Becoming Jane Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x816 | 8137.34 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x544 | 6716.22 MiB | 720p | |
|
576x320 | 704.53 MiB | divx | |
|
320x176 | 463.48 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
"A woman especially if she has the misfortune of knowing anything, should conceal it as well as she can." -Jane Austen
Becoming a woman. Becoming a legend.
Her own life is her greatest inspiration.
Between sense and sensibility and pride and prejudice was a life worth writing about.
The year is 1795 and young Jane Austen is a feisty 20-year-old and emerging writer who already sees a world beyond class and commerce, beyond pride and prejudice, and dreams of doing what was then nearly unthinkable - marrying for love. Naturally, her parents are searching for a wealthy, well-appointed husband to assure their daughter's future social standing. They are eyeing Mr. Wisley, nephew to the very formidable, not to mention very rich, local aristocrat Lady Gresham, as a prospective match. But when Jane meets the roguish and decidedly non-aristocratic Tom Lefroy, sparks soon fly along with the sharp repartee. His intellect and arrogance raise her ire - then knock her head over heels. Now, the couple, whose flirtation flies in the face of the sense and sensibility of the age, is faced with a terrible dilemma. If they attempt to marry, they will risk everything that matters - family, friends and fortune.
| Anne Hathaway | Jane Austen |
| James McAvoy | Tom Lefroy |
| Julie Walters | Mrs. Austen |
| James Cromwell | Rev Austen |
| Maggie Smith | Lady Gresham |
| Joe Anderson | Henry Austen |
| Lucy Cohu | Eliza De Feuillide |
| Laurence Fox | Mr. Wisley |
| Ian Richardson | Judge Langlois |
| Anna Maxwell Martin | Cassandra Austen |
| Leo Bill | John Warren |
| Jessica Ashworth | Lucy Lefroy |
| Eleanor Methven | Mrs. Lefroy |
| Michael James Ford | Mr. Lefroy |
| Tom Vaughan-Lawlor | Robert Fowle |
| Julian Jarrold |
6.70 out of 10 (574 votes)
Visitor Reviews
not worth your time
posted on 22 Aug 2009I'll admit it. I'm not one to usually hate movies like 'Becoming Jane', but honestly, I did not like this one....at all. In all honesty, I don't believe the crew did a very good job when casting Anne Hathway. yes, she is a wonderful actress. But not for this movie. After watching it, I felt disappointed that she did not preform up to her usual standard. Also, while there was some amazing camera work in this film, I found many parts were jumpy. You could actually tell the camera was moving up and down. But, for the most part, the camera got some great shots. Lastly, I found it difficult to hear what people were saying at times. If you can't understand it, why bother?If you're looking a great chick flick, I would try 'Pride and Prejudice' (Keira Kightley, Matthew Macfadyen) or 'Sense and Sensibility' (Kate Winslet, Emma Thompson). These movies are both based on Jane Austen books. And both are wonderful.
Shouldn't have such a high expectation
posted on 10 Aug 2009I've seen good work done by both Anne Hathaway and James McAvoy. So I watched the film with really high expectation. But I was quite disappointed at the end. I think the main fault is probably the script is just not engaging enough even I tried hard to love the characters. Also, I can't help but compare this film to the films made base on Jane's novels. E.g. Sense and Sensibility, Emma, and the Pride and Prejudice (both the 2005 film and 1995 TV mini series). Any of these films are much better choice than Becoming Jane.Again, I don't think it is the fault of Anne Hathaway or James McAvoy. I might be wrong but I think the script can be much improved. If I had watched the film with a much lowered expectation, I might have been able to enjoy it a little bit more.
I've never read any Jane Austen, but this movie blew me away
posted on 06 Aug 2009An article about Anne Hathaway mentioned this movie, and so I Netflixed it. The dialog was witty and eloquent, and every word chosen was perfect. I had no trouble believing that this independent, articulate woman would behave this way and speak this way. And I like that the guy who won her, seduced her (mentally) with a book! (Tom Jones). This is a much better movie than I expected, and Anne Hathaway (whom I've only seen in comedies ere now) did much better acting than I expected. I'm told that a lot of the script is based on speculation (because there isn't that much known fact about Jane Austen's life), but as an engrossing story, the script works superbly.
