Becoming Jane (2007) User Reviews (176)

I applauded the art direction.

[F Gwynplaine MacIntyre · 8/10 · 19 August 2007]

It 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.

Stumbled and fell on an excess of endings

[alicefinklestein · 7/10 · 31 March 2007]

I was fortunate to come across an article explaining this film. It is a speculative fiction based upon a few facts. Speculation was aroused by the fact that a woman who never married and apparently never had a love affair came to have such a deep and intelligent understanding of relationships. I shan't expand on how potentially offensive that is. But story line is based on a few simple facts. While he was in the country Jane Austen would have almost certainly met Mr Lefroy; while on a journey to see her sister she had a rather long stop off in London during which time she began writing Pride and Prejudice and there was the mention of some letters.

It started out so well; the stifling quiet of a country life broken by our future genius at work. The structure of this opening sequence was very effective. I was thinking I'm going to love this film. But there was a niggling in the back of my mind. None of the reviews had been great, but I didn't know why (I hadn't actually read any only seen the 2 ½ or 3 stars).

I continued thinking it was wonderful through most of the film. James McAvoy was beautifully intense, Anne Hathaway was solid, Maggie Smith delightfully amusing and Anna Maxwell Martin underused. There were some beautiful scenes, some so intense. For example a scene in a ball when they are both standing back to back apparently to talking other people but having a very deep conversation.

But then, as with far too many movies we moved through the climax to an ending of this story line and that story line oh and we'd better conclude this one as well and now everything is tied up in a neat little bundle.

This is a film that would have benefited from an ambivalent ending, because, aside from the fact that we know she ends up the Western World's highest selling female author the film wasn't actually about that. The film was about the journey toward it. To have left us hanging when, perhaps, she was leaving Lefroy or back in her stiflingly quiet house would have been much more effective in terms of the story and strengthened the film. It simply is not a happy ending but they tried their damned well hardest to make it one.

I'm afraid I must give this a very generous 7 rather than what could have been a deserving 8 had the film makers (or the studio or whoever the twats are that decide on these things) the courage to make this a film, not Hollywood.

A questionable premise

[tomboy236 · 6/10 · 5 March 2007]

Hollywood can't seem to get enough of dead female English writers. Hot on the heels of Miss Potter, and in advance of films about the Brontes, we have this romantic confection about Jane Austen's youthful fling with Irish barrister Tom Lefroy.

There have already been howls of criticism from outraged Janeites that the film is historically inaccurate. It's true that English teachers will have a fit at some elements of the story: at best speculative and unsubstantiated, at worst downright erroneous. The filmmakers admittedly didn't have a lot of historical material to work from. The true background to the story is contained in a couple of letters written by Jane Austen to her sister Cassandra, and an admission by Tom Lefroy in old age that he had once been in 'boyish love' with the writer. On this slightly shaky platform, the filmmakers have built a story of repressed passion and defiance of social mores that is a work of fiction worthy of a novel in its own right.

This doesn't really matter. Nobody in their right mind would ever accept the version of events presented by a Hollywood biopic as historical gospel. The only viewers who will be taken in by the story seen here will be those who are too lazy, too uninterested or too credulous to do the modicum of research needed to find out the real facts, and who cares what such people think? This film may be largely untrue, but what really matters is whether it works on its own terms, qua film.

Unfortunately, it doesn't, or at least not entirely. The main reason for this is the underlying premise. It is implied that without Jane and Tom's youthful affair Jane Austen would never have written her six great novels, and in particular (perhaps because it's the most familiar to audiences) Pride and Prejudice. We see Jane angrily destroying a juvenile story criticized by Tom, and later, in the throes of love, bashing out the first draft of P & P (in a single night, which shows an impressive turn of speed). It's plain that, as Tom tells her, 'experience is vital'.

The same clunkingly literal idea – that an artist must experience emotions in order to write about them successfully - underscored Shakespeare in Love, but there it was handled with a rather lighter touch. Here we are asked to believe that Pride and Prejudice was not a distillation of all Jane Austen's youthful experiences enlivened by a vivid imagination, a sharp sense of humour and a dollop of literary genius, but the next best thing to a true story. The reasons for this approach are obvious: cinema can dramatize Johnny Cash learning the guitar, or Picasso experimenting with paint, but the spectacle of a writer sitting at a desk dreaming and scribbling palls pretty rapidly.

