Today’s Prayer Focus

Becoming Jane

also known as “Geliebte Jane,” “Jane Austenin jalanjäljillä,” “La Joven Jane Austen”
MPA Rating: PG-Rating (MPA) for brief nudity and mild language.

Reviewed by: Michael Karounos

Moral Rating: Average
Moviemaking Quality:
Primary Audience: • Adults • Young-Adults • Teens
Genre: Fictional-Biography Romance Drama
Length: 1 hr. 52 min.
Year of Release: 2007
USA Release: August 3, 2007 (limited)
August 10, 2007 (wide)
Copyright, Miramax Films Copyright, Miramax Films Copyright, Miramax Films Copyright, Miramax Films
Relevant Issues
Copyright, Miramax Films
About love

TRUE LOVE—What is true love and how do you know when you have found it? Answer

For a follower of Christ, what is LOVE—a feeling, an emotion, or an action? Answer

Sex, Love and Relationships
Learn how to make your love the best it can be. Christian answers to questions about sex, marriage, sexual addictions, and more. Valuable resources for Christian couples, singles and pastors.
Copyright, Miramax Films Copyright, Miramax Films Copyright, Miramax Films Copyright, Miramax Films Copyright, Miramax Films Copyright, Miramax Films Copyright, Miramax Films Copyright, Miramax Films
Featuring Anne Hathaway (Jane Austen), James McAvoy, Julie Walters, James Cromwell, Maggie Smith, Joe Anderson, Lucy Cohu, See all »
Director Julian Jarrold — “Kinky Boots” (2005), “Crime and Punishment” (2002 TV), “Great Expectations” (1999 TV)
Producer Jeff Abberley, Robert Bernstein, Jolia Blackman, See all »
Distributor: Miramax. Trademark logo.
, a division of beIN Media Group

“Between sense and sensibility and pride and prejudice was a life worth writing about.”

Review updated Aug. 14, 2007

The movie “Becoming Jane” is a double-edged sword. For those who haven’t read Austen’s novels and are unfamiliar with both her and her characters, it is an attractive but slow-paced period piece whose energy derives from James MacAvoy’s engaging performance as Tom Lefroy. Anne Hathaway does a serviceable job in a low-key role. In part, she is convincing because she is so beautiful, but because she is so beautiful is also why she is not convincing. Jane Austen was a notoriously plain-looking person. The choice of Hathaway obscures the issue that she had neither fortune nor beauty, two reasons a man would marry a woman. A more convincing Jane would have been Anna Maxwell Martin who played her sister Cassandra.

The premise of the movie is that there exists a split opinion in society about marriage that has one side believing in a common sense solution that “money is absolutely indispensable” to life (Mrs. Austen), while the other half of society suggests that a “small fortune will not buy” love (Jane). During the course of the movie people of “sense” (who are prudent and practical) are contrasted with people who are “sensible” (emotional and romantic). These terms also comprise the title of Jane Austen’s novel Sense and Sensibility in which Eleanor represents the sister with sense and Maryann represents the sister with sensibility. The essential question put by Jane’s cousin in response to her statement that money can’t buy her love is: “What will buy you?”

As if in answer to the question, the scene shifts to Tom Lefroy fighting barechested for money. The implication is obvious in retrospect: what will buy Jane’s love is passion. What follows is a montage which, presumably, is supposed to demonstrate that Tom is a wild child whose zest for living, so to speak, spills over “the boundaries of propriety” (a phrase Jane struggles with in the movie). He whores (there is no better verb for his actions), he drinks, he gambles, he lies. He is in every way like Wickham (“Pride and Prejudice”), or like Henry Crawford (“Mansfield Park”), or like Willoughby (“Sense and Sensibility”)… all likable rogues without scruple who try (and do) seduce women, ruin their reputations, and cause them to be ostracized from society, from their circle of friends, and even from their families. These were wicked men which our present time interprets as “romantics” with no understanding of the catastrophic harm they did to young women. It is remarkable that the filmmakers offer Lefroy as Austen’s lover since he is the very type of character that Austen despised and portrayed as a villain in her novels. The portrayal of Lefroy in the movie has more to do with the writer’s prejudices than with reality, a common problem in Hollywood.

