Definetely the better of the two made for TV movies.
I wanted to watch it again and again.

It is a lot like the first one(1986?) but without the darkness of it.

Basically Jane Austen is spoofing the thriller chiller novelist of the time and shows how reading this type of material can get you into alot of trouble.

Also, as always, Jane is writing about the socialism of the times.
How money and title is what makes for a marriage rather than love.

But, as usual, it is very romantic and Jane doesnt disappoint in the end.

This has mystery, betrayal, intrigue and romanticism.

Not as good as her other works but still very enjoyable.
Rating: 4 / 5

The characters in the movie were very well portrayed. Catherine was
picture perfect to me, as if she had walked right off the page…and Henry was so utterly delightful that I still want to grab him right out of the tv and just hug him until his face turns red. Or…perhaps
a demure kiss on the cheek at least!

While some reviewers found the film a bit racier than expected, I think the racier scenes representing Catherine’s daydreams were in keeping with the tone and content of the novels she was actually supposed to be reading…likewise, the allusion to Byron shows a familiarity with the issues of thought, independence, sensuality and immorality which he represented for many people around the time the novel itself would have been written (or slightly before). The mention of Byron by a particular character ties his image to that of another character in the film in a way that I believe to be a very good representation of Austen’s intentions in the novel.

My only warning is that people should definitely be wary of watching this as a sort of cliff notes guide to the novel…especially in order to complete any important assignments. (Not that people would do that anyway, of course…it’s very wrong…)

As far as the movie was concerned, I can see how the “do you think she reads too many novels?” comments helped to integrate the wild gothic scenes of Catherine’s imagination into the more realistic narrative more fully. In fact, I thought the integration worked pretty well over all… the music, the air of menace around another particular character, and the dark and somewhat hazy lighting of the abbey did a great job of making Catherine’s leap of imagination seem plausible (perhaps a smoother transition than in the novel).

I really would have liked to have seen the argument for
reading and imagination in some capacity, and I think the simple
inclusion of Austen’s own defense (of novels and novel-writing) as part of Henry’s observation that he reads novels(or failing that, perhaps a similar observation by him or his sister prefaced by the question to Catherine”what are you reading?” and Catherine’s response “Oh, it is nothing, only a novel”) would have been simple, effective, and hardly of
consideration in the final editing for time…but I must admit that I
know next to nothing about writing for, directing, filming, or editing
movies…;-)

The omission of such a crucial component of the novel(in this film adaptation)ends up changing the entire message of the novel. The spirited defense of novel writers and readers that Austen states so overtly (and thus so uncharacteristically) is reduced to its corollary–the cautionary tale about letting one’s imagination run away with them (and while this corollary starts out quite strongly in the novel, it is quietly reduced by degrees until neither heroine nor reader are completely sure they believe it).

Ultimately however, this film is visually delightful, entertaining and engaging, and questions of the “moral” of the story (while instructive) are unlikely to detract from any viewer’s enjoyment of the adventure of a young lady’s first(and only) romance.

Rating: 5 / 5