The irony of a film that takes such wild liberties with the facts relying upon this trite old idea would certainly have been apparent to Jane Austen, whose mastery of irony is emphasized rather unsubtly throughout. Moreover, it's intellectually dishonest; lacking the ability to create a Mr Darcy, the filmmakers borrow freely from Jane Austen's characterisation in creating Tom, and thereby cheekily suggest that the author was the one who lacked the imagination to make such a person up.

These reservations aside, does the film have anything going for it? Yes. The script has some witty moments and at least makes a decent stab at realistic 18th century dialogue. Ireland is a surprisingly effective and gorgeous substitute for Hampshire, and the autumnal palette of washed-out greens and greys is appropriately sombre. Anne Hathaway is an attractively skittish and impetuous Jane, and she has excellent chemistry with James McAvoy, whose performance as Tom, by turns mercurial and obsessive, is well up to his usual high standards. Reliable support comes from James Cromwell, Julie Walters, the late great Ian Richardson and Maggie Smith, who essentially reprises her character from Gosford Park. The problem is that the lovers' behaviour never really convinces us that this relationship was the foundation of Jane Austen's later literary success, and ultimately peters out into a series of implausible endings, the number of which gives Hot Fuzz and The Return of the King a run for their money. Becoming Jane isn't an awful film, but it doesn't make the grade as a Regency Brief Encounter.

Pleasantly Routine

[JackCerf · 6/10 · 6 August 2007]

The British stamp out these competent costume dramas like Toyota stamps out family sedans. As long as you don't mistake it for anything but fiction, Becoming Jane is a pleasant, undemanding afternoon's light entertainment. As the two leads Hathaway and McAvoy are charming, easy to look at and know their business, while Cromwell, Walters and Smith glide effortlessly through the principal supporting roles.

The movie's view that creative genius is no more than the recycling of experience is superficial; if that were so, there'd be a lot more brilliant novels than there are. It is nevertheless fun to spot the prefiguring of characters, plot points and even bits of dialogue from Austen's novels. Lady Catherine, Aunt Churchill and Mrs. Ferrars can all be carved out of Maggie Smith's old gorgon, and Mrs. Austen has the makings not so much of Mrs. Bennet as of Mrs. Jennings and Lady Russell in her hard earned worldly wisdom. Like the brood sow whom we are twice shown, Mrs. A has more offspring than means to provide for them, and she knows it.

The mainstream critics have all seized on the parallels with Pride and Prejudice, but I think that the relationship portrayed between Austen and Lefroy resembles a good deal more that between Marianne Dashwood and Willoughby -- a clever and articulate young man charms a headstrong, intelligent but impecunious young woman by recognizing and appealing to her intelligence, raises her expectations, dumps her because he needs money and she has none, and then professes self-loathing repentance.

At that point, experience has formed the Austen who wrote the novels, which is to say a spinster who had speculated unsuccessfully in the marriage market that she afterwords observed from an emotional distance as a spectator, with shrewd, penetrating and by no means kindly wit sugar coated with happy endings. The abandoned elopement could have been dispensed with -- its purpose is merely to soften the blow by making Austen more of an agent of her own fate than victim, and to justify Lefroy's mercenary conduct.

Enjoyable Tale

[vikingvampireparrot · 7/10 · 17 April 2007]

I knew very little about this film before I went to see it - I think the trailer was the sum total of what I had heard. Now, I know very little about Jane Austen or her life so am considering Becoming Jane simply as a film loosely based on/inspired by her life.

The film tells the story of a young woman, Jane, who refuses to marry purely for money and embarks on writing to support herself rather than relying on a husband.

The story is well told, with excellent performances all round (especially Anne Hathaway and the always brilliant James Cromwell). The pace is maybe a little slow at times and Jane herself can be rather annoying and contradictory but that simply shows the flaws of human nature rather than being a criticism of the film per se.

Visually the film was stunning. Brilliant scenery, excellent costumes. All used to great effect to enhance the film without ever becoming overpowering or distracting from the story.

Overall, this was an enjoyable film, if not up there with Pride and Prejudice or Sense and Sensibility in my opinion. Well worth a watch (unless you are going to be annoyed by every little inaccuracy) but probably not worth adding to the DVD collection.

