Love & Friendship (2016) User Reviews

Whether you'll enjoy it depends entirely on your love and familiarity with the Jane Austin novels and films.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 4 April 2016]

I have read just about every Jane Austin novel and have seen many different versions of movies based on her books. As a guy, this makes me very unusual to say the least. But even women, who are usually the most die-hard fans of this great writer, only make up a small percentage of the population. Because of this, I feel safe in saying that a new film parody of Austin, Love & Friendship, is likely only to be seen by folks who love and appreciate her stories. For them, this film is a must-see. For everyone else...not so much. Now this is not because there's anything wrong with this new movie...on the contrary, it's very well made and was produced, surprisingly enough, by Amazon Films (yes, from amazon.com)! Quite surprising...especially for a lush period piece. But the average person simply won't understand or appreciate the very droll and dry humor. And, even if you are a fan, you really have to be into the language and pay close attention for all the nuances. Again...not a complaint...more an observation which will let you decide whether the film will be right for you.

This film, as in other Austin films, is set in the Regency period in Britain (the very early 19th century). However, the filmmakers actually chose to make the film in Ireland...and it's a nice substitute. When the film begins, Lady Susan Vernon (Kate Beckinsale) is abruptly leaving the Manwaring estate. You have no idea why but soon learn that Lady Susan is a rather poor woman and generally visits with friends and family in order to sponge off them. She also feels no particular obligation to pay her mounting debts...after all, she is Lady Susan! Her sister-in-law, Catherine Vernon (Emma Greenwell) isn't completely thrilled with the visit to her home, as Lady Susan has the reputation as a very beguiling yet vicious woman...all done with a smile. Catherine is also soon alarmed because her nice but slightly dim brother, Reginald DeCourcy (Xavier Samuel) is captivated by Lady Susan and would love to marry her. Oddly, despite Lady Susan being a horrible and conniving woman, when her daughter, Frederica (Morfydd Clark) joins them at their estate, she is nothing like her mother...and the audience hopes and prays that dopey Reginald recognizes Frederica and Susan for who they truly are. However, Susan is determined to have Reginald for herself and instead foist the incredibly boring and stupid Sir James Martin (Tom Bennett) onto Frederica. Can this master manipulator be stopped or will she soon manage to make three other people completely miserable?

This film is quite funny but the humor is nothing like the long string of brain-dead and worthless parodies of films such as Disaster Movie and Date Movie. Instead of being broad and written for the average 10 year-old, Love & Friendship is often very subtle and is filled with wit that should appeal to Austin fans. But it's also the sort of well-crafted film that just has a limited appeal to broader audiences. It's a shame, as it's very well directed, sports a clever script and has lots of wonderful supporting actors such as Steven Fry and James Fleet (who is my favorite in the supporting cast). For fans of the author it's a must-see...others might just want to wait until this comes to Netflix or DVD.

For fans, I'd give this one a 10. For all others, perhaps a 5 or 6.

Tone Deaf Austen Adaptation

[evanston_dad · 6/10 · 8 November 2016]

Something is tonally off about "Love & Friendship," Whit Stillman's screen adaptation of a Jane Austen novella. Stillman treats the film like a satire of Jane Austen, with all of the actors moving through the film practically winking at the camera to acknowledge they're playing dress up. The problem with that approach is that Austen was already a crack satirist herself. Therefore, the film doubles the emotional distance between the audience and the characters, so we have a hard time caring much about what happens to any of them.

Another big problem is the casting. Kate Beckinsale is a lovely actress, and she does imperious and haughty well. But her character is in virtually every scene, and she's supposed to be so irresistible that she can manipulate anyone to do anything she wants. Beckinsale doesn't have that kind of allure; she's technically proficient at hitting her marks, but she doesn't have the screen presence to carry this really rather despicable character off. I'm stumped to think of a modern-day actress who could, but Vivien Leigh would have been perfect in a role like this. The poor casting extends to other members of the cast as well, most egregiously to Chloe Sevigny, who is far too contemporary an actress to be believable in a period piece. Most everyone else in the film is a drip, with the sole exception of Tom Bennett, who plays a bumbling suitor brilliantly and enlivens the picture every time he's on screen. Would that the whole film had been as funny and engaging as his performance.

With Stillman maintaining too much of an ironical distance from the action, the film turns into a talky succession of drawing rooms conversations that don't amount to much of anything save a procession of pretty period gowns.