Austen describes the real Tom Lefroy in a letter to Cassandra (1/9/1796):

“You scold me so much in the nice long letter which I have this moment received from you, that I am almost afraid to tell you how my Irish friend and I behaved. Imagine to yourself everything most profligate and shocking in the way of dancing and sitting down together. I can expose myself however, only once more, because he leaves the country soon after next Friday, on which day we are to have a dance at Ashe after all. He is a very gentlemanlike, good-looking, pleasant young man, I assure you. But as to our having ever met, except at the three last balls, I cannot say much; for he is so excessively laughed at about me at Ashe, that he is ashamed of coming to Steventon, and ran away when we called on Mrs. Lefroy a few days ago.”

But the shrinking violet that ran away at Austen’s arrival is not the Lefroy of the movie. The model for Lefroy’s character can be found not only in Austen’s Willoughby, but in the Willoughby for whom Austen’s Willoughby is named in Fanny Burney’s novel Evelina. Lefroy’s laughing reference to Vauxhall Gardens is an inside joke known only to scholars since the Gardens were a notorious place where young men went to meet prostitutes and to seduce (or abduct) young gentlewomen. It is this very scenario that Burney portrays in her novel in which Evelina barely escapes being raped by a group of men and molested by Sir Willoughby in Vauxhall. Although the filmmakers don’t intend it to do so, Lefroy’s laughing reference to Vauxhall Gardens shows his character’s moral dissipation.

It is appropriate that MacAvoy played Mr. Tumnus, the Faun, in “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”, since his talk is filled with sexual double entendres (“horizons must be WIDENED”) and his physical interest in Jane falls short of the verticality of standing before the marriage altar. At one point he laments selling out for money and solicits the commiseration of a prostitute, toasting her as a joint member of the profession which he, as a lawyer, shares.

In the meantime, Jane is being courted by a Mr. Wisely who seems to be a synthesis of Mr. Collins and Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice. He is stilted like Mr. Collins and he is proud like Mr. Darcy. After he remarks that “The good do not always come to good ends,” he concludes with the statement that will famously become the most quoted sentence in all of Austen’s work: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”

But the theme of this novel is clearly sense and sensibility which the writers are at pains to redefine, showing people with sense as money grubbers while people who want to have sex are just… “sensible.” At a time when women commonly died in childbirth, when disgraced women were forced to live in abject poverty, and single women were the objects of sexual predators, it seems crass and deeply deceptive of the filmmakers to suggest that Tom Lefroy’s solution, one that is always disastrous in the novels (e.g. Mansfield Park), is what Jane Austen would have chosen.

Jane’s decision in the end will seem capricious to romantic viewers but it at least is in keeping with the author’s character. The movie is well-written and an avid reader of the novels will recognize little catch phrases here and there, as well as characters who are offered as models in the fiction, like Lady Catherine de Bourgh (Lady Gresham, played perfectly by Maggie Smith).

For those readers both familiar with and honest about Jane Austen’s life, character, and values, the film constitutes a revisionist history whose title would make more sense as Unbecoming Jane, for we are shown an Austen that exists only in the imagination of the screen writers and one that contradicts the values she portrays in her novels and in her letters to her sister Cassandra.

Morally, it is offensive in that it portrays wickedness as mere mischievousness. When Lefroy defends the immoral novels of Fielding as showing virtue being rewarded and vice being punished, Jane responds “In life, bad characters often thrive; look at yourself.”

The writers also show Jane portraying a fictional visit to Anne Radcliffe, a novelist who Austen satirized in Northanger Abbey. Radcliffe was a Romantic while Austen can best be characterized as a neoclassical writer. In other words, Radcliffe is not a writer that Austen would go to learn literature from, but Radcliffe is a writer that the filmmakers would prefer over Fanny Burney, a Christian, and the person whose novel Cecilia provided the title for Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.

Jane Austen is acknowledged as one of the most brilliant writers in English ever. It is therefore ironic to see her fictionalized as the type of silly fool that she loves to skewer in her novels, falling for a foppish player. If it were not anachronistic, I would suggest a clear case of projection on the part of the writers. The movie, like Anne Hathaway, is pretty to look at but it promotes a mistaken romantic conception of “love” (i.e. lust) that is destructive to the understanding of young people. See it if you must; forget it when you can because the movie’s greatest fault is that it ignores Austen’s faith. Had she been a feminist author, that ideological identification would have been the focal point of the film. What is not known even by many Christian readers is that Austen was a devout Christian whose values inform every novel and are particularly emphasized in Mansfield Park.