The Biographical Fallacy

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 27 March 2007]

It is one of the ironies of literary history that, although Jane Austen was possibly the greatest writer of romantic novels in the English language, we should know so little about her own romantic life. A few years ago one academic earned the obloquy of Janeites everywhere by suggesting that their heroine might have had lesbian tendencies. There is very little evidence to support this hypothesis, but in fairness to the said academic it should be pointed out that there is not much more evidence to prove definitively the hypothesis that Jane was heterosexual. We know that in her early twenties she had a brief friendship with a young Irish lawyer named Tom Lefroy, but we do not know how deep that friendship went. We know that she received and refused a proposal from a young man named Harris Bigg-Wither, but we do not know her motives for rejecting him. (This would have been a financially advantageous match, so they were presumably not mercenary ones). We know that she was still unmarried when she died in her early forties. And that's about it.

"Becoming Jane" is essentially a filmed biography of Jane Austen told in the style of a filmed Jane Austen novel. It explores the possibility that she and Lefroy might have been deeply in love and suggests that this romance might have been the basis for her novel "Pride and Prejudice". Jane, like her heroine Elizabeth Bennett, is an attractive, high-spirited girl of 21. Like Elizabeth, Jane has an older sister to whom she is devoted. Her parents are portrayed as very much the inspiration for Mr and Mrs Bennett in the novel, in financial difficulties and forever worrying about how to marry off their daughters. There is an elderly, imperious widow (clearly the original of Lady Catherine de Bourgh) and a creepy clergyman (the prototype of Mr Collins), obsessively in love with Jane. There is a clandestine elopement, serving as the basis for Lydia's adventure with Mr Wickham.

This is, however, an Austen novel with a difference in that it ends unhappily for the lovers. Unlike Mr Darcy, Tom Lefroy is not the rich owner of a stately home but an impoverished, struggling barrister. The romance between Jane and Tom has the support of neither her parents who would prefer her to marry a wealthier suitor, Mr Wisley, nor his autocratic uncle, the ultra-reactionary Judge Langlois, on whom his prospects depend. (Wisley is an invented character, but he is obviously based upon Bigg-Wither, who in reality did not come into Jane's life until several years after the events shown in this film).

The film critic of the "Sunday Times" criticised this film for being insufficiently erotic, suggesting (referring not only to this film but also "Miss Potter" and "Mrs Brown") that the British like to imagine their national heroines in love but not in bed. There is, however, a perfectly good reason why this film did not show any love scenes between Jane and Tom, quite apart from the need to keep the family audience. Young women of good family in the late eighteenth century, even when deeply in love, did not jump into bed with their boyfriends as readily as they do in the twenty-first. Contraception was much less reliable than it is today, and any woman who lost her reputation for chastity would have been regarded as bringing shame not only on herself but also on her whole family.

Another criticism I have seen (both on this board and elsewhere) is that Anne Hathaway is too attractive to play Jane. In fact, we do not really know what Austen looked like during this period, although her contemporaries paid tribute to her "pleasing" appearance. There is something of a tradition of casting glamorous actresses as literary figures, and Hathaway playing Jane Austen is a much less obvious case of miscasting than Nicole Kidman as Virginia Woolf or Kate Winslet as Iris Murdoch. (Coming next: Catherine Zeta Jones as George Eliot? Angelina Jolie as Emily Dickinson?) Hathaway, in fact, played her part very well. As in "Nicholas Nickelby" her British accent was near-perfect, and James McAvoy (something of a rising star of the British cinema after "The Last King of Scotland") made an appealing hero as Lefroy, a man who hides his better nature under the guise of a roguish libertine. There were also some good cameo performances in the minor roles, especially from the late Ian Richardson (in his last role) as the formidable Langlois. Another notable feature was the look of the film. Like most period dramas it was attractively photographed, with County Wicklow in Ireland substituting for Austen's native Hampshire.

There has in recent years been a glut of films about British female authors, but apart from "Miss Potter", a touching romance about somebody who played a very minor role in the history of English letters, the only one I really enjoyed was "Sylvia", which I felt gave us a real insight into Sylvia Plath's life. "Iris" was well acted, but there seemed little connection between either Judi Dench's senile old lady or Kate Winslet's student sexpot and the real-life novelist Iris Murdoch. Similarly, "The Hours" was not very enlightening about either Virginia Woolf's life or her work. "Becoming Jane" falls into the same category. It relies too heavily on the biographical fallacy, the idea that works of fiction must be, in effect, disguised memoirs of the author's own personal experiences, an idea which downplays the role of creativity and imagination in literature. As a romantic drama with a period setting it is perfectly acceptable, but it does not do much to enhance our understanding of Jane Austen. 6/10

Loved It

[jonesnicola2 · 9/10 · 9 April 2007]