Love, Love, Loved it. Austen springs to life on the silver screen with heart & soul.
posted on 29 Jul 2009Really marvelous, and somewhat reminiscent of Miss Potter. I went into the theater with what I would call average expectations; they were quickly exceeded. I thought this film was casted very well, the costumes were wonderfully authentic as was the dialogue, the soundtrack was lovely, and the locations were fantastic. I found the plot to be clever and captivating, and in addition, the growth and emotions the characters display seems quite genuine. In general, I rarely admit that I become entirely engrossed in a film, smirking at comical remarks and particularly romantic scenes; likewise, I found myself feeling rather curious and rebellious, often mirroring the emotions that Jane feels. Truly, I felt as though I had fallen into Miss Austen's Hampshire forest and become a part of the story. The cast was superb, all of the characters brought passion and sparked life in a setting that some would describe as stuffy and dull. Although, Hathway is an American, I completely felt as though she more than lived up to the role's high demands (her accent being rather passable); she gives the character of Jane a spirit and life that is easily identified with by young women in audiences. But of course, how could I forget the delightful, and attractive, Tom Lefroy. James McAvoy melts into this role so smoothly and effortlessly, and honestly, who could deny his stellar looks and charm? All memory of him as a faun in the Chronicals of Narnia being pushed from thought, he has morphed into a charming British Dandy that is sure to flutter the hearts of adolescent girls as well as the rest of the general female population that is not blind. The chemistry between Hathaway and McAvoy does much more than bubble and simmer, it boils. In addition, Maggie Smith is a familiar face that once again works its magic (no pun intended with Harry Potter), Julie Walters (who also plays Mrs. Weaseley in Harry Potter) was simply fabulous, as was James Cromwell. The movie was brilliant, beautiful, witty, romantic, artistic, and real. Most of all real, which I believe Miss Austen would have greatly approved of: "My characters shall have, after a little trouble, all that they desire." --Miss Austen.
Captivating elegance and wit
posted on 27 Jul 2009Becoming Jane is a fiction. What historical drama is not? I'm always fascinated by the range of response to artistic license when exercised by others. Perhaps it helps sometimes to go in with less knowledge and fewer expectations so that the movie can be viewed on its own merits.As a movie period piece, Becoming Jane has a lot to recommend it. The cinematography had some brilliant moments. The dialog is possessed of some truly humorous and acerbic irony. The actors work as an ensemble and individually. Anne Hathaway is unquestionably lovely and captivating. Jennifer Ehle is still my favorite from the various Austen-style movies, but Hathaway charms me consistently.And Becoming Jane has a dark turn that presents the very irony admired by so many in Jane Austen's novels. I confess to liking sweet and romantic movies, but a bit of pathos can work wonders. Other personal favorites are An Ideal Husband, The Whole Wide World and The Last of the Mohicans. Becoming Jane is more cerebral than Michael Mann's Mohicans and less dark than Tarzan's author. The dialog is not as witty as Oscar Wilde, but Jane has its moments. Each of these offer interesting ties back to literary favorites. Jane worked on every level for me and is not a poor cousin to these fine movies.There was even some fun or sport in translating the depicted life experience into the implied inspiration. As I know Jane Austen more from the recent movies than from the original books the game is not that different from finding an homage in other movies.I took my wife and college-age daughter. We all gave it a 5-star (out of 5) ranking and enjoyed an evening of discussing what we liked. Bottom line we found an engaging story where we cared about the characters and could empathize with both their triumphs and tragedies. Becoming Jane is a visual treat with some depth in its own right. The immersive theater experience makes it easier for me to suspend disbelief or the inner skeptic. Perhaps this is a movie that requires that suspension of disbelief. If you know too much about Jane Austen the accumulation of fictions appears too much to bear for many, as evidenced by other reviews. If you are simply inclined to romantic dramas, you may react as I did. I fell in love and will watch this one again, probably several times.
