Anyone else feeling dissappointed about the movie?

I personally expected a bit better. Shailene is an excellent actress, and the costumes were beautiful, but I can't say I'm impressed. The lighting wasn't excellent. I would say it is a bit under AG quality. It took me to watch it two times to appreciate the film. Apparently I am the only one who is dissappointed? I wish I could say the movie was great, but it was only OK. I really like Samantha's movie better. But never the less, Felicity's dvd will weasel it's way into my house. [img]graemlins/whatever.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/sleepy.gif[/img] [img]frown.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thinking.gif[/img]

I did like the movie. I thought it was a lot better than Sam's because Sams seemed more geared for children whereas Felicity's could be enjoyed by a whole family. Of course this is only my own opinion [img]wink.gif[/img]

I wanted to ask you, I'm not sure what you meant about the lighting? Can you explain that? Thanks [img]smile.gif[/img] Just wasn't sure what you mean.

But if you didn't like it, why buy it? Why don't you buy something else that you REALLY like? I mean why spend money, or have your parents spend money buying something you won't enjoy?

<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ November 30, 2005 07:23 PM: Message edited by: StarTrekCaptain ]</font>

Well, a good bit of the movie was in greenish darkness. Like when it was night, I could barely see Felicity. [img]graemlins/hmmm.gif[/img] [img]confused.gif[/img]

And, why buy it? Well, my sisters loved it.

I agree with you, Katya. I didn't enjoy the movie a whole lot either.It was "dry" in my opinion; too muchh talking, not enough action. But I will admit that I got a little teary eyed when Felicity's father forced her to return Penny back to Jiggy Nye.

Well, it WAS night. They wanted to make it look like it was night. It was supposed to have a greenish night glow.

I don't really like action type movies a whole lot. I prefer conversation.

Hopefully you guys will like the next movie better [img]smile.gif[/img] I loved the movie, but I understand how you feel. It must have been sad to be excited about the movie and then not really enjoy it as much as you wanted to. But I'm sure it's hard for AG to make a movie that has things EVERYONE will love. I mean, we are all so different, they do the best they can to make poeple like it. Maybe the next one will be more your cup of tea...no pun intended
[img]wink.gif[/img]

Very well said, Annie. Totally agree with you. Too much conversation- not enough action. "DRY"

YES! *does happy dance*

I AM NOT ALONE!!

It completely failed to meet my expectations. The costuming was so mishmashed that my mother and I were laughing every three seconds. Ben was too old looking which made his pseudo-romantic moments with Felicity just down right creepy. The building in which the ball was held was the most ludicrous looking thing I've ever seen. They didn't even have anything in England that looked like that back then much less the colonies. The setting in general looked very little like Williamsburg. The acting was not what I expected, the only exception being Felicity's mother. The message was a bit too sappy and feel goody for my tastes. Realisticaly Elizabeth and her family would have gone back to England or to Canada. Also, Colonial Christmastide celebrations and balls usually took place on Twelfth Night or Epiphany not Christmas Eve which was a more religious time.

The only things that I liked in the movie were Annabelle and Nan. I liked Annabelle's acting and look and Nan's costuming.

Sorry to be so rantish but I've got my mother's genes which means that I cannot watch a movie without nitpicking it. Sometimes I wish I was ignorant so I could enjoy things more. Also, I didn't see the Samantha movie last year so I didn't know what type of production to expect.

I will now slink away.

I didn't like it. I tried to watch it, I really did.


The kids seemed to act well, but the scenes seemed rushed through. Everything was so melodramatic, and cheesy and I just couldn't handle the "Dukes of Hazzard" guy as her father, that was just annoying.