For readers interested in Jane Austen’s taste in novels, her favorite woman authors were Fanny Burney and Maria Edgeworth (especially Belinda). Fanny Burney is a wonderful author, almost on a par with Austen herself, and overtly Christian in her writings. Her novels cannot be recommended highly enough to serious readers of literature.

Background Information

For an insight into the character of Jane Austen go to this site which is excellent in the material it makes available but questionable in many of its editorial judgments:

What the reader will discover is that Jane Austen and her family were devout Christians, that they had a high sense of honor (the excerpt on reading another’s letter is indicative of the mores of the time), and that she also composed three prayers which, like all written material, were meant to be read aloud in company. Note that secular scholars commonly write things like “It’s interesting that she prays for the correction of ‘faults of temper’ in ‘Thoughts, Words, and Actions,’ given the rather acerbic comments found throughout her letters” as if a person cannot be both “acerbic” and Christian! This is why she writes in her novel Persuasions that “no private correspondence could bear the eye of others,” a principle that such scholars purposely violate in order to depict their own version of Austen rather than the other testified to by her family. The following excerpts give a clear look at Austen’s character and faith:

On the Subject of Evangelicals

[This letter was written to her niece, Fanny, who was in doubt as whether to marry an Evangelical Christian. Most members of the Church of England frowned on members of other churches. Austen’s open-mindedness in this instance is highly unusual.]

“And, as to there being any objection from his goodness, from the danger of his becoming even evangelical, I cannot admit that. I am by no means convinced that we ought not all to be evangelicals, and am at least persuaded that they who are so from reason and feeling must be happiest and safest. Do not be frightened from the connection by your brothers having most wit—wisdom is better than wit, and in the long run will certainly have the laugh on her side; and don’t be frightened by the idea of his acting more strictly up to the precepts of the New Testament than others.”

Winchester Cathedral Plaque

known to many by her
writings, endeared to
her family by the
varied charms of her
Character and ennobled
by Christian faith
and piety, was born
at Steventon in the
County of Hants Dec.
XVI MDCCLXXV, and buried
in this Cathedral
“She opened her
mouth with wisdom
and in her tongue is
the law of kindness.”
—Prov. XXXI v. XXVI.<


On the Faith of Her Family

“This day, my dearest Fanny, you have had the melancholy intelligence, and I know you suffer severely, but I likewise know that you will apply to the fountain-head for consolation, and that our merciful God is never deaf to such prayers as you will offer.”

A Prayer Written by Jane Austen

Give us grace, Almighty Father, so to pray, as to deserve to be heard, to address thee with our Hearts, as with our lips. Thou art every where present, from Thee no secret can be hid. May the knowledge of this, teach us to fix our Thoughts on Thee, with Reverence and Devotion that we pray not in vain.

Look with Mercy on the Sins we have this day committed, and in Mercy make us feel them deeply, that our Repentance may be sincere, and our resolutions stedfast of endeavouring against the commission of such in future. Teach us to understand the sinfulness of our own Hearts, and bring to our knowledge every fault of Temper and every evil Habit in which we have indulged to the discomfort of our fellow-creatures, and the danger of our own Souls. May we now, and on each return of night, consider how the past day has been spent by us, what have been our prevailing Thoughts, Words, and Actions during it, and how far we can acquit ourselves of Evil. Have we thought irreverently of Thee, have we disobeyed thy commandments, have we neglected any known duty, or willingly given pain to any human being? Incline us to ask our Hearts these questions Oh! God, and save us from deceiving ourselves by Pride or Vanity.

Give us a thankful sense of the Blessings in which we live, of the many comforts of our lot; that we may not deserve to lose them by Discontent or Indifference.

Be gracious to our Necessities, and guard us, and all we love, from Evil this night. May the sick and afflicted, be now, and ever thy care); and heartily do we pray for the safety of all that travel by Land or by Sea, for the comfort and protection of the Orphan and Widow and that thy pity may be shewn upon all Captives and Prisoners.


bove all other blessings Oh! God, for ourselves, and our fellow-creatures, we implore Thee to quicken our sense of thy Mercy in the redemption of the World, of the Value of that Holy Religion in which we have been brought up, that we may not, by our own neglect, throw away the salvation thou hast given us, nor be Christians only in name. Hear us Almighty God, for His sake who has redeemed us, and taught us thus to pray.

On the Subject of Reading Another’s Letters

“She was obliged to recollect that her seeing the letter was a violation of the laws of honour, that no one ought to be judged or to be known by such testimonies, that no private correspondence could bear the eye of others, before she could recover calmness enough to return the letter which she had been meditating over”

Violence: Minor / Profanity: None / Sex/Nudity: Moderate

See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.

