See, hile I totally get where Gina Fattore's coming from, I wonder what on earth possessed her to go to the movie version of a book she knows so perfectly and loves so passionately. I'm avoiding the Chronicles of Narnia because I don't want my childhood wonderland tempered with by either Hollywood or my 36-year-old sensibilities. This is not to say that The Chronicles of Narnia (just like Pride and Prejudice) will be a bad movie, it just won't t be what I want it to be. The only reason I can fathom why Gina Fattore paid ten bucks to see a movie that was obviously (good golly, there are trailers! reviews!) outside her expectations, was to be filled with that exquisite sense of righteous indignation; that feeling of getting what the rest of the world doesn't. Gina, don't worry about coming off like a cat loving spinster. You come off like a sucker, and a kind of self-righteous one at that. And, while I'm emjoying my own forays into righteous indignation, step off Jane Eyre!

Indeed! While I don't qualify as either spinster or Austen fanatic, I do respect

and enjoy the novel. Here's how I knew it was a botch: The previews were lush, full

of authentic looking period furnishing, clothing and featuring some attractive

women. And a sweeping vista or two. Vistas!? There aren't any vistas in

Jane Austen. Wrong! Terminally Wrong! Don't intend to go there.

First, I'm neither a single spinster nor do I have cats. I'm a discheveled married guy who spends too many leisure hours in underground poker clubs in New York. And yet I love Austen, have always loved Austen. Maybe not quite as much as Ms. Fattore, but quite enough. I reread Pride every few years and the other books somewhat less often (although Northanger Abbey has a special place in my heart). So I know the book pretty damn well. And I stil think the movie was ok.

Sure, I twitched now and then when they took unncecessary liberties (why put some of Elizabeth's dialogue into Mr. Bennet's mouth and vice versa?) and I think they cut a few of the scenes a little too much (if you're going to show she's witty, which is what Darcy finds attractive, give her another minute here and there to actually make some witty remarks) but the movie still worked. It's not pure Austen, it's Hollywood's interpretation of Austen, but it still retains enough of the original to charm. You can't ask a movie to be a faithful recreation of a piece of literature (I twitched now and then during Lord of the Rings, but I still enjoyed the experience.

Also, Keira Knightly is a babe. (And that Darcy guy was pretty hunky too.)

affectionately from one Austenite to another,

Carl

Or interpretations of Austen's book. Sure, as Anthony Lane said, the movie Brontefied Austen. But so what? Look at all the different versions of Romeo and Juliet out there. Everything from the Zefirelli movie to West Side Story.

It's a real tribute to the genius of Jane Austen that three version of her story (The BBC miniseries and Bridget Jones's Diary are the other two)can be created within a few years and all be wonderful in their own ways and highly successful.

As for rolling in her grave, are you kidding? Austen would most certainly be highly amused.

Like virtually all films in the past several decades, this "product" is not intended for real live thinking "mature adults" (because they don't go to movies much). Its target marketing-demographic will be naive romantic young women 17-25 or some such, who patronize suburban multiplexes (exactly the same group which "Brokeback Mountain" is intended for, except that there is some chance they can drag their unwilling boyfriends to this one). The fact that Ebert raves about it speaks volumes about the lows to which contemporary mass-market criticism has sunk, and the seemingly willful ignorance of the reviewers; boy do I ever miss Gene Siskel, not to mention Pauline Kael, who would have ripped it a new one.

This only works if you are a fan of Agatha Christie books, but if you want to see some acts of seriously malicious outright vandalism on film, check out the number that the British ITV group did on four of her novels last year! They're kind of like some group who thought that it'd be just real cool and ultra-hip to dress up the statue at Rockefeller Plaza in drag, stick a clown-mask and fright-wig on it, and call it "art".

The trailers made two things obvious - one, that it might be an enjoyable romantic movie - two, that it was not even close to being a true representation of Austen's work.

They played far too fast and loose with the dialogue, which I abhor - (as if the lines from the book aren't perfect, and an integral part of the story) and turned Elizabeth and Darcy into some sort of star-crossed soulmates instead of instant adversaries who gradually develop uncontrollable attractions to each other.

Although I have no cats and am not spinsterish, I'll wait to see it on DVD - maybe by then the mangling of this masterpiece will be less odious.

I'm an English professor, specializing in Austen's time period, and I love her books--have read all of them many times. I loved this movie, also. Yeah, it's not BBC-ish superfaithful to the book. I teach "the book vs. the movie" in most of my classes, using many different book/film combos, and this is what I tell them: a movie adaptation is an interpretation of a text, i.e., someone's reading. No more, no less. How hard is this to understand? I get it that people love their books and all, but what they love is their own interpretation. That's fine, but what is wrong with looking at someone else's interpretation, just for kicks, just to see if something interesting can be gleaned from another person's interpretation? This movie version made sense to me--there IS an incipient romanticism in Austen's books--anyone's who's read Persuasion should see that. Yes, they're funny, yes, they skewer cheesy, hypocritical, mean-spirited and small behavior. But they are also about the transforming power of love for the protagonists. Sentimental and romantic are not the same thing. I'm surprised that someone who considers herself a Janeite isn't able to make that sort of distinction.