I thought it was a great story and very well cast. I didn't enter the theatre with expectations of learning the truth about Jane Austen's world, who was in it and what made her tick. I understood the movie was loosely based on the life of Jane Austen. The writers have simply devised a beautiful and clever story from only a small shred of evidence that there was a true love in her life. From what I gather the movie was really meant to be an fictional intervention in her life devised from what was known of her. I thought Becoming Jane was funny, beautifully shot and it made me giddy with lust over McEvoy. I loved the sexual energy and meeting of the minds between the love interests. I saw quite a few parallels between this story and Jane's novels. I really believe that Jane would absolutely adore this version, if not find it amusing how it was crafted. I do agree that to create a story about a much loved female author is risky territory, as there are devoted fans of Austen's who are looking for a representation that they personally feel fits their idea of what motivated her as a writer.

Loved to learn about Jane

[seniorbayir · 6/10 · 13 August 2017]

This movie could be better, although second half compensates. It's a little puzzling in the beginning, since there were many characters, and relations between them are not reflected enough in detail. Those scenes might have been slightly longer to grab the viewer, I think. Comparably, second half is thrilling, with less and focused characters.

Lefroy (James McAvoy)'s acting is very good. He knows how to show the emotion he likes like he did in Split. For Anne Hathaway, I watched her many times, and this is not the best of her.

In overall, this is a good summary of how Jane Austen came up with Pride and Prejudice.

Lovely Movie!!

[waterlilly85 · 9/10 · 11 March 2007]

Seldom does one go to a movie with high expectations and ends up having them fulfilled, but Becoming Jane is an exception in this case. I was charmed by Anne Hathaway's turn in Brokeback Mountain and The Devil Wears Prada and couldn't really understand the outcry resulting in her being cast as Jane Austen and after having watched the movie I know for sure Anne Hathaway was the right person for the role.

Hot on the heels of 2005's Pride and Prejudice this movie offers a look into the early years of a spirited Jane Austen and her encounter with a man who could have formed the basis of one of her most famous literary characters Mr Darcy.

I have to say this movie is without a doubt one of the BEST period films I have ever seen. Not only is it visually stunning but the performances from everyone are superb.

Maggie Smith a delightful as the shrewd old Aunt.

Julie Walters excellent as the mother who would give anything to knock some sense into her daughter ( Jane Austen that is ).

Anna Maxwell Martin is also very good as the sister and confidante of Jane Austen.

The director Julian Jarrold has done a wonderful job of making an amazing movie that will appeal to all generations.

And finally the two very charming leads who are the very heart of the movie : Anne Hathaway and James McAvoy. In one word both are AWESOME. James although has little screen time then Anne makes you understand the sheer cockiness and arrogance of Tom Lefroy, from his live free attitude in life to his transformation as a man who begins to care for Jane Austen.His chemistry with Anne Hathaway is sizzling and a very important factor in maintaining the movie's momentum.

And at last to the leading lady Anne Hathaway. The lady is a marvel as Jane Austen, her determination and spark is vividly captured by Anne in what can be called a very career defining performance. Not only does one feel the pain for Jane but one does marvel at what holds her together and her writing makes her pull through in life.It is Anne Hathaway's spirited portrayal of the literary icon that forms the essence of the movie.

From her determination to write and her heart break to her feisty attitude to succeed as a writer is uniquely captures by the young actress. One can't really find the exact words to describe the actress's performance as Jane Austen , which is if simply put great.

This movie has the makings to become the period drama of the year. A fine job by the actors and entire crew of the movie for giving us an insight to what could have been very important years in the young authors life.

A delight to watch in every sense 8/10

Becoming Jane - rather too "becoming" in fact! Pretty, but disappointing.

[armstrongd_uk · 6/10 · 12 March 2007]

Anne Hathaway's, performance, and her English pronunciation, was immaculate in this film. She is, however, much too pretty to be at all believable in the role. (Indeed, I seem to recall reading that her sister Cassandra was prettier than Jane, and this was blatantly reversed in the film casting!) In the end, apart from the excellent cameo performances from Ian Richardson, Maggie Smith, and to a lesser extent Julie Walters and James Cromwell, this was little more than a vehicle for Miss Hathaway and the beautiful scenery and interior sequences, and the continued clumsy direct insertion of fragments of Pride and Prejudice became increasingly tiresome....and finally, surely James McAvoy, despite a superb performance otherwise, could have attempted at least the hint of an Irish accent, rather than Scottish! A very disappointing film.