A Writer, Romance and a Ye Olde English Social Scene
posted on 27 Jul 2009Following so many frilly adaptations of Jane Austen's literary works for TV and the big screen alike, the author herself finally gets a fanciful film devoted to her life; or at least her youth and a (probably fictional) romance she experienced during it.Slipping into the shoes, bonnet and writing gloves of one of the most celebrated English authors of all time is the extremely able Anne Hathaway who does an excellent and convincing job throughout (even in the British accent stakes). The dashing James McAvoy similarly shines as Tom Lefroy, Irish lawyer and object of the novel-writer's affection. The two fantastic leads are backed by a top-notch supporting cast and a meticulously accurate historical backdrop: three cheers for the costume department and set designers of this film.Becoming Jane is basically a mediation on pre-literary success Austen and charts her flirtations and romantic problems with Lefroy. Young Jane also has to face misogyny, the stresses of society's expectations and the pressures to marry into money; in effect, the strong encouragement within 18th Century English social circles to follow sense and sensibility rather than sensuality and spirit. Nevertheless, the young writer's muse is inspired in light of such events and emotional binds and her future masterpieces begin to take form and find themselves written in prose.Of course, there's tragedy and "trouble", but also emotive liberation from the strict behavioural standards Jane is subjected to. The film doesn't resist any opportunity to draw on such emotion as director Julian Jarrold liberally dashes meaningful juxtapositions and long-lasting close-ups to stretch the film. This sadly sucks the film a bit dry as it snakes it's way towards the conclusion the fast-edits and rapid-fire shots that had make the film engaging and unusual for a period piece at the beginning are replaced by meandering.Even though Becoming Jane feels long, slightly drawn out and flat in places, it's a good and solid fictionalised biopic that is handsomely crafted and strongly acted. It avoids being overly stuffy and stupefyingly dull like many period dramas before it, and interestingly tackles an author about whom relatively little is known considering her ubiquity. Some nice romance, sprinklings of classy cinematography and excellent performances: overall a nice, if not rather average, movie.
Austen's Powers Made Clear
posted on 19 Jul 2009Let me say this first: Yes. This movie is, in fact, NOT BASED OFF REAL LIFE. This appears to be the highest complaint for this clearly delightful and moving film about the fictitious life of Jane Austen. I walked into the theatre to see this movie knowing fully well that it was based off minor speculation, and anybody who has any knowledge of Jane Austen knows that this movie is not real.It is a movie beautifully portrayed in the likes of Shakespeare in Love, where Shakespeare was transformed into a poetic hottie, rather than the ugly man with wooden teeth that he was most likely to have been. Shakespeare in Love garnered an Academy Award for best Picture, whereas Becoming Jane has been criticized for its lack of reality. Personally, I don't see what the fuss is about.Becoming Jane is a beautifully directed film when fantastic scenery and sets. Anne Hathaway and James MacAvoy both have haunting and entertaining performances, making their slow journey to love extremely wonderful to watch. Maggie Smith is wonderful as well in her small role as a woman who, I can only assume, was the inspiration behind Pride and Prejudice's Lady Catherine.While the story does falter near the end, giving the audience too many climactic moments before the film actually finishes, I found it to be achingly romantic. MacAvoy and Hathaway had great chemistry and were thoroughly convincing as a couple deeply in love, an emotion that caused them as much distress as it caused happiness.The movie exudes subtle sexuality, displayed in a scene in which MacAvoy reads to Hathaway a passage from a nature book about mating birds and the female's "screams of ecstasy"; another scene shows the lovers walking up stairs to ask for permission to marry, MacAvoy gently grazes Hathaway's hand with his own and fondles the skirts of her dress. It was these subtle signs of love and lust that made this movie a treat to watch, being as overt sexuality would not have mirrored the time period. A scene at the end of the film in which, many years later, the couple meet each other by chance and we see MacAvoy's daughter, a charming lover of Jane Austen novels, conveniently named Jane. His daughter, named Jane, is based on fact. The movie is a chilling look on the few options that women had at the time, and shows that, although true love can be found, it can't always be kept.I recommend this film to anyone who is a lover of Austen, a lover of romantic films, or just anyone who is interesting in seeing a thoroughly entertaining and beautifully sad film about a love unexplored.
Great Movie!
posted on 15 Jul 2009Becoming Jane is an excellent movie, that tugs at your heart and makes you eager to have an enormous love like theirs. The actors are tremendously fantastic, and the love story is a lasting one, unable to forget. All the actors should be commended by there talents, especially James McAvoy, who plays the lead male character. He is simply great and unknowingly steals ever scene he embarks in.If you are a person that appreciates beautiful scenery and real unforgettable love stories, than this is the movie for you. An if you don't appreciate love stories and not a hopeless romantic, then I suggest, "Becoming Jane" is not the film for you. This movie keeps you on the edge, guessing and rooting for the main characters love to last. Its sweet and well acted, and will probably become a classic in the near future of great love stories of all time. "Becoming Jane" is a tearjerker you hopeless romantics can't miss!