Viewer CommentsSend your comments
Positive—I am surprised by the less than positive comments about this movie. I think it is a respectable effort to examine the person of Jane Austen, who produced such lovable novels as Pride and Prejudice. The audience gets to see the type of environment in which she grew up, and the social pressures of the time, in which marriage for money and convenience were more the norm than the exception. I thought Anne Hathaway’s performance as Jane was luminous. Many themes came together smoothly, from the society’s problems to the private joys and griefs of the family members. The initial scene of Jane’s parents in bed together did not make oral sex the obvious activity at all. It was simply a candid moment in a story about otherwise very prim people whose marriage bed was simply less prim. I saw really nothing objectionable. At the end, Jane sacrifices her love for Tom for the good of his relatives. I understand that the story about her passionate interaction with Tom may be largely fictional, yet it ties in well with her thought life, as expressed in her novels. This is a good movie, and certainly much less offensive than most of the offerings on the screen today.
My Ratings: Better than Average / 4
Positive—Most superbly acted by both leading characters who both have quite varied career choices, not of which all of McAvoy’s films would I recommend, but his talent is undeniable. Christianity has become a “bless me,” “provide for me,” “make me happy” religion. We have spent more time looking at the faults of others and “ranking” who is more “righteous” than someone like Lafroy or looking for the chinks in the amour of someone like Austen. People are people. The greatest two commandments, on which all of the Law hinges (as accounted by the Messiah Himself) are to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to love others as yourself. The struggles of another are no worse than my own even if they are portrayed in a fictional setting, the struggles are still what is humanity and thus ultimately designed to show God’s Grace. The sum of Jane Austen’s understanding of unconditional love is shown to great effect in the “good bye” scene with Mr. Lafroy. Who among us has the type of sacrificial love to say to one who would appear to make us happy, 'No, this is not what is best for YOU.' ? Very few I would dare say, even Christians, are capable of this type of sacrificial love. If no other moral compass were in this movie but that one, it still has a resounding effect. Did it “bring me lower” to watch flirtation or struggle with Lafroy? No. Was I impressed with the believability of the struggle portrayed by the actors? Most definitely, and if we cannot relate to that then we have become far too pious. Did it give great conversation with my family to discuss the true moral issues? Yes. Then this movie was well worth the time!
My Ratings: Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
Donna Miller, age 43
Positive—Oh I LOVED this movie!! I absolutely loved “Sense and Sensibility,” “Pride and Prejudice” and so I knew I wanted to see this one. I watched it 2 nights in a row!!