Grade: B-

"Facts are horrid things"

[ThomasDrufke · 7/10 · 31 May 2016]

There's something very satisfying about a period piece that actually feels like a film that lives in another time and place. While Love & Friendship certainly isn't the thinker or entertainer that most of the films released in May, it has its fair share of laughs and uses its gorgeous locales and famous source material to its benefit as much as it can.

I don't consider myself the avid Jane Austen reader or fan of the media adaptations. In fact, I usually don't care for them much at all, but with rave reviews and a heavier reliance on comedy than romance, I decided to give Love & Friendship a shot. For the most part, it's an enjoyable film. I don't know how closely the writers attempted to stay to Austen's work, but one of the main issues to the film is the overabundance of characters. We are introduced to almost every single character within the first few minutes via opening credits, and it became overwhelming as a viewer.

I caught on to the characters after a while, but trying to remember everyone's names was quite the challenge, especially when they all talk, dress, and look relatively the same. With that said, it's far and away Kate Beckinsale's film as she plays the infamous Lady Susan Vernon. The story mainly focuses on Vernon's attempt to give her daughter and herself a new match, after being recently widowed. If not for anything else, Love & Friendship is entertaining just to purely watch Lady Susan manipulate just about everyone she crosses. The beauty being that you don't truly know if she's being manipulative or sincere, which is why the abundance of characters actually works in the film's favor.

Distracting the audience with new characters scene to scene keeps our attention away from what Susan is up to, hence surprising us with the next reveal. I can't say I was all that invested in the story itself, as it sometimes falls under the clichéd-romantic genre, but watching Beckinsale and the others have fun with the source material proved to be worth a viewing.

I also appreciated the film's keen sense of humor at just the right moments. There are moments when the comedy could steer towards over-the-top, but veteran director Whit Stillman kept it from getting out of hand. In all, if you're into Jane Austen or period piece romantic dramas in general, Love & Friendship is probably for you. If not, perhaps the humor and performances can reel you in.

+Timely humor

+Fun performances

+Witty writing

-A lot of characters can muddle the plot at times

7.0/10

This Jane Austen story falls pretty flat

[ybenhayun · 6/10 · 14 June 2016]

The funniest character in the film is James Martin. He steals every scene he's in and each time he was on the screen I couldn't stop laughing. Unfortunately, he isn't in a lot of the film, and the rest of the movie's humor comes in the form of pithy one liners at the end of every scene. Sometimes I'd chuckle at those, but that'd be about it. There aren't any weak links in the cast, they all do a great job with what they're given, but I wish they were given something better. The movie moves at an incredibly slow pace, and with not a lot ever going on, it often feels like I'm being read a Jane Austen novel rather than watching a movie adaptation. The movie isn't "bad" by any means but there's so little going for it that I would consider noteworthy I can't really find myself ever wanting to sit through Love & Friendship again. Maybe if you absolutely LOVE period dramas from a design standpoint or are a huge Jane Austen fan, you'll get more out of this movie than I did, but otherwise there isn't much here.

Mild Mannered Comedy

[GManfred · 14 May 2016]

"Love And Friendship" is not classified as a comedy but that's the only way it succeeds. Our website calls it a drama/romance but those labels don't capture the essence of Jane Austen's late 18th century novella, gorgeously filmed and impeccably acted by a predominantly British cast.

In a nutshell; Lady Susan is recently widowed and now relies on the kindness of friends and relatives for shelter as she is very short of money. So she bounces from estate to estate endearing herself to the menfolk and is notorious among the ladies. Lady Susan is very beautiful and flirtatious; a husband is needed to achieve stability as well as position, not to mention a reliable source of income (We have to infer much of this information from the plot; Lady Susan is not a flamboyant character, like Auntie Mame).

"Love And Friendship" sports first class production values as well as a sophisticated literary background. Kate Beckinsale is good as Lady Susan and the rest of the cast is even better. Midway through the film gets a needed boost from Tom Bennett, who plays the oafish Sir James Martin. He is an oasis in the midst of the arid screenplay, which cries for more of his bumbling presence.

This is a movie for grownups in a landscape festooned with juvenile entertainment. It is difficult to find fault with any part of this handsomely mounted production which is graced by Jane Austen's relentlessly clever dialogue and the skilled direction of Whit Stillman ("Metropolitan", "The Last Days Of Disco"). Well done all around despite the bland storyline.