Superb Perfromances and a Decent story makes it a WORTHWHILE MOVIE!
posted on 07 Jul 2009Becoming Jane isn't really Any Different than those OLD romantic movies…. People have been saying this OFTEN… Yes I agree… BUT since this is what happened to JANE what else is the movie supposed to be like.I think there was enough indication as to the influences that led to her Book's characters.Moreover the Romantic story of JANE AUSTEN was told well. EVEN More, I must say ACTED WELL… ANNE HATHEWAY gives a SUPERB Performance. Her British accent is Believable and her performance is Hert-Breakingly Terrific. If Kiera Knighly got nominated for "Pride and Prejudice" why not NOMINATE ANNE for becoming Jane.And JAMES McAVOY! Is he ever less than PERFECT??? I don't think so!!! His performance in "INSIDE I'm DANCING" And "Last King of Scotland" were Oscar WORTHY… Though I must say this role isn't going to land him a Oscar NOD… He still is GREAT…The movie also has GREAT Cinematography…All in all, it's a LOVELY movie… With Oscar Caliber PErfromances…7.5/10
Nice movie but could have been better
posted on 01 Jul 2009Becoming Jane is a nice movie, but it could have been better. First of all, I think that it is a HUGE mistake to choose an American actress to play the leading lady who is unable to pronounce words in the English accent. I like Anne Hathaway and I believe that she is a great actress, but she was totally unconvincing in the role of an English girl. Because of the way she was pronouncing the words, they sometimes came out rather unclear. She did not portray the role as she should have done. She did not show Jane Austen's rebellious side of her nature. However, there was a strong chemistry between Hathaway and James McAvoy (Tom Lefroy).When it comes to Tom Lefroy, I think James McAvoy did a splendid job. He portrayed Tom Lefroy's character wonderfully. He was full of charm and energy. He is a very talented actor with a great ability to play romantic characters.All in all it is not a bad movie, but it could have been MUCH better.
Destroying Jane
posted on 23 Jun 2009Of all truths to be universally acknowledged, I am, admittedly and with all possible pride, a nerd of the Jane Austen variety. Lovingly I have scanned the pages of each novel, appreciating the irony and humor. Adamantly I have viewed every film adaptation (that I am aware of), from Lee's Sense and Sensibility to Chadha's Bride and Prejudice, and, little by little, screenwriter's have slowly hacked away at her genius… sometimes successfully. I have borne scenes of Hugh Grant play sword fighting, of Keira Knightly stroking Matthew Macfadyen's calf, and of Colin Firth half nude admirably well (perhaps the latter more well than others), but occasionally a writer crosses that very fine line between revering the most beloved authoress and destroying all that which she created.I do not pretend to be an Austen purist by any means; I understand that adaptations of her novels can't all be five hours long and follow her dialogue word for word. We, the Austen lovers of the world, must surrender that movies are not books, and cannot, therefore, be identical to them. Emma Thompson, for example, made countless changes in writing her version of Sense and Sensibility, yet the alterations which she made were necessary. To me, it would be just as much a disservice to Jane Austen to follow one of her novels word for word in the screenplay and produce a dull piece of cinema than it would be to add a sex scene to Persuasion. What is important, in my opinion, is that the finished film retain the spirit of the novel, the humor, the vivacity, all that which makes her works as timeless as they are. This noted, I must express my disappointment, perhaps even disgust, in Becoming Jane, or as I have not-so-affectionately nicknamed it, Kidnapping, Raping and Murdering Jane, which is neither accurate nor entertaining.With Shakespeare in Love and Finding Neverland as models of success, Hollywood has pumped out disappointing flicks like Miss Potter, and now Becoming Jane, expecting viewers to lap it up, but what the first two are that the latter two are not is clever. They intermingle inspiration with biography, presenting the plot of the writer's lives almost as an ode to their work. Becoming Jane occasionally alluded to Pride and Prejudice, the most famous of Austen's six completed novels, but when it did so the allusions were weak and clearly forced. It was as though the screenwriters (Kevin Hood and Sarah Williams) were only familiar with Pride and Prejudice, ignoring her other five masterpieces. What is must frustrating about this is that it would have been so simple to allude to the other works. Have Cassandra (Jane's older sister) encourage Jane to be more sensible with regards to her romance, and voilà! Sense and Sensibility! Throw in a young character that introduces Jane to bachelors in hopes of making