Like Moli??re, which was released in cinemas soon after, Becoming Jane isn't a conventional biopic. Instead, Julian Jarrold (White Teeth) expands on events from Jane Austen's life that may have shaped her fiction. To his credit, he doesn't stray too far from the facts. In 1795, 20-year-old Jane (Anne Hathaway with believable British accent) is an aspiring author. Her parents (Julie Walters and James Cromwell) married for love, and money is tight. They hope to see their youngest daughter make a more lucrative match, and there's a besotted local, Mr. Wisley (Laurence Fox, son of actor James Fox), who would be happy to oblige. Unfortunately, Jane isn't interested. Then, she meets brash law student Tom (The Last King of Scotland's James McAvoy), while he's staying with relatives in rural Hampshire.

As in many Austen novels, it isn't love at first sight--but rather irritation. Just as affection begins to bloom, Tom has to return to London, and Wisley, whose financial prospects are superior, proposes. To complicate matters, Tom's uncle (Ian Richardson in his final performance) disapproves of the outspoken young lady just as much as Wisley's aunt (Maggie Smith, lending the proceedings some subtle humor). Had Austen penned the script, Tom and Wisley would be combined into one person, but life doesn't work that way--and nor does Becoming Jane. Though Jarrold's effort may not be as swoon-worthy as Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice, it remains true to the spirit of the author's work. --Kathleen C. Fennessy

I loved this film. I am not sure just how accurate a reflection of Jane Austen's life it is, but I really enjoyed it. It captured the period, the etiquette, social rules and financial difficulties of the time. I know it probably was a deliberate ploy but I also loved seeing the "real" characters who were the basis for Jane Austen's fictional characters. Be prepared for a weep!

OK, it's not an exact account of Austens life, but if you just look at it as a film, not a factual documenturey, it's a very good film, with a very touching ending. Lovely scenerey and the acting is very good. Especially from James McAvoy (plus his eyes are gorgeous all through it!). I'm a big fan of Austens work and I thought this was a great film, well worth a watch.

This is a very odd film as it can't quite make up its mind whether it's a biography on the real Jane Austen or whether it's a compilation of her books, and the merging of the two as if everything she ever wrote was rooted in her own experience instead of in her imagination make it both plodding and quite dubious.

As other reveiwers have said, too much of the plot, characters and scenes are lifted from the two most popular of her books due to film/TV versions (Pride & Prejudice, Sense & Sensibility) which makes this both derivative and uninspiringly predictable.

There is absolutely no sense of period which the BBC usually does so well: so here Jane wanders around a ball and into the garden alone; she, her brother and his lover all go and stay with her potential husband's uncle/patron; and after calling off her elopement (JA eloping!) she travels back home all by herself. Also all the discussion about women 'supporting themselves with their pen' is just ludicrous in this time period: even women who wrote made hardly any money out of it (and I don't think JA did, or certainly not much). And as for that absolutely ludicrous cricket scene - even Jennifer Ehle's brilliant and accurate Elizabeth Bennett would never have considered that!

I didn't think Anne Hathaway is as wooden as some other reviewers here but she's just far too sweet and wholesome not to mention pretty to be a good Jane who is supposed to have been far spikier even at a young age.

So an ok film to pass a couple of hours but forget that this is supposed to be jane Austen and you'll probably enjoy it far more.

While I am prepared to put aside the way this film "stretches" the truth about Austen's life (and looks), I cannot forgive the script. At times, it was quite dreadful - summed up by the moment when Laurence Fox casually slips "it is a truth universally acknowledged" into a conversation and Anne Hathaway's face lights up in a very hammy fashion. Absolutely risible.

The direction is equally unsubtle. Possibly the worst moment is the hugely unconvincing ball scene where Hathaway and McAvoy overact the sexual chemistry wildly and, therefore, unconvincingly.

Hathaway is OK, McAvoy does have some good moments and the generally fine cast raise this to a two-star film (the script deserves one or less). Most of them are wasted, though, with the honourable exception of Anna Maxwell Martin. I thought she was excellent as Cassandra, and the scenes in which she learns of her fiance's death are the best in the film.

The story moves along, in Jane Austin style, with a tendency to follow parts of other Jane Austin stories (most notably, parts of Sense & Sensibility, parts of Pride & Prejudice) which is a nice mirror to how she created the stories. However, as the second half moves along, the story is led down the predictable hollywood-style ending. While not offensive, and with a good cast, this enjoyable movie is not particularly memorable. An enjoyable, if forgettable, experience.