The Mien Engaging

[richardchatten · 7/10 · 29 December 2020]

Kate Beckinsale trades in her latex for hats and crinolines to take on Jane Austen in this moderately tongue-in-cheek adaptation of her posthumously-published novella in which pert modern misses Beckinsale & Sevigny dress up in a succession of magnificent period creations and sit about talking (and talking) about, well, love and friendship rather as Whit Stillman's characters used to do in twentieth century Manhattan.

It's all agreeable and good-looking, although the settings feel totally unlived in and everybody sounds as if they're simply reciting dialogue they've memorised in advance. Which of course they have.

Weakly done

[bapkan · 6/10 · 1 June 2016]

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.

sadly, a misfire

[mk1319 · 4/10 · 11 June 2016]

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.

The best thing you can ask for in a movie is to be left wanting more

[IDwasTaken · 10/10 · 28 January 2016]

This is one of the few films I have seen where I was left wanting more. There were non stop laughs, funny sight gags and wonderful actors. It was wonderful to see Kate Beckinsale and Chloe Sevigny back together as well. Tom Bennett is truly a joy to watch and steals all of the scenes he is in. The costumes, sets, and acting are all top rate. The script, pacing and direction all make the movie flow at a fast pace. I was never bored and at the end of the film, I was left wanting more. This is one of the greatest compliments I can give to a film. Time does fly when you watch this film and feel free to laugh out loud when you watch it. Everyone else will be.

Ten out of ten

Golden threads in a tattered rag

[begob · 7/10 · 14 September 2020]

A scheming widow flees to the English countryside to settle the marriage prospects of her family.

Some superb characters and performances in a patchy production. Lady Susan has an interesting and sophisticated view of life, which is delivered in fine style by the lead actress: after furiously rebuking a gent for daring to approach her, she breezily excuses herself - "Of course I know him! I would never address a stranger in such fashion." But even more enjoyable is the unsquashable dunderhead, Sir James - the director makes great demands with extended scenes in which it must have been difficult to sustain the delicate humour, but the actor pulls it off brilliantly. Also a lovely scene with the de Courcy grandparents, as he tries to read her a letter.

On the debit side, the American exile isn't quite right - a great actress for close-ups, but here (as usual) she's just a sidekick, and can't bring the proper deviousness to her role. And the scene with her husband felt like the actors weren't sure it was working. And, in general, the camera or editing often seems misplaced in two-shots and over the shoulders.

There are big problems with the story, and about halfway through I was puzzled by a couple of scenes that seemed to refer to ghost events I didn't recall. And the resolution is frivolous, a disappointment after Lady Susan's musings on loyalty and emotion. I understand this is an early work by the great novelist, but I don't see why the story couldn't have been gussied up in the screenplay.

Another thing - clearly a great deal of compression in the writing and editing, as the opening titles hit us with a tidal wave of character intros, with the following scene an extreme example of entering late and leaving early. Fine, but the pace over the first ten minutes had me holding on by my fingernails as I tried to figure out what was happening to whom. It felt like everyone was frantic with worry over the slim running time.

The Irish locations are just right for the Georgian period. Music all chamber orchestra Baroque. Photography is fine, but doesn't balance out the threadbare direction and editing.

Overall: golden threads in a tattered rag.

Disappointing Parody

[gmj22 · 4/10 · 2 June 2016]

Although I have enjoyed most other film adaptations of Jane Austin's novels, Love and Friendship left me decisively unimpressed. Its plot is fairly silly and it contains too many poorly developed characters. Even the more important characters are merely caricatures about whose richly gilded but silly lives I came to care not at all. There were a few unexpectedly clever lines of dialogue but not enough to hold my interest for 90 minutes. We have seen the eras' manners and morals portrayed many times before and this adaptation has nothing new to offer. Had I wandered into the theater without a companion, I would have slinked out after half an hour. It is not a terrible movie but it does not live up to its literary pretensions. I suspected that Ms. Austin would have been embarrassed to learn that such a slight work has gained such attention.