There were some “unnecessary” parts… (guys tearing their clothes off and going swimming naked) … luckily I was warned by a friend that that part was in there, so I knew where to skip past :) and another scene at the very beginning (during the opening credits) involving Janes parents. I cried SO much during this movie!! It’s unreal… great costumes, great acting, great music… bring your tissues, this movie will have you CRYING and CRYING then laughing and Crying some more!! I never liked Anne Hathaway, but she was very likeable in this film, as is James McAvoy as Tom LeFroy. The ending is so sad, what makes it even worse, is that this story is true! But, I recommend this film (with some editing)!
My Ratings: Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Casey, age 20
Neutral—My husband and I saw the film… We thought it was wonderful. And it seemed that the full theater felt the same. My granddaughter wanted to see it, and I have classed this as neutral or average for only one scene. I do not know why filmmakers feel compelled to put these kinds of things in films. This was PG, so it had no business with this scene. The scene I’m referring to is at the very beginning when Jane’s parents were in bed awakened by her loud piano playing. James Cromwell went down under the covers to perform oral sex. Admittedly, you don’t see anything, but you know what’s happening. My granddaughter is barely 12, and I wonder if she would know what is happening. I’m sorry that they had to put that in the movie—totally uncalled for. …
My Ratings: Average / 4
Rozemary Fournier, age 76
Neutral—If you are hoping that “Becoming Jane” will be as wholesome and delightful as the other Jane Austen inspired films, you may be disappointed. Although a clean movie by Hollywood standards, it falls short for those who loved “Sense and Sensibility,” “Emma,” and “Pride and Prejudice.” From the beginning of the story, there is an uncomfortable moral line that is crossed. Instead of finding courtship, duty, restraint, and innocence… the film is littered with flirtation, immorality, and obsession. Not to mention the brothels, the boxing, and the bare backsides. *SPOILER—Our hero is little more than a immature braggart who places his desires above everyone else’s, right to the end of the story. I’m not suggesting that this movie be avoided due to content. Like I said, it’s not all that bad. Just want others to be prepared beforehand that this movie is NOT as captivating and lovely as one inspired by Jane Austen herself.
My Ratings: Average / 3½
Diana O, age 38
Negative—I am an avid reader and Jane Austen is by far one of my favorite authors. I love to watch bio-pics and period pieces. I have to admit, I came into the film with a certain sense of apprehension because I knew that Austen was a firm believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and that she also questioned some of the cultural mores of high society England in her time. At the end of the film I was not convinced, and I thought that as a period piece, it was average at best. It did not hold my interes,t and having read Austen and about her life, I couldn’t believe that she would fall for a man such as LeFroy. He is the kind of man that she satirized in her novels, and, in this film, she was portayed as one of those women who was duped by that kind of man. She was too wise for this, and I do not think she would have given her heart away so freely. However, this film did make me want to read more about her real life to confirm what I had heard about her Christian faith and to re-read her novels. My mom and I also wanted to re-watch the two recent films based on her novels, “Sense and Sensibility” with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet, and “Pride and Prejudice” with Kiera Knightley. I wouldn’t recommend this film to anybody, esp. people who are avid Austen fans. I, in fact, won’t be seeing it again. I wish I hadn’t spent my money on it in the first place.
My Ratings: Offensive / 3
Angie Mills, age 30
Negative—My comments are not about the subject of the nude scene, brothels, or fighting (although offense as they may be). I feel that something much more harmful especially to women and girls who are on the brink of love was portrayed in this movie. This movie is another attempt by the world to portray “true love” as nothing more than extreme passion, flirtation, or intense desire to be around the person. A “following your heart” view of love. I warn and caution young women who are looking at this movie as a guide or expectation of what love should be to study scripture on love. I also would advise moms and dads who chose to allow your young women to see this movie to have a heart to heart on true biblical love! Biblical love shows respect for that persons innocence and purity, their reputation, respect for their parents authority and reputation, wanting to encourage that person to to grow spiritually, selflessness, just to name a few. Physical attraction is not negative but should not be the only thing that will show “true love” and isn’t mentioned in the Bible as a test for true love! The best line of the movie was by the 'rich, plain, boring' suitor when he says that 'love blossoms over time.'

Not only where there jabs about Christian and societal oppression to women, such as the first scene where the father is preaching from a pulpit about a womens “place.” But also jabs at innocence and purity being a negative trait. My husband and I walked out of the movie disappointed and would not recommend this movie!
My Ratings: Average / 3
Brenda, age 28

[What is true love and how do you know when you have found it? Answer]

Negative—I have very mixed feelings about this film… As far as morality goes, I found nothing worth commending. As the reviewer demonstrated in examples of Austen’s literary works invovling Christianity, Austen was a woman of faith. Her portrayal in the movie was quite contrary; in fact, to the point that I didn’t really come to like her character at all. She came off as headstrong, rebellious, and independent-minded, when the Jane Austen I think of is a woman quietly fulfilling her calling to do something out of the norm. Austen’s books were also very pure; Pride and Prejudice, one of the greatest literary masterpieces of all time, does not have a single sex scene, lewd comment, or double-entendre. If Jane Austen’s books were pure, then isn’t it safe to assume that she was? I was disappointed and surprised that this film had an implied sex scene, a vivid description of mating birds read aloud (courtship and copulation), and numerous sexual hints (dropped by a main character), and multiple scenes with prostitutes. They all played together to create a story of a hasty, lusty romance, instead of the gentle development of affection and commitment.