Pleasant film

[mooning_out_the_window · 8/10 · 9 March 2007]

I have to say that I enjoyed it. I think there were some problems with it, but overall a nice film. Hathaway's accent is very good apart from a couple of very minor slips that could almost go unnoticed. The film, the person I went with said, was a little too slow in places, but I did not find this so. I think that the director perhaps put a little too much emphasis on Austen's inspirations for her novels and in particular Pride and Prejudice, but I did not mind this too much as that is my favourite novel. The acting all round was very good. MaCavoy played it nicely, giving a lot of energy. I thought that the opening and closing were perhaps a little weak. I don't want to say too much in case others have not seen it yet (though of course most know the ending, they may not know the films interpretation of it). Perhaps the only few weaknesses to the film was the fact that perhaps Hathaway was too pretty to play Austen, though she did a very competent job indeed. I think that Anna Maxwell Martin may perhaps have been more suited?! The other is that I would have liked to have seen slightly more quick wittedness on the part of Jane. She was shown as competent, but not as cutting and quick as I and, I imagine, many believe she was. However, despite this I quite enjoyed the film, and wouldn't mind watching it again. It is better that Pride and Prejudice 2005 adaptation in my opinion. 8/10.

sweet but not good enough

[sanjayasantoso · 6/10 · 31 December 2015]

Actually, it was a sweet movie, really sweet movie... A love story of one of the greatest authoress in English, Jane Austen, that I will never though that it could be so interesting like this... But the weakness in this movie, which is also the supremacy, is the conversation they have along this movie... With an unique British accent and so many difficult words to understand, it pretty annoying me, knowing that my English wasn't very good at all... Anne Hathaway herself did a pretty good job as Jane Austen with her accent, her charm, and also her beauty... But what captured in my mind is she didn't fit enough for the role as Jane Austen... In my opinion, Keira Knightley would be the best cast as Jane Austen in this movie... Especially because they have James McAvoy as the love interest of Jane Austen here... I think the chemistry that Knightley and McAvoy already had in 'Atonement' were be great if they doing it again in this movie... But after all, we should gives a thumbs up to Anne Hathaway... At least she's been trying to put some good performances with her own unique accent here but for me it wasn't good enough...

Maddeningly Frustrating to Watch

[Danusha_Goska · 5/10 · 28 April 2008]

There 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 Did Not Like This At All

[sistagirl36 · 15 February 2008]

I am a hard Jane fan and have read about her life also. Have the books the movies even the theater versions. This film was so boring to me I almost wanted to fast forward thru just to see how they would end it. It had so many places where you saw all of her other books and movies in it that it made it seem like you were watching pieces of pride and prejudice, sense and sensibility and at times persuasion and then even mansfield park. It was like they were putting these quirks in for her to me as pieces of her novel heroines or something. I mean change them up a little will you. I was not amused. Then at the end to try and give us a piece of joy by that ridiculous daughter scene. It was as if nothing was accomplished upon. You never really feel any passion from them. If their love was so genuine why did they not portray it more vividly so you could at least feel the lose of it in the end. Or maybe make her seem more smart and not just maybe, just maybe a little romantic. I saw a thrown up passion almost at the end just a hint of it and then it ended. I saw no real even passion for writing. Only thing that I saw was she had different men that wanted her but she ended up with none and died a spinster just like her real life but I am sure she had to feel more love and passion than what they offer here. I really feel this could have been better. I would have liked for her to be more forthcoming in something if not writing then at least in love. There was no "ump" to this portrayal. I was very disappointed.

McAvoy Shines in Becoming Jane

[cmc4794 · 7/10 · 9 May 2009]

In this film starring Anne Hathaway and James McAvoy as Jane Austen and Tom Lefroy, respectively, the premise is one that is sure to intrigue anyone who has ever read an Austen novel.

Basically, "Becoming Jane" explores Jane Austen's early love life and how she came to meet the dashing Tom Lefroy, a would-be lawyer with a love of partying and women. I wouldn't say he's a womanizer, in fact, his laid-back personality only gives him the illusion of being care-free. Truthfully, Tom is indebted to his uncle (a sour sort of fellow)and his entire family back in his hometown of Limerick, Ireland depends upon him for their welfare.

"Becoming Jane" has its flaws, yes, but the film has a few redeeming qualities that will undoubtedly give it a great following of fans. There are moments of great wit and subtly from the parts of Hathaway and McAvoy, and the film boasts some lovely cinematography, though it, on more than one occasion, seems to draw inspiration from Joe Wright's 2006 adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice." This is shown in the dance scenes as well as in some of the dialogue, which, to a lover of that film, seems to be in poor taste.