Austen rocks

[ferguson-6 · 8/10 · 12 May 2016]

Greetings again from the darkness. Jane Austen ROCKS! Sure, that might be a slightly exaggerated description of the writer who passed away almost two hundred years ago, and is known for such subtle and nuanced work as "Sense and Sensibility" and "Emma". But it's difficult to argue the fact that Ms. Austen's 2016 is off to an impressive start. First came Burr Steers' highly creative and entertaining "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies", and now Whit Stillman delivers a cracking version of her (apparently) unfinished novella "Lady Susan".

Thanks to the standout performance from Kate Beckinsale, and the manner in which words from Austen and Stillman go zipping by (sometimes honestly, sometimes not), this is one fun and briskly-paced romp … more descriptions not typically associated with the prim Ms. Austen. Ms. Beckinsale as Lady Susan Vernon flashes spunk and comedic timing that we have not previously seen from her. She fits marvelously in the dress of the late 1700's, while packing a diabolical and manipulative nature more often displayed in contemporary settings.

The supporting cast seems to be having a marvelous time. Chloe Sevigny is Alicia, Lady Susan's confidant and gossip buddy … and one whose husband (Stephen Fry) continually threatens to ship back to Connecticut (as if it were the coal mines or outback). Emma Greenwell is Catherine DeCourcy Vernon, adversary and sister-in-law to Lady Susan, and Mofryd Clark plays Frederica, Susan's somewhat mousy and inconvenient daughter.

Though the women are standouts here, the men hold their own. Xavier Samuel is Reginald DeCourcy, the somewhat naïve and susceptible-to-advances-from-Susan young man, and Tom Bennett manages to steal most every scene as the quite silly and funny (and wealthy) Sir James Martin. Adding their own special touches are James Fleet and Jemma Redgrave as Sir Reginald DeCourcy and Lady DeCourcy, respectively; and Jenn Murray as Lord Manwaring … one of three suitors to Lady Susan.

This spoof/parody will strike a chord for anyone accustomed to the uptight nature of most period pieces, as well as the importance of status, decorum and the corresponding insecurities (a weakness the cunning Lady Susan will most certainly seize upon). Mr. Stillman (Damsels in Distress, The Last Days of Disco) is an immensely talented writer, and certainly a welcome complement Ms. Austen's posthumously published work. It's a deliciously funny and intricate story that features such quips of gold as "Facts are horrible things." Welcome to the zany verbal barrages of Lady Susan, Whit Stillman and Jane Austen. Yep … zany and Jane Austen in the same sentence. I told you she ROCKS!

Delightful Farce

[JackCerf · 7/10 · 13 June 2016]

This isn't as good as the unanimously approving critics would have it -- I think they are so fed up with movies where the characters wear spandex that they embrace anything made with adult intelligence -- but it is smart, fast, and funny. Kate Beckinsale is wonderful, and Tom Bennett makes an indelible contribution to the ranks of British upper class twits.

I haven't read Austen's Lady Susan, so I don't know how much of the plot and the dialogue are Austen and how much is Whit Stillman, but they are perfect collaborators. The sense is pure Austen -- a woman alone navigating the always dangerous intersection of sex and money. Stillman's sensibility is a combination of P.G. Wodehouse and Absolutely Fabulous, complete to the conspiratorial confidante and the disapproving daughter.

In his essay on Wodehouse, Orwell wrote that the English seem to believe that intelligence and unscrupulousness are the same thing. Wodehouse, of course, created a whole army of comic aristocratic boneheads. He also created in Frederick, Earl of Ickenham, alias Uncle Fred, a comic sociopath -- a man of great, underemployed intelligence and negligible conscience, whose delight was to make mischief by manipulating the idiots with whom he was surrounded. In intelligence, ready improvisation, utter lack of scruple and self- conscious delight in her own virtuosity, Lady Susan is right up there with Uncle Fred as a comic sociopath, although her impecunious widowhood gives her much greater motivation than Uncle Fred ever had.

Stillman's great achievement, besides keeping up a cracking pace, is that he perfectly controls the tone. We are never in doubt that this brilliantly manipulative, completely unscrupulous, shamelessly devious and flagrantly (by the standards of her time) carnal woman is completely justified in her schemes to find rich husbands for herself and daughter, just as we are never in doubt that the foolish men and perceptive but helplessly indignant women who surround her will get no more than bumps and bruises, and that all will be well, after a fashion, in the end. The one character who is actually wronged suffers with such exaggerated theatricality that she seems ludicrous rather than pitiable. This is a real accomplishment -- in lesser hands, Lady Susan could have turned into either a monster or a sermon.

