "fantasies" in which she is being carried around a cathedral by an ogre.
Northanger Abbey is basically visual euthanasia so if you want to murder your boss or something like that, BBC have basically discovered a new way to kill someone. Northanger is a barely laughably bad film. Don't watch it unless you're in a padded cell.
a mixture of modern and period drama nightmare.
denisa-dellinger19 August 2016
I am a Janeite, a die hard died in the wool lover of all things Jane Austen. Like all Janeites, I have found that the film adaptations do not do the book justice and indeed the book is better than the film. I am willing to put up with some of the little deleted plot line to view the a film displaying my beloved book characters. Northanger Abby 1987 was no different. The actors playing the characters did a fairly good job. The screenplay contained most of the plot lines with a few omissions and a few additions. I just don't get the reason for additions of plot, the adding of extra characters or the complete leaving out of others. This adaptation passed my test for that, only one new character added not in the book. The part I hated was the music. It was a mixture of saxophone, synthesized keyboards and a woman howling out some oohing. These are not period accurate! I couldn't take it! It made the film seem like a senior high film project. Was it a low budget film? The dream scenes were not necessary. This was a playful story poking fun at novels. There was nothing playful about it.
Horrid
mrwiseman-123 September 2008
It is a sad sorry state that leaves me, a fan of both Jane Austen and BBC period dramas, unable to say anything good about this adaptation of Northanger Abbey. Sadly I bought my copy of this 1986 version without reading reviews
I clearly should have investigated.
The best way to describe it is a production directed by someone who saw the film Amadeus about 20 times to many. The music all saxophone and synthesizer was complete rubbish and ruined the period milieu.
The acting was terrible. The lead actress seemingly believes staring bugged eyed conveys innocence. It merely makes her look perpetually surprised, which hardly fits every scene. The lead actor only is slightly better, although he is lit sometimes so badly that he comes off a sort of frightening leader of an 80s rock band. In fact the whole production seems to be directed to be a music video rather than a wonderful Austen film. I seriously wonder about the availability of drugs in the UK in the 1980s yes, it is that sort of film.
If you have choice invest you money in the 2007 Northanger Abbey 100% better.
The best way to describe it is a production directed by someone who saw the film Amadeus about 20 times to many. The music all saxophone and synthesizer was complete rubbish and ruined the period milieu.
The acting was terrible. The lead actress seemingly believes staring bugged eyed conveys innocence. It merely makes her look perpetually surprised, which hardly fits every scene. The lead actor only is slightly better, although he is lit sometimes so badly that he comes off a sort of frightening leader of an 80s rock band. In fact the whole production seems to be directed to be a music video rather than a wonderful Austen film. I seriously wonder about the availability of drugs in the UK in the 1980s yes, it is that sort of film.
If you have choice invest you money in the 2007 Northanger Abbey 100% better.
Incredible, unforgettable atmosphere
philiptaron20 October 1999
I just checked out Northanger Abbey from the local library, and wasn't expecting much. Imagine my suprise at this gothic treat! Northanger Abbey is one of the most eerie places that you have ever seen, with empty passageways and ornate rooms full of hidden secrets. The glory of the movie is that it never reveals all: your imagination runs free, running with the imagination of the main character, one Kathrine M. She is a girl of wild imaginations, a reader of gothic fantasy that she brings into her (and our) real world.
If I were to use one word to describe this excellent movie, it would be surrealistic. Dreams are woven throughout the movie, enhancing the mood. Sometimes, it is hard to tell what is real and what is not; this is intentional, I believe.
Atmosphere reigns supreme. The music is not what you'd expect of a movie by Jane Austen: it is eerie, flute and drum based, high and haunting with an undercurrent of fear. If a soft, pleasant tune were playing in Northanger Abbey, it would be positively inviting. Now, it is foreboding, a grim and stark-walled palace of madmen. (But! The characters! You shall have to see them for yourself!)
If you are looking for a most enjoyable evening, look no further than Northanger Abbey.
If I were to use one word to describe this excellent movie, it would be surrealistic. Dreams are woven throughout the movie, enhancing the mood. Sometimes, it is hard to tell what is real and what is not; this is intentional, I believe.
Atmosphere reigns supreme. The music is not what you'd expect of a movie by Jane Austen: it is eerie, flute and drum based, high and haunting with an undercurrent of fear. If a soft, pleasant tune were playing in Northanger Abbey, it would be positively inviting. Now, it is foreboding, a grim and stark-walled palace of madmen. (But! The characters! You shall have to see them for yourself!)
If you are looking for a most enjoyable evening, look no further than Northanger Abbey.
Wonderful setting!
mikyway14 August 2006
I think this film version of NORTHANGER ABBEY is actually quite good. It certainly is amusing. Well, it's not a masterpiece as PRIDE AND PREJUDICE ('95) but there's very good stuff in it.. especially the City of Bath setting!!! ..The Royal Crescent, the Roman Baths, the fascinating Georgian atmosphere.. That is excellent. If you are a Bath fan like myself, you'll love watching this film! The performances may sound a bit too "melodramatic" but I've got the impression that this film, like the novel itself, is deliberately making fun of the popular tales of romance and terror and of the society of the period. The only drawback is probably the female lead as I personally have another idea of Catherine Morland's physical appearance. The music is also a bit "unusual".. but I strangely find it acceptable despite it's got nothing to do with the historical period portrayed. I'm wondering what would dear old Jane think...:)
Save yourself the time...
youshouldwriteme17 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is a terrible movie, that is barely recognizable from the book, although they have sort of similar plots. The time it takes to watch this movie (which is only 1.5 hours) would be much better spent doing anything else, including watching grass grow. The addition of poorly done fantasy scenes make Catherine seem insufferably silly. The actress who plays Catherine also comes across ditzy as all goodness and looks constantly surprised, even when she's supposed to be looking lovingly into her Tilney's eyes. Honestly!! The movie ends with a Catherine fantasy-like scene where one can't help but wonder if it's happened or if she's merely delusional, and not in the good way that makes you think but in a perfectly horrible way that basically sums up the terrible movie. The only good thing about the movie is the title, which was written by Ms. Austen herself. I generally love the BBC's productions but this one is horrid.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