a match, and you've got Emma! But no, all that Kevin Hood and Sarah Williams could think to do was make Tom Lefroy, Jane's love interest, seemingly arrogant, but ultimately lovable.Similarly, the film spends so much time expressing the tragedy of Jane Austen's situation that one forgets that Anne Hathaway is meant to be the clever, witty woman that has hypnotized so many modern readers. I do not mean to scorn the movie's somewhat unhappy ending, so unlike those in Austen novels, but the way in which it ignores her character. Finding Neverland, for example, expresses the sadness of J. M. Barry's life, yet at the same time presents the story in such a way that the viewer feels as though they are watching something as magical as Peter Pan. Though Becoming Jane is certainly inaccurate, even inaccuracies would be tolerable if they were done in the name of preserving the spirit of Jane Austen's works. Instead, we the viewer are presented with a poor composition of infrequent wit and mildly appealing romance, hardly reminiscent of any of Austen's books.Apart from the abominable screenplay, the direction was mediocre and predictable at best. Julian Jarrold does produce a pretty shot here and there, but seems to have just discovered how to shoot an aerial view, and so puts them in practically every other scene.In spite of this negativity, I must admit that some of the acting was unexpectedly good. Anne Hathaway as Jane has a fine British accent and acts much better than I would have predicted (this is, after all, the first movie I've ever seen her in that she doesn't start out a homely geek and end up a fashion-forward bombshell). It is James McAvoy as Tom Lefroy, however, that puts in the show stealing performance. Maggie Smith is, as usual, good, as are Julie Walters and James Cromwell, even if those blasphemists Hood and Williams chose to throw in a scene of a, well, questionable, nature between them.Even with decent acting and direction, it is hard to produce a good movie based on a monstrous screenplay. The effect, all in all, is extremely disappointing. I would not recommend this movie to anyone who truly appreciates Jane Austen… or good cinema.
Jane Austen....without any of the wit or charm of her fiction
posted on 17 Jun 2009See British acting royalty act circles around Anne Hathaway, who seems capable only of blinking and widening her big cow eyes, and see an icon, Jane Austen, portrayed without an ounce of the incandescent wit, sharp insight, or humanity of any the novels she wrote and whose adaptations have graced the screen. I can understand why the writer and director embellished Austen's real-life romance with LeFroy, and other biographical details, but why create such an ungracious, self-important, proud and prejudiced heroine? The way she treats Wissley is downright vulgar and mean, and there was an opportunity here to create more than one character who might (one could have wondered) have inspired the characterization of Mr. D'Arcy. Some of the camera effects are simply irritating, the score is boring, and the whole production has a muddy, static quality. Clunky period piece, not in the same league as the latest Pride and Prejudice, or any of the movie adaptations of Austen's work. It really sucked.
beautiful
posted on 03 Jun 2009I found Becoming Jane very moving. It shows JA as an intelligent young woman who is also warm and loving. Even though much of the plot is fictionalized, it contains many real details from JA's life skillfully interwoven so as to make the suspension of disbelief quite easy.The performances of Anne Hathaway and James McAvoy were both outstanding, hitting the right emotional key at all times. Hathaway could make your heart break for her. I believe she will win awards for this role.The musical score is superb, something I have not seen even discussed in any 'professional' review. But then, most 'professional' reviews are written to display the cleverness of the reviewer with words rather than to fairly describe a movie's strengths and flaws.
This Film Does Not Become Jane **
posted on 03 Jun 2009Stop with tales of Jane Austen already. They are constantly boring with everyone spewing forth his own philosophy.Obviously, this definite period piece tries to overdo the mannerisms and tenets of a long bygone era. As the players say, they live in a period where it is believed that a wife who has a brain is dangerous.James McAvoy, the lover of Austen, played well by Ann Hathaway, is too young for the part. He has that boyish look which seems inappropriate. It is only at the end of the film, when the years have passed, that he seems to come into his own.As the erudite, manipulative and crusty old aunt, Maggie Smith gives a gem of a performance as this fine character actress always does.Jane Austen never married. Let's keep it that way and not do anymore movies on a spinster who lived in a different era.