One trick Stillman uses to keep the emotional distance essential to farce is to show the key courtship conversations either in silent long shot or, in one case, not at all, leaving the audience to imagine what is being said without becoming exposed to the feelings expressed by the characters. The other thing he has going for him is an audience ready to sympathize with Susan's situation as an economically helpless woman at the mercy of men who own everything.

One can see why Austen put this story in the desk drawer and left it there. In Austen's time and for long afterwards, the only way for an author to get away with a character like Susan Vernon was the moral disapproval with which Thackeray portrayed Becky Sharpe and her surroundings. There is none of that here. On the contrary, Austen/Stillman stand astonished and admiring at the verve with which Susan imposes herself on others and the sheer grit with which she tackles her very real difficulties. In the end, her best laid plans are undone by her own appetites and her daughter's unexpected talents, but she makes a remarkable recovery. Along the way she gets to deliver one aphoristic gem after another, at a pace that Oscar Wilde might envy. Great fun, and I recommend it highly.

Was this an improvement on "Lady Susan"?

[IDBmmcjwo · 2/10 · 3 June 2016]

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.

Over-busy, incomprehensible minor-Austen

[johnrgreen · 28 July 2018]

I haven't read the original and watched this film on TV after a long hot day so perhaps I was a little tetchy.However,in retrospect I found it tried to cram too much exposition into 90 mins.Half of this film I spent working out who was whom and realising I hadn't a clue what was going on.The main character,the supposedly conniving Lady whatever, was either trying to marry her daughter off or sponge off her rellies or intriguing with this mystery character married to SFry.If she had achieved it at the start,let's face it with her reputation as a fixer she should have, it would have saved us the rest of this, impossible to follow, mess of a film.The Martin character,a twerp, was supposed to be funny but was played as a character from a radio4 historical improv show ,therefore was not.Were peas funny in1800? I don't know, but in 2018 this film was not,decidedly so.

The Vidiot Reviews...

[capone666 · 7/10 · 5 September 2016]

Love & Friendship

A best friend during Victorian times was someone who could write copious letters without hand cramps.

Fortunately, the friends in this romantic-comedy meet face-to-face on occasion.

Unable to obtain her deceased husband's fortunes due to previous liaisons, Lady Susan (Kate Beckinsale) must find her daughter (Morfydd Clark) a prosperous suitor to keep their high society standings.

Her plan plays out at her brother's country estate – and through correspondence with her American friend (Chloë Sevigny) – where she hopes to pawn off her first-born on dimwitted Sir James (Tom Bennett), and claim her brother's friend (Xavier Samuel) for herself.

But her past indiscretions and an unplanned pregnancy threaten her plot.

One of very few period comedies around, this adaptation of communiqués composed by Jane Austen is quite cheeky, whilst remaining rather proper. More surprising is Beckinsale's performance as the coquettish countess.

Thankfully, nowadays, daughters can pick their own rich husband to marry.

Green Light

vidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

bowdlerized lesser Austen with fits of fun

[clevecheng · 6/10 · 22 May 2016]

While failing to reach the heights of earlier adaptations of Jane Austen novels, Love & Friendship, based on an early epistolary Austen novella, Lady Susan, does have a few laughs and charms to compensate for its incessant chattiness and some directorial missteps.

Written when she was nineteen, and at only fifty-nine pages in the edition I have, Lady Susan, while recognizably the work of Austen, lacks the deep wisdom and lived-in quality of novels like Emma (written when she was about forty) and does not rise much above the level of satire.

Love & Friendship has a sketchy, episodic feel that belies its epistolary roots. I had slight difficulty following the abrupt changes of scene at times (only explained in dialogue after the fact), a choppiness I'd attribute to either questionable editing or lack of coverage (the movie was shot quickly in February in Ireland on a small budget). Furthermore, I felt the rapid pace of the editing ill-suited a story that takes place entirely through written communications hand-delivered by carriage over what were then large distances.

Stillman stays reasonably faithful to Austen's characters, plot, and wording, but is not content with simple adaptation, and adds some of his own parody. I found this funny in parts (most of which were in the trailer), but more often was put off by the facile humor and characterization. Stillman's verbal footnoting of not very obscure references also took me out of the story; the same applies to self-deprecating jokes about Americans and Manhattan in-jokes. It seems that, in attempting to pander to what he perceived to be a skeptical audience, he lost at least this part of his captive audience (every Austen adaptation I've seen has left me wanting more, until now), while failing to win over the skeptics (the friend I saw it with struggled to stay awake).