I had a few complaints with the film upon watching it twice:

1) Anne Hathaway didn't seem to embody the striking and headstrong persona that was Jane Austen. Her accent slipped at times and I felt like she was poorly-casted. However, she obviously tried and her delivery of lines was good. My BIGGEST complaint, however, about her was the pitch of her voice. At times she would while attempting a British accent, go far too high in her voice. She seemed to be squeaking at McAvoy half of the time. (I still love Anne Hathaway, though)

2) Some of the dialogue was obviously placed in for humor and sounded cheesy and corny. Also, the mock-Austen dialogue where they tried to embody the way of speaking in Austen's books only works when McAvoy speaks.

Which brings me to the HIGHLIGHT of this film: JAMES MCAVOY! Oh, my goodness, he is excellent in this movie. He portrays the part of conflicted Tom Lefroy with such conviction and you cannot take your eyes of his character. He steals every scene; I am not kidding! I have written about another one of McAvoy's films and that review shares many of the same sentiments, but I promise you that I am not an addicted fan-girl, rather an appreciator of film and of good acting. Anyways, McAvoy brings dimension to a character who, played by anyone else, would have been flat and static. You really feel as if Lefroy loves Jane and his eyes burn with passion and regret in the later scenes.

On the whole, "Becoming Jane" is an average film with a heart-felt ending and a few excellent characters. It is a great showcase of McAvoy's talents as well as a vehicle for a new generation to become familiar with the always lovely Jane Austen.

Nice costumes, shame about the script

[FlossieCat · 6/10 · 27 June 2015]

As ever the old adage holds true. No matter how good the cast a film will fail if the script is weak. This was. Despite a stellar cast (and one of the great Ian Richardson's last appearances). This was not so much a biopic as a drama constructed from various scenes from Austen's novels.

Yes, the lady wrote from life, from her own intimate world but she observed acutely. Of course her characters are based on people she met, knew, or watched but to flagrantly take scenes from her novels and imply these were events in her life takes things just too far.

And how on earth could they shoot a film about Austen entirely in Ireland? Where was Bath? Austen lived there for five years and her father is buried there!

Lovely film, but didn't meet expectations--SPOILERS

[garnet10 · 7/10 · 10 August 2007]

I'd like to first make it clear that I enjoyed this film and James McAvoy's charming and sexy performance puts this film on my DVD purchase list. At times it did remind me of Pride & Prejudice 2005, but it fell a bit short, (primarily because this story wasn't written by Jane Austen!).

We truly know very little about the flirtation between Tom LeFroy and Jane Austen, so much of this film is speculation. I had to keep reminding myself that this was fiction and not biography, lest I be offended at the filmmaker's liberties.

I cringed a bit at the sexy bad boy being portrayed as more desirable than the less exciting, maladroit, available suitor (Mr. Wisley), and I felt bad for the nonathletic, socially awkward gentleman (who is made out to be a bad guy so that you don't feel too terrible for disliking him because he's unattractive). With maturity one learns that the "nice guy" when given the chance can be just as desirable. Truth be told, when Mr. Wisley talks with Jane by the brook at the end of the movie, and you see that he has good character, you start to wonder why she wouldn't try to get to know him better, since many men who at first seem awkward and unsure, can become exciting and desirable on closer inspection.

There are many funny and charming moments in the movie (even unexpectedly from Mr. & Mrs. Austen), and Anne Hathaway did a fine British accent with only a few minor slip-ups that are completely forgivable.

Tom LeFroy's descendants will probably cringe at the way he is portrayed (although I quite enjoyed it, he's yummy!) but it was hard to see why this scoundrel would fall for Jane. In addition, the story has him deciding to run off with Jane, despite the financial ruin that will come to his own family (they are depending upon him for support), which might make one respect him a little less.

Despite the film's problems, I loved the humor and the passionate, romantic parts and because I am a romantic at heart and was perfectly willing to suspend belief for the sake of 2 hours of entertainment, I did ultimately enjoy this movie.

Great chemistry with Hathaway and McAvoy

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 28 December 2013]

This is an imagined semi-biographical story of Jane Austen. It's around 1795, and Jane Austen (Anne Hathaway) is a rebellious young woman before her great works. She forms a combative relationship with rogue Tom Lefroy (James McAvoy) while her family wants a more aristocratic match in Mr. Wisley (Laurence Fox) and stability of money.

