Holstra Boring, long, and too preachy.

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Amy Adler In the early 1800's, Catherine Moreland (Felicity Jones) has grown up as the oldest girl in a family of ten children. Her father is a clergyman, so the Morelands are respectable but far from extremely wealthy. Once a tomboy, Catherine, now 18, has become interested in clothes, hairstyles, Gothic novels, and finding a husband. With a vivid imagination, Catherine often daydreams of being the heroine of a Gothic intrigue. Back in the real world, their wealthy neighbors, the Allens, propose to Catherine's parents that she accompany them to Bath for a holiday, Cat is very glad that her parents say yes. Once there, the beautiful but rather naïve young lady meets a handsome man, Henry Tilney (J J Field) almost by accident. It is soon clear that Catherine likes the looks and charm of Mr. Tilney and visa versa. However, the Tilneys are rather above the Morelands in social realms and Mr. Tilney's father, in particular, may be a controlling, dour gentleman. Meanwhile, Catherine makes friends with another beautiful lass in much the same monetary position, Isabella (Carey Mulligan). The two become quite close but, alas, Isabella may be more capricious and worldly than Catherine, interested only in making a good match. When Isabella confides that she is engaged to Catherine's brother, James, Miss Moreland is glad. But, when the young couple finds that cannot marry for two years, due to when money may be available, Catherine is astounded to see her new-found friend flirting with other men. But, oh wait, joy of joys, Catherine is invited to visit Northanger Abbey, the stately home of the Tilneys, to further a friendship with Henry and his sister. This imposing family castle gives rise to further Gothic daydreams about the "lost wing", where Mrs. Tilney passed away some years before. It also comes to the elder Mr. Tilney's attention that Catherine may not be an heiress and "good enough" for his son. Will there be a future for the obviously in love Catherine and Henry? This adaption of Austen's supposed Gothic send-up is quite, quite beautiful. First, the cast is terrific, with Jones a perfection as the lovely but unsophisticated Miss Moreland. Field, too, is great, while Mulligan shines in an early role. All of the other cast members, less well known, are quite fine, too. Then, the sets are breathtaking, the costumes of the finest standard and the cinematography very gorgeous to behold. In truth, the Gothic angle is played up a good deal here while Austen's novel is more focused on the characters ups and downs. Then, too, Miss Moreland is a departure from the wit and verve of Elizabeth Bennett, being more naïve and trusting while retaining a sweet enthusiasm for life that is very fetching. All in all, while this viewer wished the production was longer, this is an excellent watch for those who want quality historical dramas.

TheLittleSongbird I didn't think much of ITV's Persuasion or Mansfield Park, but I really liked their adaptation of Northanger Abbey, much more so than the 1980s adaptation. I did think though that the scene between Isabella and Frederick towards the end was rather jarring with the period, and the ending was rushed and abrupt.On the other hand, as you would expect with a period piece, it does look absolutely beautiful, I'd say especially in the scenery it was the best looking of the 2007 ITV adaptations of Jane Austen's wonderful books. The music has a pleasant lilt to it with a soothing quality to it. The story moves quickly with some decent dream sequences, if a little rushed at the end and maintains the book's spirit, and the dialogue is mostly in keeping with Jane Austen's style while also being fresh and funny.The superb cast are also to be commended. Felicity Jones plays her role of Catherine Morland with wide-eyed innocence, naivety and above all charm, and JJ Field is equally wonderful and just as charming as Henry, the fact he is very like how Austen describes Henry in the book is a good if not always important advantage. In support, Catherine Walker's dignified turn stands out, and Geraldine James as the voice of Jane Austen is suitably understated and Carey Mulligan is a surprisingly subtle Isabella.General Tilney mayn't quite have the depth of his novelistic counterpart, making him one-dimensional at times, but Liam Cunningham does do what he can to make the character interesting at least. Speaking of the characters, of the adaptations of Northanger Abbey, Persuasion and Mansfield Park, this was the only one where I actually did care for any of the characters, the characters in the other two were either underdeveloped or unconvincingly played.Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this Northanger Abbey. Considering the disappointments that were Persuasion and especially Mansfield Park I was not expecting to say or think that. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