But I don't wish to exaggerate: while I found most of the movie artificial, rushed, and uninvolving, there are stretches, especially in the latter half, where the actors are allowed more than a minute or two to act as an ensemble, without abrupt scene changes, ironic subtitles, or Manhattan in-jokes, and I started to develop some real empathy with the characters. But it was largely too little, too late.

The movie does have a good deal in its favor.

The costume design is stunning, and the locations and/or set design make the movie look like it had a far higher budget than it apparently did. The cinematography shows off all of this to great advantage, with lighting simultaneously convincingly realistic, on point, and luscious.

Beckinsale is well cast, especially given her performance twenty years ago as Emma Woodhouse, a character who bears a passing resemblance to Lady Susan - not to mention that Beckinsale was, like Lady Susan, the mother of a sixteen-year-old daughter at the time of filming. And her acting skill has improved noticeably in the last two decades.

Tom Bennett and Xavier Samuel acquit themselves admirably. While I am not in principle against American actors in English period pieces (my favorite Austen adaptation is the Gwyneth Paltrow Emma), I found Chloe Sevigny's presence jarring here. I can only conjecture that either someone felt Americans needed a proxy character in order to relate to the story, or else that Stillman couldn't resist inventing an excuse to slip in America jokes.

In summary, if you appreciate Whit Stillman's sense of humor, and are either a fan of Lady Susan or else appreciate Austen from a historical or post-feminist perspective, you will probably love this movie. If you're not into Austen or Stillman, this may put you to sleep. If, like me, you're a Stillman skeptic (I'm ambivalent on Metropolitan as well) and your love of Austen is conditional and based largely on her writing skill, it can be a mixed bag.

Without referring to the original novella, I'm left with a feeling vaguely similar to what I felt after watching Coppola's Marie Antoinette - some amusing moments, some pretty pictures, and not enough story or storytelling to tie them together.

Love & Friendship

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 30 December 2020]

Whit Stillman adapts Jane Austen's novella Lady Susan. Rather than a comedy of manners and matchmaking. This is better viewed as a social romp of survival and social climbing.

Lady Susan (Kate Beckinsale) is a relatively young impoverished widow. She wanders about living house to house of various friends and relatives. A social flirt who is having an affair with Lord Manwaring but thrown out when his wife suspects.

Now moving into her brother in law's house. Lady Susan is looking for a social match for her daughter Frederica (Morfydd Clark) and maybe one for herself.

The dimwitted baronet with a good income Sir James Martin is suitable for Frederica but she doesn't want him. Frederica does have an eye for someone Lady Susan is interested in.

Performed with gusto by Kate Beckinsale. It needed to be more bawdier than prim. More Tom Jones than Emma. The humour and satire does not always cut through.

It moves along nicely with music in the style of Michael Nyman.

Hmmm...

[fil-nik09 · 4/10 · 5 September 2016]

With the current rating at seven which I have seen before the film, I thought that the film would be a good one, but I was wrong. This is not a good film ( for me). Although I do like films with similar settings and I do liked the films which seems to be more of a theatre plays than actual films, this one was ...

rather boring, not really entertaining, not funny at all ( as the film poster and some critics said), quite rushed ( if I may say) and you do not really get to understand the motives behind some of the characters moves. And that rococco /baroque music was not really fitting in my opinion.

As for the actors/acting... as I mentioned, the film is close to a theatre play, so, yes, the actors were kinda good for a piece of theatre but for the film... not so sure.

I would only recommend to watch this if you really really do not have anything else to watch. It is not entirely boring and uninteresting, but it is far from an entertaining piece.

My rating is four ( though it may deserves a star more).

Beckinsale excels in a comic tale of Girl Power in the 1790's

[bob-the-movie-man · 8/10 · 22 December 2016]

Set in 1790, Kate Beckinsale plays Lady Susan Vernon, an 18th century cuckoo-like 'MILF' (actually, more 'LILF', but using the 'Lady' term loosely) who with her glamorous demeanour is lusted after by both younger beaus as well as married aristocracy: an example being Lord Manwaring (Lochlann O'Mearáin).