Anne Hathaway can Act!!!!!!!!
posted on 20 May 2009This was really quite amazing (Anne being able to act that is), Anne Hathaway was perfect for this role, after seeing the disaster that was 'the devil wears prada' (such an interesting title for the dullest movie ever made) :S I really disliked Anne Hathaway... but now I see her differently... Anne was very Jane and this movie had an authentic feel about it. The colours (yes I'm English and we spell colours like that) were bright, the velvet coat lovely, and Jane falls in love with the handsome and overly confident Tom, played by James McAvoy (and who wouldn't fall in love with him, sexy devil that he is). The cast is great, the romance ever so romantic. Like something out of a Jane Austen Novel LOL It is a Good movie - not too deep or profound, just a beautiful glimpse into a life gone by!
Maddeningly Frustrating to Watch
posted on 16 May 2009There are many imaginative, passionate, first-rate Austen adaptations out there. The production values on this film just don't measure up. Somehow the costumes, lighting, sets and direction never gel to create the kind of "entering another world" experience that the viewer craves.Anne Hathaway is a very lovely woman, but she is no Jane Austen. Hathaway is not only not believable as Jane Austen, she is not believable as a writer. She just does not convey the cerebral, verbally-obsessed nature of a writer.Her body language is all wrong. Watching Hathaway pose, slump, and gesture like a twenty-first century American girl reminds the viewer how well notable stars of previous, well-done Austen adaptations, like Amanda Root, Jennifer Ehle, and Emma Thompson used their bodies in conveying the corporeal realities of nineteenth century feminine life.James McAvoy is a very charismatic new star, and I try to see every movie featuring him that I can, but he just never works here, at least partly because the movie is based roughly on Austen's real life, so his character is written to ultimately disappoint both the audience and Jane, but also because he and Hathaway have no chemistry.The movie's greatest flub is Mr. Wisley. As discussion boards show, viewers liked Mr. Wisley, and for good reason. The movie is supposed to want us to applaud how it deals with Mr. Wisley, and we don't.Given that the movie is based on a real person's autobiography, it paints itself into corner, and the resolution we would like to see, we can't. Jane treats Mr. Wisley poorly, and gives no sign that she appreciates his depths, because he is superficially lacking in charm and grace. Would the real Jane Austen have been so blind? It's hard to respect the Jane Austen in this film who can't see Mr. Wisley's true value, but who chases after a man who can never make her happy.Anna Maxwell Martin, who was so good in "North and South," is very fine as Cassandra, Jane's older sister. James Cromwell, as Jane's father, is as excellent as he always is. Julie Walters is both lovable and believable as Jane's mother.
I applauded the art direction.
posted on 12 May 2009It is a truth universally acknowledged that reviews of Jane Austen movies must begin with the phrase 'It is a truth universally acknowledged...'.I know very little about Jane Austen's life, although I spotted an error in this movie anyway: her deaf-mute older brother George was NOT raised at home with her (as seen here); he was institutionalised, and the hand-signing which Anne Hathaway briefly uses here is partly anachronistic. I confess that I've very little interest in Miss Austen, nor in her novels. But I'm hugely interested in the Regency period in which she lived. As I watched 'Becoming Jane', I was pleasantly astounded by the incredible period detail throughout the film: the houses (inside and out), the books, the churchyards, the carriages and coaches, the clothing. Even the musical instruments, the music and the dances are authentic! Well done! Of course, all these late 18th-century people have 20th-century orthodontia, and their hair is too clean. And the cricket bats don't look (or sound) as if they were made of willow, as they should have been.I know that some people will be watching this movie for the costumes, so let me assure you that there are plenty of Empire waists, coal-scuttle bonnets, top boots and Kate Greenaway frocks. Several of the ladies wear delightful gloves.This movie follows most of the rules for costume-drama chick-flicks. We get the de rigueur scene in which fully-clothed young women surreptitiously watch naked young men. (But not the reverse, of course.) We get the de rigueur scene in which a young woman performs a traditionally male activity and (of course) she beats the men at their own game. At a cricket match, Jane Austen steps into the crease. The bowler gives her an easy one, and (of course) she knocks it for six.I suspect that most of this movie is fiction, and there is indeed one of those 'based on facts' disclaimers in the end credits. I was annoyed that various characters in this film constantly tell Jane Austen that, as a woman, she cannot hope to be the equal of a man, nor can she expect a happy life without a husband. These may indeed have been the accepted realities of Austen's time, but I had difficulty believing that so many people (especially young men who hope to win