It's very doubtful that this has much relationship to reality, but it's still a very good movie. Hathaway and McAvoy are great young actors, and they have magnetic chemistry. It's really an interesting way to create an Austen-like story by using her own life. And I do like the ending and the depressing tone no matter how little it has to do with her true life. We must allow for poetic license. I do wish for a faster start to the drama. Once it gets started, there are great performances such as Julie Walters as Jane's mother in addition to the two leads. I like to think of this as a Jane Austen novel that she never got to write herself.

Enjoyable, though it has nothing to do with Austen's life and mood

[yris2002 · 7/10 · 30 July 2009]

Although I can be considered a Jane Austen addicted, it took me a long time before watching this movie, since I feared it was a melodramatic, sentimentalist and inconsistent pseudo-biography of the English novelist. Indeed, my fears were confirmed when I saw it, the movie proves much inconsistency, and has nothing to do with Austen's life and inner world, as it can be inferred from her novels, since we do not know much about her biography.

Let's say that this story between the roguish Tom Lefroy and her is pure fiction, this man in only mentioned twice in Jane's letters to her sister Cassandra, but no love story has ever been recorded. I think the director and the producer, on the wave of Jane Austen's cinematographic revival and success of recent years, aimed at making a pleasant, audience-attracting movie (and in fact they chose an Anne Hathaway, whose stunning beauty is by itself attractive, but very far from Austen's physical appearance). They made a work of juxtaposition between her literary production and her quite unknown personal life, and interpreted her life according to the plot of her novels, mainly Pride and Prejudice, but again disregarding the true nature of her inner struggles and motivations. This improbable, mainly considering Austen's secluded and never independent life, love story is romantic, seductive, but the complexity of her inner world and the world of her heroines, is totally missing.

In this way, the final product is enjoyable, the always charming English (and Irish) locations contribute greatly to an overall agreeable perception. Whenever I see or visit some English countryside, or mansion, I immediately fall in love with them, that's why I could probably never dislike such a movie completely , but it totally missed the point, and leaves much to be desired, in terms of rendering something vaguely true about the English novelist (but this was not probably the point of the production, as I said before). In the end, the movie can be viewed as a pleasant, amusing, and well acted fiction of a young, beautiful lady, fond of Jane Austen and trying to experience in life what she read in novels, wanting to become Jane but never turning into her.

Jane wants to marry for love

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 3 April 2014]

Today Jane Austen is recognized as one of the greatest writers in the English speaking world. Not so in 1795 when this story takes place and she's a young woman who wants to marry for love something unheard of in those days.

Jane's middle class parents have a suitable match for her. Dull Laurence Fox who has some family connections to some of the landed gentry in the Great Britain of George III. But Jane sets her sights on James McAvoy, a wild Irish lad and both the wild and the Irish are objected to in equal parts by parents James Cromwell and Julie Walters.

Anne Hathaway who does a wonderful job playing all kinds of bright and eager young women is a bright and eager Jane Austen. In an age when women tended to the sewing and weren't supposed to have opinions, she has them by the wagon load. No one, least of all her parents will tell her whom she is to love and marry.

As for McAvoy, he's a lawyer and a wild child who likes to have a bit of fun and delights in slumming at the grog houses and even getting into prize fights. Those matches were long before the Marquis of Queensbury set down any rules as you'll see.

The passion does burn bright between the two, but as we know Jane never did marry and died relatively young. Why is what you see the film for.

Hathaway and McAvoy will charm you as Hathaway goes on her life mission in Becoming Jane.

Adds to the understanding and appreciation of Jane Austen's novels.

[PK_71 · 6/10 · 8 August 2023]

Impressive cast. Impeccable acting. This story of unhappy love, however, feels all too familiar, too predictable to be the basis of a great film. That is not to say that it's not worth watching (it is), but to me it's no more than a 6 out of 10.

Becoming Jane does, however, put Jane Austen's novels in a context that adds to the understanding and appreciation of them. Living in a time when convention and family obligations consistently got in the way of true love, it makes perfect sense that the famous author never married, and that she wrote books reflecting these themes. And while we like to think that those times are behind us, it's worth remembering that in several parts of the world they're not.

Austen's Powers Made Clear

[toopooyou · 8/10 · 7 August 2007]

Let 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.

Lovely 'what if' but...