Playing many different ends against the middle, Lady Susan – with the collusion of her American friend Alicia (Chloë Sevigny) – attempts to both find a suitably rich suitor for her daughter Frederica (Morfydd Clark) as well as finding a rich husband for herself to allow her to stay in the manor (sic) to which she has become accustomed. A tale of deception, pregnancy and a marriage of convenience follows: does Lady Susan have to choose between her sexual desires and the rich, stupid and dull Sir James Martin (Tom Bennett, "David Brent: Life on the Road"). Or can she have her cake and eat it?

Based on a Jane Austen short story, "Lady Susan", this is a delight from beginning to end. However, it does require the attention of the viewer: characters get introduced to you in rapid fire succession, and keeping track of who's who and how they interrelate is quite a challenge.

But this is a tour de force for Kate "Underworld" Beckinsale who delivers a depth of acting ability that I've not seen from her in the past. Her comic timing is just sublime, and while comedies are often overlooked in Awards season, this is a role for which she richly deserves both BAFTA and Oscar recognition.

Stephen Fry joins what is a superb ensemble cast. But outstanding among them is Tom Bennett who is simply hilarious as the nice but dim Sir James. The comic routine about his misunderstanding of "Churchill" (Church – Hill) – a running gag – is sublime and a challenger (with "Was that it t'were so simple") for the comedy routine of the year.

Directed by Whit Stilman ("The Last Days of Disco") from his own screenplay, this is one for the more sophisticated viewer: requiring of your full attention, but a treat for the eyes, ears and brain.

(For the graphical version of this review please visit http://bob-the- movie-man.com. Thanks.)

Charming but unmemorable

[dissident320 · 6/10 · 30 June 2017]

I have not read the Jane Austen novella this is based on but it was a nice simple movie that I don't think will remember a week from now. I really enjoyed the character introductions. They would show them with title cards as they stood outside the house. It seems like a simple thing but it was nice device that also gave you a little introduction to what the character might be like. The actual story is nothing of note. There's some romantic and marriage drama but the dialogue is fun throughout. Kate Beckinsale and Chloë Sevigny play off each other well. Tom Bennett is enjoyable in this if only to see other characters react to him. All in all, I wouldn't make a point to watch this but if it shows up on TV it's worth a watch.

zzzzzzzz

[bobmetarts · 2/10 · 29 October 2016]

Ten minutes in and I thought I was watching an amusing parody of Jane Austen. The costumes and sets were all immaculate, but the dialogue was... stilted and hard to follow and just plain silly. But after 30 minutes, it began to dawn on me that this was no parody, but merely a bad adaptation of a bad first attempt by Ms. Austen at novel-writing. I should have known better -- this is premium Whit Stillman, who has spent the last quarter-century gradually mastering the art of boring an audience to death with superficial pseudo-sophisticated twaddle. This may well be his piece de resistance. I managed to resist turning it off for all of 50 minutes before my yawns forced me to surrender.

The most enjoyable film I've seen this year so far.

[MOscarbradley · 9/10 · 30 May 2016]

Whit Stillman is hardly the most prolific of film-makers. Since his debut, "Metropolitan", in 1990, he has only directed 5 feature films, all of which he has also written, but they represent as fine a body of work as any in contemporary American cinema. His movies may not be particularly 'cinematic'; they are talkative comedies but they are also fiercely intelligent and often very funny in a way that so many films aren't these days. When people talk of Stillman they may be thinking of Jane Austen, so perhaps it was only to be expected that Stillman would finally get around to tackling an Austen story.

"Love and Friendship", Stillman's thoroughly delightful new film, is based on Austen's little known novella "Lady Susan" and it may be the best screen version of Austen thus far. It's deeply acerbic in a way Austen seldom is and it's also laugh-out-loud funny. Kate Beckinsale is Lady Susan, recently widowed, mother of a daughter of marriageable age and financially dependent on the kindness of strangers.

When the film opens she has arrived at the country seat of her sister-in-law, Catherine DeCourcy Vernon, in search of shelter and perhaps a new husband. Her reputation of being something of a man-eater has preceded her and yet she has no trouble in winning the heart of Catherine's younger brother, Reginald. What follows is a typically brilliant and very Austen-like tale of romantic intrigues and misunderstandings, broader perhaps than either "Pride and Prejudice" or "Sense and Sensibility" yet totally in keeping with Stillman's view of the world, past and present.