Actually I really enjoyed it as did my two daughters

Frankly, I really enjoyed it. I like my Christmas movies sappy and sweet, and this was perfect. I didn't think it was slow or stilted or dry. I suppose if people are going to nitpick, that gives me the ability to nitpick right back, so...I'm still trying to figure out exactly why it is that everyone seems to expect perfection from their movies. What a way to end up continuously disappointed. I would be so depressed. I've been reading so many disparaging posts, and it just makes me wonder, wouldn't you rather just enjoy what was good about it and forgive the rest? Who does it hurt to have a fun, sweet time? I know some people might take offense to this, but come on, it's just a movie, it's not a biography or a history book, it's entertainment, and I firmly believe it is up to each of us to determine what we'll focus on. I choose to focus on the sweetness of the story and the earnestness of the actors.

Well said Mayergirl....I can't believe all of the nit picking over a movie. There are also quite a few wrong statments on some of these posts too. If you are going to nit pick, and were expecting everything to be "perfect," I suggest you know the facts before telling us how smart you are....It never ceases to amaze me how negative this board can get sometimes. WHEW!

It was a cute movie and my daughter, who is target age loved it. I think it was well done for a made for TV movie.

Shelly

I am not nitpicking. I have not seen the Samantha movie but from reviews was not expecting much at all from this one. I got exactly what I expected.

I'm sure 10 year old girls love it (I very well might have at 10) but I am not a 10 year old girl anymore and shouldn't have to judge the movie as if I were.

I was surpised how good of actors the kids were but overall the movie reminded me of a soap opera episode.

The romantic stuff was creepy to me. It was creepy in the book as well, but to see it being acted out by real people made it even creepier.

I was plesantly surprised by the movie. After the hugh changes they made to the Samantha story I was expecting more changes to Felecity than they did. Although I nitpick to myself, I really don't want to do that here. It was very good for the girls, and as an adult (most of the time) I wasn't too disapointed with acting etc. I thought Nan was a little older than pictured, but she certainly was precocious. I am a costumer at heart and really noticed things along those lines. The costumes were my favotire part. The village looked liked Williamsburg really does now. I thought Jiggy Nye was perfect in his part too. I really disliked him. Can't wait for next year's movie!

I didn't think it was soap opera-ish at all. I don't even like soaps. I'm 19 and I really thought this was an excellent movie. It was a LOT better than some other movies that I have seen.

I did not mean to offend. I was just stating my thoughts. There were many things that I did like in the movie; the maternity dress, no skirting around slavery, the sidesaddle, and the general attempt to capture the spirit of the time period. It's just that as a Colonial reenactor I notice when things are off. Like when Mr. Cole's cloak had clasps instead of ties, and the stocks that were a couple of decades out of fashion at the time. But I was not expecting Pride and Prejudice costuming so I was impressed with what they did do.

I actually spent a good portion of the movie telling my mother to stop giggling and defending the film's honor. I also went on for fifteen minutes with different theories for why Felicity's grandfather was wearing a military hat. "He was in the Jacobite Rebellion in England. He likes the way it looks. He was borrowing it from a friend. Etc." However I myself giggled at Jiggy Nye's eyebrows (they looked like caterpillars) and the Templeton's house (it looked like a hotel). I mainly didn't enjoy it because it wasn't quite the Felicity I remembered from when I was young. But in a completely fresh point of few and looking at it as seperate from the books and throwing historical accuracy out the window I thouroughly enjoyed it.

And I'm not sure if you were referring to me AGfun but I do feel that I know quite a few facts about the time period of which I speak. The Georgian period has been my life since I was quite young and I know a historical disrepancy when I see one. I'm not trying to pick a schoolyard fight, just defending my honor. If you have any questions about my thoughts on the movie and why I think so feel free to ask. I would love to talk to you about anything. Let's not start any of this negative feeling you were referring to.

I agree, I was really disapointed in the movie as well, glad I wasn't the only one...I'd hate to be run off the board... [img]graemlins/shhh.gif[/img] I thought the acting stunk, the story was so screwed up it was bad. Mr Merriman was a dufas, and Marcia Gay Hraden was not her usual good acting self, from what I've seen her in..Oh, I was disappointed. I should not watch books I liked on TV/movie adaptations....
I agree about the lighting..it was wierd and green and warped, I thought it was the tape.
I can see why it appealed to little girls, so I am sure it made a lot of kids happy, which was the point. [img]smile.gif[/img] Oh well.