As far as the movie itself goes, the storyline and cinematography I thought was beautiful. I thought the music was nicely done as well. The chemistry between Hathaway and McAvoy is very sweet. At times, I found the story very believable and touching. If you’re looking for an Austenian romance, look to Ms. Austen’s works themselves. I thought this film was very untrue to what Jane Austen was really like. As a follower of Christ, I encourage my brothers and sisters to compare the ideals presented in this movie with the description of worthy pasttimes described in Philippians 4:8: whatever is pure, lovely, noble, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy. I didn’t find this film to be so.
My Ratings: Offensive / 4
Allie, age 18
Negative—I saw this movie with my twelve year old daughter, and I was extremely disappointed. We have seen all the Jane Austen movies. The BBC ones as well as the epic film ones. It bothers me when producers and directors take such license with an actual historical person. I did not feel that they portrayed Jane Austen as she truly was, or how she would have approved of being portrayed. I thought the scenes which showed nude male “behinds,” Mr. and Mrs. Austen cavorting under the covers, and the verbal innuendos between the two main characters, completely out of line. Did men jump around nude in the river? Did the Austen’s have a healthy sexual relationship? Most likely yes, however, I don’t need to see it on the screen, and my 12 year old daughter didn’t need to see it either. She was rather shocked that a movie about one of her favorite authors should have such unacceptable (and unsubstantiated) material in it. All she knows of Jane Austen is from her books and the movies depicting them. There is nothing in them that would lend itself to this sort of behavior. I felt these scenes were deliberately put in to earn it a PG-13 rating and attract a wider audience. That alone turned me off. I’m sorry, but when you bring a historical person to the screen; you need to portray them as they were. Artistic license is not acceptable with other peoples character. Did anyone who worked on this film even read a Jane Austen book or read biographies about her. It seems not, or they would never have portrayed her as they did. Another thing that bothered me was the way it ended. After this SUPPOSED sacrifice on Jane’s part, she is portrayed as a dis-spirited, lackluster person. This was in marked contrast to how she was portrayed in the rest of the movie. It was rather ridiculous. I felt like the writers/directors were saying, 'Since I lost my one true love the rest of my life has just been this tedious existence.' Did they read Sense and Sensibility? One of Jane Austen’s themes in that book is honor and duty. They are seen as sterling character qualities and applauded. They are held up against the qualities of selfishness, betrayal, passion-that-overrides-sense, and they come out the winner; the true driving force behind a happy, contented life. Do you really think that Jane would have turned into the sort of lackluster, pathetic person they portrayed because she had chosen to uphold honor and duty? Very, very badly done. In closing, the acting, setting, and costuming were superb; I could not fault them. However, it takes more than superb in all the above mentioned areas to make a good movie. It takes truth. It felt like I went to a movie depicting a good friend and all I heard were a pack of lies. If this movie was to appeal to Jane Austen fans it did a horrible job. Their depiction of her was such a betrayal of her in character, morals, values, not to mention looks (she was very plain in real life) that I could not possibly recommend it to anyone.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 1½
Kim Hilderman, age 42
Negative—I was very surprised by the amount of sexuality that was incorporated into this film. I do not know if it continued throughout the movie because I stopped watching before it was finished but the instances that I saw in the first half of the film were, to me, deserving of a PG-13 rating. One viewer above mentioned the implied actions of Jane’s parents when awakened by her piano playing, but it continued when Jane read an excerpt of her writing to James MacAvoy at which point he makes the comment listed on the official review of this movie. I am confused why it seems “appropriate” that his character should make such a comment in light of his character in “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe,” but maybe I missed something. I understand that his character is not a good man at this point in the movie, but it should be understood that this content is well beyond what I would want my 13 year old child to hear, whether they understood or not.

If you enjoy this genre of film then you will most likely enjoy the movie, I found it to be a tad boring when compared to films such as “Sense and Sensibility” or “Pride and Prejudice” but it is still well filmed and the acting is strong.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
Michael Dahlberg, age 22
Comments from young people
Comments from young people
Positive—I did enjoy this film very much, although it did put a damper on things when she didn’t get married. There was a scene of nudity, but now a days that’s hard to avoid. But, overall, I was very pleased with. …I was alittle sad at times, but this is supposed to be about her life, not a fiction story. I did see a lot of Pride and Prejudice in it, but that can be expected for I am sure she wrote upon life expierences. …overall very pleased.
My Ratings: Better than Average / 4
Sarah, age 16
Neutral—I didn’t think this film was anything special or different. Anne Hathaway makes a poor job with the accent, even though I think she’s a great actress. I was disappointed with the ending, as they didn’t end up getting married! I felt it was mostly like “Pride and Predudice” or “Sense and Sensibility.” There was, however, some good humour in parts! I can’t remember any biblical issues raised or moral offensivity in the film as I haven’t seen it for quite a few months.
My Ratings: Better than Average / 3½
Katherine, age 16, United Kingdom
Positive—I thought the movie was good. It had funny parts to it, as well as romance. There was a little language, but there wasn’t a lot. What I didn’t like was the ending. It surprised me that they did not end up together. But overall it was a good movie with good actors and a good plot!
My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Madison, age 14