It would be invidious of me to choose one member of a wonderful ensemble over another for special praise since every performance is close to sublime. Still, it was gratifying to see Chloe Sevigny, in the best part she's had in some time, as Lady Susan's American friend and confidante, always living in fear in being shipped back to Connecticut by her older husband, played by Stephen Fry.

The closest Stillman comes to making his film cinematic is in his use of 'natural' lighting in several of the interior shots; otherwise this movie, like everything else Stillman has done, is totally dependent on his brilliant cast, the sharpness of his writing and the wit and compassion of his direction to make its mark. I doubt if I will see anything more entertaining this year.

Love & Friendship & Boredom

[jadepietro · 6/10 · 6 June 2016]

(RATING: ☆☆☆ out of 5)

THIS FILM IS MILDLY RECOMMENDED.

IN BRIEF: A comedy of manners in need of more comedy.

GRADE: C+

SYNOPSIS: The Widow Vernon searches for love and security in British aristocratic society.

JIM'S REVIEW: Finding a suitable suitor is the sporting game and all the rage in Whit Stillman's stuffy but diverting period film, Love & Friendship. Renamed as such, from Jane Austen's 18th century novella, Lady Susan, this comedy of manners looks at relationships with a modern day sense and sensibility, but its screenplay lacks the necessary charm and wit to captivate its audience. The film is a rather stodgy affair in need of some enlightenment and, dare I say, fun.

Poor Lady Susan Vernon (Kate Beckinsale)! Living a recluse life amid vicious rumors of her improprieties circulating in British upper class circles, the Widow Vernon begins to take matters into her own hands. Her goal is simple, though her course of action is rather complicated: A husband is her ultimate conquest and providing a secure future for her daughter, Frederica (Morfydd Clark). She starts to narrow the field of possible suitors, from the rich to the pompous. Her possible targets include attractive and quite young Reginald DeCourcy (Xavier Samuel), wealthy and witless Sir James Martin (Tom Bennett), and already married (and rarely seen) Lord Manwaring (Lochlann O'Mearain). As we watch her scheme unfold and complications ensue, so too do her American friend, Alicia (Chloe Sevigny), and her questioning sister-in-law, Lady Catherine (Emma Greenwell).

The script by Mr. Stillman contains some droll humor and clever asides, but the farcical elements never achieve the rightful level of satire. Too much of the action is played off screen, with events suddenly changing the characters' actions. These incidents seem more like plot devices than actual period responses. There is also a slight anachronistic modern-day feel in the film's narrative structure with the overall effect becoming a playful seduction in the battle of the sexes. Nevertheless, Love & Friendship still entertains its movie-going audience, even if its pace is of the slow and leisurely Masterpiece Theatre variety.

Mr. Stillman directs his able cast with an assure hand, although his film is too episodic and choppy. The mood swings erratically from melodrama to drawing room comedy as characters range from pretentious buffoons to conniving schemers. The actors play their roles well, especially Mr. Samuel as the smitten lover and Mr. Bennett as the foppish fool, the latter breathing some life and needed energy into these dreary proceedings. At the center of the tale is Ms. Beckinsale's Lady Susan, who looks the part and carries of the elegance and beauty of this self-centered vixen, but the actress never quite succeeds in showing her character's deviousness and hidden jealousies behind all of her manipulations.

The period details are impeccably mounted and add authenticity to the film. The costume design by Elmer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh is flawless, Richard Van Oosterhout's atmospheric photography enhances already exacting production design by Anna Rackard, and a lyrical score by Benjamin Esdraffo lends the proper refined airs of haughty elegance.

Love & Friendship may show these aristocrats as foolish and superficial foils blindly following society's demands. The film creates an acerbic view of a time when men may have had financial dominance over women, yet it was that fairer sex who had more power with their arsenal of beauty and poise...that upper hand ultimately being a simple feminine gesture than made the male of the species swoon in their cunning presence. As for this film experience, one may not be totally beguiled watching Love & Friendship, but any moviegoer will be easily seduced by Mr. Stillman's love of language and style.

Visit my blog at: www.dearmoviegoer.com

ANY COMMENTS: Please contact me at: [e-mail]

Appalling, dreadful - avoid at all costs

[armstrongd_uk · 1/10 · 31 October 2016]

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.