Save your money for something good and enjoyable

hyped garbage

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

The acting in this movie is really good.

Having acquired the rights to a play penned by Jane Austen during her childhood, an avant-garde theatre director attempts to do justice to Austen's words and "bring her up-to-date" while a former associate tries to convince his actors to perform the play more traditionally in this little seen Merchant-Ivory film. Robert Powell, fresh from 'Harlequin' (where he played an equally hypnotic character), is solid as the avant-garde director in question who believes that "we all live in clichés" and that his fey vision is faithful. Anne Baxter in her last big screen performance is also well cast as his former associate. It is not, however, always interesting to watch them argue source material fidelity and with much talk and limited atmosphere and action, 'Jane Austen in Manhattan' has found a reputation as Merchant-Ivory's nadir. Such an assessment may be a little harsh, however, this is very much one of those films where the story behind it is more fascinating than the movie itself. Apparently James Ivory acquired the film rights to Austen's play without having even read it. Upon reading the play and finding it insubstantial for motion picture (Austen was, of course, very young when she wrote it), Ivory almost passed it up until Ruth Prawer Jhabvala suggested making a film about those who wish to and attempt to perform the play - not unlike 'Adaptation.', to which the film sometimes has been compared. This in turn renders 'Jane Austen in Manhattan' one of Merchant-Ivory's most intricate efforts, and if a failure, it is certainly an ambitious one.

Boring and annoying are two adjectives that spring to mind regarding this film. The only aspect that salvaged it from being completely unbearable was the presence of Anne Baxter.Until she appeared on screen it all just seemed to be a series of disjointed scenes bound only by a shared pretentiousness. And then, boom, there she was and suddenly the electromagnetic field changed.It was interesting to observe how powerful the presence of a single person can be. Because, in this case, Baxter brought a coherence to the film. With her appearance, the different elements seemed to fall into place. At least to a degree.I tried to figure out what it was about her that seemed to make this happen. Was it "star" quality? Was it a gravitas that came from her years of experience? Or did she, as opposed to the other actors here, perhaps resist the "direction" that was being given and merely follow her own course as far as interpreting her character. I don't know. I couldn't figure it out.The only other actor who created a real character as opposed to a caricature was Kurt Johnson who played Victor. And Sean Young was quite good.The others were giant clusters of affectations. Robert Powell who played Pierre was especially annoying. Granted his character was supposed to be so. But he was not interesting annoying. Just annoying annoying.

This very long1980 movie isn't the worst Merchant/Ivory/Jhabvala movie (that would be "Jefferson in Paris") but is numbingly dull even to an admirer of many of their movies. I'd assign blame mostly to Jhabvala's screenplay about two radically different troupes vying for the chance to première a (real) recently discovered play written at age twelve by Jane Austen. From what we see of it, Austen wasn't much of a playwright at age 12 (who is?!). Jhabvala imagines a charismatic experimentalist Svengali (Robert Powell) pitted against a socially well-connected aging actress whom he had used and abandoned earlier (Anne Baxter in her last big-screen role paying off the sins of Eve Harrington?). She wants to stage an operatic version. It defies plausibility that the experimentalist actors have operatic voices, but the audience has to simply accept that, while trying to care about any of the characters struggling to survive whimsical arts patronage. I could muster a bit of sympathy for Baxter, and more for the very handsome spurned husband played by Kurt Johnson, but couldn't care less about the "star" played by Sean Young (in her first screen role) or about which absurd production got supported and mounted off- Broadway.

First off I want to say that this is more of a drama with comedic overtones. The comedy is very subtle and dry. Of course, I'm not very familiar with Austen's work, so I'm certain that some of the jokes were completely over my head.This film is too flawed for me to recommend, but I wouldn't dismiss it either-you know the type. It is somewhat pretentious and at times incomprehensible. The pace is very slow; a trait which here works equally for and against it I think.What I did like was that, for a drama/comedy, it has a very weird vibe, almost dark at times. Or maybe it was just me.It all adds up to a film that was alternatingly boring and intriguing. I say only check this out if you like seeing something different and don't mind a slow pace. I would be interested in seeing what a Jane Austen fan thinks of this film.