I am acknowledging that I came into this with really high expectations. I LOVED the book and waited and waited to finally get to watch the movie when it came out on DVD today. But still, I think Jerusha Hess made a mess of it. I don't enjoy her quirkiness or style and she changed so many things for no reason.
An example is when Nobley and Jane run into her room, there was no motivation! In the book they sneak up there so she can show him her paintings. In the movie, they just run there for no reason and then he leaves immediately. It was stupid.
And Austenland is supposed to have a strict policy of no modern technology, hence why Mrs. Wattlesbrook was ready to kick Jane out for having a cell phone. Yet they are shown using hot glue guns and Miss Charming has a TV in her room! It doesn't make sense in that case that Jane could be expulsed for having a hidden phone.
I'm sure all the movie lovers, or Hess lovers will say I'm taking it too seriously and I'm sure you're right. I just wish a different director would remake it because it has so much potential. It felt so anticlimactic to me since there didn't seem to be much chemistry or build up to Jane and Henry's relationship. :-/
Maybe if I watch it again I'll be able to enjoy it better with lower expectations. I want to love it, I do!
I didn't even finish it. I love Kerri Russell and based on the poster itself, I was expecting some cute, quirky movie revolving around Pride and Prejudice...But, it wasn't and it just didn't work for me.
After watching for 25 minutes I couldn't take it anymore and ejected the dvd. Jennifer Coolidge seriously cannot act. She was exceedingly annoying.
I liked Keri Russell when she played Felicity, but having her play a teenager (in a few scenes) was ridiculous!
I'm a big fan of Pride & Prejudice (which I'd watch any day over this), but this was a lame parody. The actor who was supposed to be akin to Mr. Darcy had no charisma (definitely no Colin Firth or Matthew Macfadyen).
The early scenes seemed so silly I couldn't stand to watch anymore. I can't see how anyone except maybe someone who's never watched any real Austen adaptations could like this.
Shannon Hale herself wrote the script, so the changes actually come from her. That said, I do think this movie could have been funnier with a different director in many points it just fell flat.
Shannon Hale did indeed write the script, but in collaboration with Jerusha Hess. As you said, many parts fell flat, including the funniest line in the book and I blame the direction, not so much the script.
And at first I thought maybe they didn't include Jane's old Aunt Caroline to save on writing in another character, but they still wrote in a travel agent who was played by the director's husband. :-/
And I agree it was strange to have Kerri Russell, who very much looks her age, playing a teenager. They turned Jane into a crazy, immature, super fan, rather than the moderately crazy fan she was meant to be, who was much easier to like and route for.
I've read pretty much 90% of Jane Austen "sequels" and HATED this one. However, I love Jennifer Coolidge so when it came out on Netflix, I thought I would watch it.
1. I spent the whole run of Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman worshiping Jane Seymour. But all the roles I've seen her in recently (not many) have her looking like a prune and cartoon version of herself. She looks better in those stupid jewelery commercials she does. Was she suppose to be cartoonish and a B?
2. I have absolutely no idea what the plot of this mess was. She goes to a Jane Austen theme park. Yes, that would be awesome. However, why is there a pirate? Yeah, yeah, he came from the West Indies which was trading with England for tobacco and tea, etc., but it was pretty silly to have him as a soap opera star.
3. Spent the whole movie thinking JJ Feild was the guy who played Loki in the Thor and Avengers movies.
4. What was the reason for her friend in America being really pregnant? I don't think it was even mentioned. Friend of the director?
5. Why would Mrs. Wattlesbrook treat Jane so badly. Even if she did have a lesser "package", I bet she paid an arm and a leg to be there. Plus, Jane was pretty dumb if she didn't do any research on the place "oh, I thought we were suppose to wear costumes".
6. Do they usually have pools and cabanas like that on a National Trust Estates for the staff? England is suddenly warm enough to have a beach resort?
7. I DID like and notice the man, forgot his name, who played exactly the same role in P&P 1995 (Colin Firth version) 20+ years later. He was the drunk husband then, and the drunk philander now. Cool connection.
8. Keri Russell is to old to be getting by on her "cuteness".
#2: I figured the “pirate” was there for the type of woman who considers herself an Austen fan but is really more of Darcy in a wet shirt fan (not that one can’t be both). As such I found it amusing. As to his being a soap opera star – all the men there are actors –Austen Land might be something they do between jobs.
#4: Why not? People have friends who are pregnant. But if I had to come up with a reason I suppose it could show that her close friend is starting a real life family while Jane is stuck in a fantasy.
#5: I kind of assumed that was part of her heroine story line to be treated as if she were not as good as everyone else and then find love. She’s given a Fanny Price-ish type role.
#4: Why not? People have friends who are pregnant. But if I had to come up with a reason I suppose it could show that her close friend is starting a real life family while Jane is stuck in a fantasy.
I think it was because Keri was pregnant. Easy enough to hide when she starts wearing the empire waist dresses, but they had to work harder in the scenes where she wears normal clothing. They used some drape-y shirts and looser blouses but I think the friend being pregnant (and very far along) was also meant to make Keri's pregnancy less noticeable in comparison.
But for he story, yes it also fits to serve as an example of her friend moving on in life while Jane is still playing.
reply share
Without a doubt, this is one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen. But then, I didn't like Napoleon Dynamite the first time I saw it, either. Maybe if I watch it again, I'll find something I like about it. I just couldn't agree with all of the bright colors and kitschy decor. I realize it was a theme park, of sorts, but looked nothing like the actual Jane Austen's world would have looked. I guess because of that, I found it completely implausible.
"Terriers always smell like warm, buttered toast."
I just watched it for the first time on demand tonight. I really liked it because I had no expectations. It wasn't reviewed well when it came out last year and I never made it to the theater to see it. Yes, there were aspects of the movie that fell apart. I didn't read the book-- so I don't know if the issue was the screenplay or the direction. However, it was cute and sweet and I think the talent of the actors saved it. ...and I did think Jane and Henry had chemistry. It wasn't as good as "Lost In Austen"-- which I loved-- but I liked the way the modern story was woven together with elements of Miss Austen's famous stories. I thought that was clever and well done.
"...there is one who I could follow; there is one I could call king..."
Oh, was she supposed to be a teenager there? I wasn't really paying attention at the beginning and just assumed she was a middle-aged college student or something.