Bah, I liked it. But opinions are like...well, lets just say everyones got em' [img]wink.gif[/img] I personally couldnt stand the Samantha movie so I can relate to those who feel disappointed by Felicitys. As much as I would have prefered a little more accuracy as well-and maybe a little less sugary sweetness, did father really have to invite jiggy nye to dinner?-Ill forgive it since its just an adaptation of a childrens book series. Its meant to be enjoyed by the family and whats there is still informing young girls-and boys-about that time period.

I enjoyed seeing Felicity's stories brought to "life." I didn't want to look too deeply at a movie that is fluff. I do, however, have to disagree with the statement that Ben looked too old. My DS is 13 and some of the boys in his (8th) grade easily look as mature as the actor that played Ben. Several are pushing 6', they're all so big! What do these Midwesterners feed these boys? [img]wink.gif[/img] I honestly think one boy in particular is shaving (he is 14). [img]eek.gif[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OSusannah:
I honestly think one boy in particular is shaving (he is 14). [img]eek.gif[/img]

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, I can't resist a poke at one of my friends. He's almost 23, and he's been trying to grow a goatee since he was 17. He's still not there, lol. The last time I saw him (about a month ago) we ran into a 15 year old with a full beard, and he about cried [img]wink.gif[/img]

I liked it much more than I was expecting to, and also a lot more than the Samantha movie.

I also thought Ben looked too old. Granted, Kevin Zegers is over 20.

I was disappointed that they didn't film some of the exterior shots at Williamsburg. The building used for the ball seemed out of place.Felicity was also far too young to go t a ball. In the book it was a dance lesson.

I liked the movie, but I did not like it as much as I could have. I think the problem was that I wsas TOO excited about it. It was so hyped-up that the actual event was bound to be a let down..u know?

Really? I didnt think Ben looked too old at all. According to the books, he would be turning 17 in the fall of 1775. Kevin Zegers is only 21-trust me on this, I thought he was so cute I had to look him up on imdb, he's only a few months younger than me [img]wink.gif[/img] So I didnt think he looked too old at all. Most guys at 17 look pretty much like adults anyway. And Im with Tracey, I knew a lot of guys who were shaving and 6' or taller before high school. My boyfriend was one of those. He was 6' by the time he was 14 and could grow a beard then too, Though strangely enough, he still cant grow a mustache. Actually, a lot of his buddies still joke around about a particular boy they went to school with who could grow a full beard when he was only 12!!! LOL That poor boy...

However, I think the actors chose to play Lissies parents were waaaay too old. Lissies mother would have been maybe 30 and her father would have been 5-10 yrs older than her. But both those actors are are in their late 40s or 50s. That bothered me a lot more than anything else. But Im pretty sure they were just using their roles to bring in the established actors parents might know of rather than go for historical accuracy.

Personally, I loved the Felicity movie. The dialogue seemed a bit stilted at times and Mr and Mrs Merriman were portrayed a bit too "perfect", but overall I thought it was a good. I'm no living history expert, but I thought the costumes and settings seemed pretty historically accurate. Shailene WAS Felicity, and whoever played Annabelle really fit her role too, as did Nan.

[img]graemlins/shhh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shhh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shhh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shhh.gif[/img] LOL!

I thought it was okay!I started crying when she had to give Penny back!

Has there ever been a movie made that surpassed the book it was based upon? I think we can all agree that the movie isn't going to garner any Oscar nominations. But for a nice, feel-good, holiday film the entire family could enjoy - I think it hit the nail on the head. No, it's not perfectly historically accurate, but a history expert can always find discrepencies. It was a nice, simple fun movie. And it was much better than most (if not all) of the made-for-TV holiday movies of the week.