i had 2 main problems with this movie. 1-anne hathaway and 2-the ending. i can talk about 1 but not [much] about 2. i normally like anne hathaway. she's cute. she's the girl next door. she's a good actress... 9 times out of 10. this was the 10, people. the biggest problem i had with her? the british accent. oh god it was abysmal. i would compare it to obvious effort and minimal success of a white priest trying to give his sermon in ebonics. it was that bad.
there wasn't a whole lot of happiness in the film as one might expect in a romance. and the anger and indignation that hathaway "portrayed" was half-hearted. her overall performance gave the feeling that she knew the role was a tad to big for her to fill and thus she surrendered.
james was as a great as he could be opposite anne. i liked him as the bitter, womanizing "mr. darcy"- i just wish there was more wet shirt-ness, a la colin firth in pride and prejudice. i was upset that both tom and jane where a bit spineless and bowed so easily to the rules of society, and back then, they really were rules.
the rest of the cast was really unimpressive. i completely forgot that maggie smith was in the movie, until now when i just looked at the cast listing on imdb. the set wasn't very good, at least what you could see of it. every camera shot was really tight on the actors and you really didn't get a sense of where they were.
i didn't like the ending. i can't talk much about it, but i can say that if you know anything about jane austens' life (like i did... but forgot) you know what's coming. but that doesn't mean i have to like it. i hate romdram's that end like this. pppfttt.
all that aside, james is the only thing saving this movie from the c's.
grade: b-
No comments:
Post a Comment