Austenland could have been all that the cast and concept promised, but its many unbelievable plot details wrecked that chance. The main character went from being a proud Austen addict to a wimp putting up with far too much humiliation for not much gain. Keri Russell as Jane the addict pays all of her life's savings for the bargain package at a place in England called Austenland. The loosely 'Regency' activities take place in a building that looks just like Darcy's home in Pride and Prejudice, but there any connection with Jane Austen ends. Jane Seymour is sometimes funny as a harridan; Bret McKenzie seems too convincing as a lover to believably be someone acting as a nefarious schemer; and Jennifer Coolidge is embarrassing. JJ Feild's performance shines as the only real person amidst a crowd of fakes. The only reason to watch this movie is to see what some people think is the value of Jane Austen -- and to be happy that even this sort of nonsense cannot diminish her.

PlotJane Hayes (Keri Russell) is a Jane Austen nut who is in love with Mr. Darcy, the romantic male lead in Jane Austen's "Pride & Prejudice". She is intimately familiar with this story, for she has read it countless times and has continuously viewed the mini-series with Colin Firth and even has a life sized cardboard cutout of him as Mr. Darcy in her apartment. She believes the next logical step for her is to go to Austenland in England. Once there she becomes familiar with the males actors that she is supposed to form a relationship with, including the actor who is acting a lot like the fictitious Mr. Darcy, but she finds herself sneaking around with the guy who works in the stables. Now she is torn between sticking to the script and being engrossed by her fantasies or should she venture out and break away with this real relationship.Character DevelopmentThe growth that the protagonist goes through is fairly predictable because she is such a Jane Austen fanatic you knew something was about to change, yet the change was more or less symbolic and did anything but dazzle me.ActingKeri Russell does a fine job for the most part. This role didn't really showcase her talents, because I have seen a better performance out of her in the feature length cartoon 'Wonder Woman' (2009). As Jane Hayes she didn't have much to say or a great deal to react to. Most of who she encountered were these broad stroke characters that are less lifelike than the ones out of you would find in the average comic book. They were loud and literally get in her face. Jennifer Coolidge played one of these vacuous characters. I don't know if she is supposed to be funny because she is so hopelessly annoying, but for me she was just plain annoying and oh so boring.OverviewNot as enjoyable as I thought it would be with Keri Russell at the helm. I fault the writing more than anything else. The pace was just too slow and the other actors didn't really do an acceptable job supporting Russell who went along admirably. I thought that there would be more of a connection to Jane Austen's books which makes me question if the creators spent much time reading them in the first place. There was just so much material that could have been used and it is a shame it didn't make its way to the screen. The exchange between the characters played more for cheap laughs than anything else. I was hoping for the types of conversations right out of "Pride & Prejudice" and instead of that there is one guy taking off his shirt and an incredible awful play production that one of the characters wrote. It really felt like amateur hour. Yet there was one nice turn in the end that surprised me and made me think that the writing didn't fall asleep completely at the wheel. But by this time I was so underwhelmed that it almost didn't matter.

While it seems Jane's novels are taken out of order, as PERSUASION and MANSFIELD PARK split up with some sections coming before and after others, the film captures the essential premise of Jane Austen that all the planning and care in the world goes out the window once an emergency or crisis appears leaving the planner helpless and reacting illogically. I especially like Jane Seymour's portrayal of Mrs. Wattlesbrook. The film never strays from the general spirit of what Austen tried to convey about the human condition despite bits of nonsense comedy added not in the style of Jane. Is the point those who try to live a fantasy through simulating Jane Austen's setting and characters eventually give up recreating the settings and characters to then see life as Jane sees it?

I'm not the world's most zealous Janeite - I cannot seem to get my head and heart around liking Mansfield Park...;-) - but I am a Janeite nonetheless, and this was rather wonderful - there, only true Janeites will understand what I mean by that.I do not read fan fiction about Austen characters, I rather re-read the original, there is always something new to discover <3.But I am not a purist, I am open to new adaptations, I believe in freedom of art and taste - and also in freedom of speech, and this is just a sorry little film that does not work on almost all levels...Of course the title attracts a Janeite like a moth to the light, though thank goodness it turned out to be just mildly irritating in its false light and did not cause me mortal damage...The last 15 - 20 minutes do redeem it a bit, but there was so much amiss with the film from the beginning that that was not nearly enough, besides, throughout the film I was saying, 'JJ! How could you!!!' ^^I know cross-casting is done in Austen film adaptations, but at least Colin played a Darcy every time ^^, and JLM as Mr Knightley makes me easily forget the only-glimpsed-at Bertram (which I don't care for too much anyway, as stated above...), and Blake Ritson played two completely different characters (one of them again involving the for me ingnorable MP....forgive me, better-Janeites-than-I...:-))...but my favourite Henry Tilney posing as Darcy and then again not and then this 'Jane' NOT falling for him when he was perfectly in character...that alone, apart from the very flat script and ridiculous end-product, that alone I could not forgive!! -- mostly JJ....^^ (at least he did a good job).So, for this Janeite, this did not work and was a little distasteful to the senses.I am not even sure if I should pose the obvious questions/state the glaring faults: too little introduction to the lead character, much too rushed, much too flat, what WAS Austenland supposed to be, really? Why did they have different names, or were a conglomeration of Austen characters I did not feel any inclination to even try sorting out? The chauffeur? Are we at Downton Abbey now? So much made no sense, too little was properly introduced or set up, this was a hollow endeavor.The only true thing portrayed - again, with too little adequate singularisation or punchlines - was the tedium of the female Regency aristocrats, a fact mentioned in the bonus material of 1995 P&P.No, no, no!!!--- Shall I say it? Yes, I shall: Badly done! (though quoting Jane somehow seems sacrilege to be using even as commentary on this drivel....harsh words, but the truth)