ThatDoesntMatter I did not watch this completely. I could not bear it. Everything was wrong.At first I thought: Interesting take on Henry Tilney, make him a little more ...glib, I think, fits.But then I found it false and implausible - bad acting did not help.Mrs Allen is too sweet. Missed the chance for authentic portrayal - she is a superficial, self-centered, nice enough simpleton, such a great foundation for caricature (Jane Austen was a genius at that!) Mr Allen too wordy in general.Isabella is FAR TOO NICE. She is supposed to be chatty, self-centered in a bad way, befriending Catherine with her own motives in mind.John Thorpe - completely wrong - oh my...another chance of caricature (and fun!!!) lost.Seems to be they just took the script from the 1986 version and juiced it up a bit (not that I watched that one through...life is short, and at least I want to decide what I waste it on - not this!!!) - a Roman bath scene??? Hello??? lol Catherine - oh Catherine. I love Catherine,naive and simple as she might be. Here she flirts, pouts and suffers from hormonal overflow - yucky! That they used a voice over with verbatim parts from the novel makes this even more ---- HORRID!!!:-) As has been stated here: If you don't do Jane Austen to the book, leave it! (Or take better script writers, actors and directors - I'm not adverse to interesting adaptations - like Clueless for Emma - but this is unnecessary drab)

froglady99 This movie was very good, and I loved the music. I thought the actors all played their parts well, although the lady who played Eleanor seemed a bit too old for the part. If you haven't read Northanger Abbey, you'll probably like this movie just fine, but I watched this movie a day after finishing the book for the second time, so I noticed a few differences. (If you haven't seen the movie or read the book, go do so before reading the rest of this review!) Some of the differences aren't a huge deal, such as some events happening in a bit different setting than in the book. But others take away from the story some. For example, in this movie Henry just mentions a few things, like skeletons in closets, to freak out Catherine when they're on their way to the Abbey. When she's in her room, she opens an old trunk and finds a few scattered papers inside. But in the book, Henry gives Catherine a very detailed description of her looking into a tall cabinet and finding a secret passageway and finding mysterious papers, and when she's in her room, she finds just such a tall cabinet with a secret compartment that contains mysterious papers. Playing down that whole scene took out a lot of great drama from the movie, and I was a bit disappointed with that.Another thing I didn't care for was that the movie tells us things early on that the book doesn't tell until the end, like what John Thorpe was telling General Tilney at the theater, and introducing the guy that Eleanor later married--he wasn't even mentioned until the end of the book! The third difference that I really have a problem with is the way things happened at the Abbey. Some of it is fine--just a little condensed, but I don't like the fact that the movie has Henry leave without telling Catherine he forgives her for her terrible suspicions. In the book, he assured her that they were OK before he went away, and Catherine talked to both him and Eleanor (not just Eleanor like in the movie) about the letter from James and what he said about Captain Tilney. I think it's important to show that even after Henry learned of Catherine's ridiculously horrible suspicions about the General, they were almost immediately able to be on good terms and were able to discuss the issues surrounding Captain Tilney and Isabella. Also, the movie shows the General leaving before the group went to Woodston, whereas in the book, he was one of the party.So basically, this is a good and enjoyable movie, but I wish they wouldn't have changed some of those key points in the story. It wouldn't have taken much extra time (if any) to leave those things in, and it would've really added to the movie. I think the biggest problem is that they tried to condense the book into such a short movie. Movie adaptations of Jane Austen's books work the best if they're several hours long, like the Colin Firth version of Pride & Prejudice. Now, if you're still reading this and haven't read the book, go read it! It's a very interesting and entertaining book!