her) would make a point of making these comments so explicitly and so often.Also, everyone in this movie keeps telling Jane that she cannot possibly write about anything which she hasn't experienced. (So she can't write about sexual passion unless ... nudge, nudge.) However, even in Austen's day, this premise was demonstrably untrue. If I want to write a murder mystery, do I need to commit a murder?The performances in this film are universally excellent. Any movie with Dame Maggie Smith in it, I'm there. Ian Richardson (in his last role) is superb, wringing the full value from some succulent dialogue. James Cromwell has matured into one of the finest character actors I've ever seen, progressing light-years beyond the infantile Norman Lear sitcom roles of his early career.As Jane Austen, Anne Hathaway has the sense to attempt only a very slight English accent, but she is far too pretty for this role. The real Jane Austen was apparently not pretty, and this was a major reason for why she never married. It beggars belief that the Jane Austen seen here -- the one who looks like Anne Hathaway -- would have so much difficulty attracting suitors. However, I'm a realist: there's simply no way that any production company would spend this much money on a costume romance and then cast an unattractive actress in the lead role.Evidence indicates that Jane Austen's sister Cassandra was the prettier of the two, and that this discrepancy strongly shaped their relationship. But, again, there's no way that the makers of this film would upstage their own star actress by casting someone more beautiful as her sister. Anna Maxwell Martin, cast here as Cassandra, is a splendid actress and fairly attractive but certainly no beauty in Hathaway's league.At the end of the film, a title card alludes to Jane Austen's 'short life'. She actually lived to age 41: a longer lifespan than any of the Brontë sisters', and fairly normal for Regency England. In the last scenes of this film, we see Hathaway in some dodgy 'age' make-up which makes her look rather more sixtyish than fortyish. Near the end of her life, the real Jane Austen had an unidentified illness which darkened her skin: again, I have no expectations of a big-budget film doing anything to compromise the beauty of its leading actress.This film's title 'Becoming Jane' is a subtle pun, since Hathaway's embodiment of Jane Austen is so very 'becoming'. Geddit?The makers of 'Becoming Jane' have gone to considerable trouble to give their target audience precisely what that audience want, which is only marginally related to the facts. On that score, they have succeeded. And the art direction in this movie is astonishingly thorough, and good. I'll rate 'Becoming Jane' 8 out of 10 as an excellent FICTION film.
Wonderful Watch
posted on 10 May 2009I absolutely loved this film. The acting, the drama, the sets and clothing indicating that era. It was everything I loved in a costume drama. Filled with tear worthy scenes and brilliant scripting, it kept me gripped from beginning to end. Anne Hathaway gave an Oscar winning performance as the young novelist Jane Austin who finds true love with Mr Lefroy, but finds that life as a funny way of panning out. This was a worthy watch. Thoroughly enjoyable and heartwarming as well as sad in parts I would definitely recommend this being watched, especially by Jane Austin fans as this gives us a bit of a glimpse into the life. This is definitely a film I can watch again and again.
iffy
posted on 06 May 2009This film portrays a full representation of the life of Jane Austen in a style much like the 2005 Pride and Prejudice. It would have been nice for Jane Austen to be played by an English woman, however the character of Jane is portrayed to a satisfactory standard. All the other characters are cast well. There are many possible moments when the end could have occurred, therefore this film does seem to drag at the end and interest in the story can be lost!! The story itself is a average to good love story, with an inevitable ending. I would recommend seeing it, but I have no great desire to see it again. I enjoyed this film for easy watching.
Wonderful
posted on 28 Aug 2009I haven't read her novels before watching film of "becoming Jane", so I express my views only for this film . Wealth and emotion , which should we select for our lives? How should we balance them when they conflict ? Jane insisted on her belief that she would marry with the person she loved in deep heart ,not price higher. People with love are not always together at last as Jane and her lover. I remembered Jane's mother told her that life only with emotion was not enough and wealth was indispensable to life . Jane said I could live with her pen .She believed people also could live happy even if he or she was not possessed of wealth ,but at last She realized responsibility for family was also important for people except emotion . so she gave up and said goodbye with her lover .As what she said, she lived alone with her pen . Her lover married with the other and his eldest daughter was named also as Jane. I was puzzled why women could be single forever to love someone though they couldn't live together but most cases of man were on the opposite. Maybe women was born on emotion and man was born on sense.