[allisonprivate · 7/10 · 19 August 2022]

Far too slow. I wanted to see what became of her and Tom but it dragged on so much, I had to fast forward and subsequently missed a lot of the story in between. That said, although non fictional, it's a novel plausible way of showing how she came to write Pride & Prejudice. Even though history says he only had a 'boy crush' on her.

Does not do justice to Jane Austen

[preeti_temp · 2/10 · 30 September 2007]

The movie has beautiful settings, and nice costumes. That's it.

Things that seem "off":-

-The books in the library look 200 years old...

-Anne Hathaway just does not come across as being an intelligent young writer, i.e. Jane Austen. An actress with a more subtle appearance, and more adept at slipping into the role would have been a better choice.

-The lead actor looked like a teenage boy!

-There was no need for the movie to have so many endings. One would have been sufficient

-The movie insults Jane Austen's wit and power of observation. Why must she have had a broken heart in order to write the way she did?

All in all, just go see BBC's 5 hr Pride and Prejudice. And then you will realize that this movie is so mediocre in comparison.

It works in spite of its Jane

[galensaysyes · 7/10 · 18 April 2008]

At the risk of sounding ungallant, let me begin by observing that Anna Maxwell Martin, who plays Jane Austen's sister in this film, is a comparatively plain actress, or at any rate photographs as such, and is here made up and photographed to look even plainer than she is; as is Julie Walters, playing her mother; whereas Anne Hathaway, the film's Jane, who is comparatively pretty, is made up and photographed to look prettier than she is. Moreover, Martin and Walters have been dressed to look of the period, or so it appeared to me, whereas Hathaway has somehow been costumed, or her costumes tailored, for a Hollywood costume romance; so that the other two tend to look like her servants. The heroines of other Jane Austen films haven't needed the scales tipped so much in their favor--which is to say, they were better. And here my ungallantry must be qualified, or redirected: Martin, in her plainness--if she is plain--is to my eyes a much more attractive woman than Hathaway in her prettiness--if she is pretty--and to both eyes and ears a much more interesting performer; Hathaway, in interviews, comes across as bland and nasal and dull, and so do her characters on screen, including this one. According to interviews on the DVD Austen was teenaged when the experience here being dramatized is supposed to have happened; Hathaway seems to be in her 30s (except in a final scene where, apart from her want of grey hair, she seems twenty years older than Austen lived to be); according to the interviews Austen was lively, disrespectful, and boat-rocking and that was how the filmmakers wanted to show her--well, they picked the wrong woman to do it, for Hathaway's Jane comes off as cold and hollow and schoolteacherish, in fact as a pill. However, learning of the filmmakers' intent clarifies the title, which I hadn't understood before, since the film does _not_ show Jane becoming anything: she's writing at the beginning, she's still writing at the end, and she behaves identically throughout, with only minor modulations.

I take it that the details of this story, or almost-story, are mostly unknown and were mostly worked up for the film; two of the incidents seemed new and interesting, the rest seemed borrowed, from Austen's novels and from other films. The photography looks as one would expect; indeed, so many of the shots are so exactly what I'd foreseen that for a while I expected a half parody, like Shakespeare in Love. The secondary characters--with the notable exception of a (presumably) real-life Lady Catherine, played by Maggie Smith--are little attended to, especially the lesser males: Leo Bill, who made a likable Edward in the latest Sense and Sensibility, barely registers as the boyfriend of Jane's sister, and whoever played Jane's happy-go-lucky brother is just an echo of Austen's Tom Bertram. The music sounds unaccountably Irish--unaccountably, that is, until one finds out this is an Irish film.

Yet in the end I thought the film worked, in a way, despite its oddities and deficiencies, and despite my having to watch it around the central character (cf. Kevin Costner's Robin Hood). I believe this was due primarily to James McAvoy as Austen's love interest, and secondarily to Laurence Fox as his opposite; they're believable, complicated--largely but not wholly likable--and ultimately sympathetic and touching; and through their eyes, rather than through the actress's performance, I saw Jane Austen as she might have been. The feeling they conveyed was not a sense of great tragedy or blighted romance, more a wistful regret for something that it would have been nice to have but that wasn't practically possible; like a feeling recalled from childhood of having gone to a party at a fancy house and having thought, oh, why can't I live in a house like this?--not the sharp pang of heartbreak but the dull ache of a disappointment known to be unreasonable, the recognition of it, the resignation to it, and the bearing with it, partly in retrospect; and since life is largely a procession of disappointments discovered, accepted, and borne with, both at the time and in retrospect, the film inevitably strikes a chord.