Northanger Abbey (2007)

the audience applauded

A Masterpiece!

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Having just read the book I thought it would be a good idea to see if there had been made any TV adaptations of the book. Finding that there had indeed I decided to watch it. And too be honest it turned out to be quite a disappointment. I think my disappointment was mostly due to the fact that I had had just read the book and was actually able to remember the story and therefore being able to see that this adaptation didn't have much to do with it. The general is being described as a coldblooded vampire and the story is being overdramatized, not at all in the spirit of Jane Austen. The acting is however descent and some of the roles have been well casted.I found the book a lot more entertaining and it being so short i found it very strange that they should choose to alter so much.

After 20 years with the horrible 1987 version as the only adaptation of Northanger Abbey, many fans were eagerly anticipating the new 2007 version. I was a little nervous about Andrew Davies writing the script, given his tendency to sex things up, but the cast looked really good. And then I saw it… Suffice it to say- I was totally right! Most of the cast was really good, especially JJ Feild as Henry Tilney…but it was really sexed up. Most of this was in the form of Catherine's dreams, but there was something else too. One scene in particular was just plain wrong! Why, Andrew Davies, why? He seemed to interpret the story to be Catherine's sexual awakening. Sorry, I didn't see any of that in the book- it was a comedy! This version has funny moments too, but it's really all the sexed up scenes that bothered me. Davies seemed to have missed the point, but at least not as badly as the 1987 creators did.I wouldn't call this adaptation terrible, or anything. It just wasn't as great as it could have been. It was filmed in Dublin, because I guess they were too cheap to actually go to Bath (yet somehow the 1987 version could afford it? And even Persuasion that was filmed at the same time?) I did like that we got a nice little introduction that was close to what was in the book. There was even an epilogue- but it was so short, blink and you'll miss it! I think what annoys me so much about this movie is not how "bad" it was, but how bad it was compared to how good it could have been! With such a great cast, it could have been really excellent. Instead it was a disappointment.

I thought this was a wonderful adaptation of Jane Austen's classic. Being my favourite novel i was very concerned to learn that ITV had decided to remake this story, my fears were however very unfounded. There was not a decent adaptation of this book in existence, there is now. The script was very good, retaining the sharp humour shown in the book, though this is not surprising as the script writer was Andrew Davies. I felt the cast were well chosen and acted well, especially JJ Feild as Mr Tilney. Apart from the slightly irritating dream sequences which every screen adaptation of this story feels obliged to add, it made very satisfying viewing and saw me running to the DVD shop when it was released.

I too was disappointed with Mansfield Park,and that's putting it mildly, but Andrew Davies saved the day with Northanger Abbey. A big fan of Dickens and Davies' Bleak House and Our Mutual Friend, I thought I would check out his Austin adaptation. I thought the quick hour and a half format was well suited to the breezy storyline, and it didn't feel too short. The casting was terrific (although still not the equal of Bleak House). I thought it was very funny as well, something often lacking in these adaptations. I later watched Pride and Prejudice, which I hadn't seen, believe it or not, and did enjoy that as well. I think it is already on the edge of being dated, however, with the onset of widescreen television, mobile cameras and high definition.