Love and Friendship (2016)

I went to see this movie with several friends of mine whom have a shared love for all that is Jane Austen or related...however we we are all too polite and didn't say anything even though we were dying to get up and leave early...this movie was AWFUL - not worth an hour and 32 minutes of my time nor my money. The movie moved so slowly with very little plot. It had the potential to be comedic and add to the collection of Jane Austen tributes that preceded it, however it failed on both accounts. The limited somewhat funny moments were all included in the official trailer and having seen that before watching the full movie there was nothing left to freshly entertain. And I cannot forget to mention that the acting was sub-par which was surprising with such a cast...Bottom line - Invest your time and money elsewhere.

Fmovies: I have complicated feelings regarding Whit Stillman. "Metropolitan" and "The Last Days of Disco" were great films. "Barcelona" was OK, not spectacular. "Damsels in Distress" was awful, and was justifiably panned. I had high hopes for "Love & Friendship" after both the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald gave it good reviews. Sadly, it was not the return to form I was hoping for from Stillman. Yes, the dialogue was good and the acting was uniformly strong but the story was silly and not involving. I know that with a Stillman film you're not getting strict realism but the film was far too implausible for my liking. Also, Chloe Sevigny was totally wasted in a part that gave her nothing to do. Disappointed.

My wife and I rented this film recently, having seen a promising trailer, and a reasonably good IMDb rating. Having now watched the film in its entirety, however, rarely have we ever been so utterly disappointed. I can understand why the IMDb popularity seems to be on a firmly downward trend.

The only positive aspects of this sloppily directed film were the costumes, locations and soundtrack - and OK performances by a couple of actors playing supporting characters, in particular James Fleet. Kate Beckinsale was unconvincing in this role, and Chloe Sevigny's curiously variable accent here was compounded by often mumbled diction. For much of the film, Xavier Samuel appeared to be offering little more than an admittedly pretty accurate imitation of the young Hugh Grant. The story line was disjointed and none of the characters ever really engaged the viewer, and at times the plot appeared to have gaps and non sequiturs - we each wondered if we'd dropped off for short periods, but this unfortunately was not the case.

In many ways this serves as an object lesson in why Jane Austen's meticulously constructed novels are such masterpieces of storytelling - each scene and dialogue fits perfectly like clockwork. We have not had the benefit of reading the novella in question,'Lady Susan', but this film leaves the impression of having been clumsily and carelessly assembled from a series of sketches. Excellent films can be very successfully adapted from little known short stories, for example with The Painted Veil (from Somerset Maugham). This is definitely NOT a good example, and we would advise readers, whether Austen fans or not, to look elsewhere.

Love and Friendship fmovies. The most boring Jane Austin adaptation I have ever seen. This movie was not about love and friendship but about a despicable woman who sleeps around and lies and sets a poor example for her daughter. What a joke to say this was a high rated film. We almost walked out. The only part of the movie that was "lively" was the dancing. The humor in the movie was rather idiotic as was the person portraying the idiot, though splendidly. I don't want to suffer through any more movies like this in the future. There are too many choices out there for me and this was a bad one. I have seen a lot of Jane Austin film's and this was the very worst I have ever seen.

Here's my beef with Love and Friendship. They told the story. Emphasis on told. Not sure if they didn't know how to build the character backgrounds and cultural implications into an hour and a half-ish flick or what. It's like they assumed you understood some things but, needed to explain the bulk of the story via Lady Susan. Instead of building the story via scenes and acting and playing out the idea and letting the audience think and work out the connections....leave a little to figure out if you got it right or not, Beckinsale's character basically narrarated everything that was going on. As we walked out, I said to my wife, Downton Abbey left a pretty high bar for period pieces. The Jane Austin story of relationships and status and morality was interesting enough. The presentation just plain left it all in the book. You read a book, and you know you're reading a book. Director Stillman just had the book read to us by actors. It wasn't as interesting as that may sound either. I don't know if it was budget over directing but, this was a disappointing movie-fication of a book. Even the period environment was stumbling and stiff. Oh yeah, a hand maiden should do this. Oh yeah, the footman or, doorman or butler would do this. It came across as a poorly staged amateur play, where there was no fluidity. Other reviews said you'd be laughing out loud. Maybe a few snickers and giggles. I was glad it was only 90-ish minutes. If you're coming to this because Downton Abbey made you a fan of that period of England, I'm sorry to tell you, you won't be satisfied by Love and Friendship.

Perhaps this is a movie that only Jane Austen fans can love. I like Jane Austen but I don't like this movie.

The non-acting aspects of the movie were superb, and the acting overall was fine. My problems with the movie is the story itself and the director's lack of imagination with it.

The movie reflects that, as an early work of Jane Austen, it was not very sophisticated. The writing and directing did not improve on it. In effect, the movie was built on a series of tedious soliloquies by Lady Susan. The only suspense was provided by not knowing which plot elements were real or Lady Susan's fabricated illusions. After a while I realized that I was giving too much benefit to Lady Susan for fabricating illusions. She was clever but not that clever. Her cunning strategies--and the plot--mostly had a short-term horizon that never extended past the next scene.

I want to find the book and read it because I can't believe that it had some of the serious defects that the film showed. Most notably, what has been a friendly relation abruptly transformed to a discussion of marriage. I thought I had missed some bridging aspect of the dialogue but checked with my companions after the movie and they had been mystified too. I have a sense that a bridging scene was left on the editing room floor and no one noticed the abrupt change of pace.

The conclusion of the movie came too suddenly. Just was it seemed there would be another act, the house lights came on and the movie was over. I got the sense that Jane Austen ran out of ideas for the story, perhaps got bored with it, and so quickly tied up the loose ends.

To restate, the non-acting aspects of the movie were superb, and the acting itself was fine, per se. Perhaps there wasn't much material for a great movie in the original Jane Austen work, but the movie I saw could have been a lot better. I think the directing killed the potential for great acting and killed movie overall.