I'm curious how you know exactly what mannerisms and expressions upper class Englishwomen displayed in the 1880s. You obviously were not alive then, nor were there any candid films taken in those days before the invention of motion pictures. Have you read someone's diary from that era noting that "no one makes funny faces because they have not been invented yet." Now, if the characters had exchanged high-fives or fist-bumps, I'd say you have a solid point.

To Lettersval, I'm curious how you know exactly what mannerisms and expressions upper class Englishwomen displayed in the 1880s. You obviously were not alive then, nor were there any candid films taken in those days before the invention of motion pictures. Have you read someone's diary from that era noting that "no one makes funny faces because they have not been invented yet." Now, if the characters had exchanged high-fives or fist-bumps, I'd say you have a solid point.

I totally agree with this.

Kate was the worse part of this movie. Miscast.
Agree that it was very, very hard to picture her as a 19th century lordly englishwoman.

This message has been deleted.

I love love love Kate Hudson but she wasnt good in this movie.
Heath Ledger Come Back,
This isn't funny at all.

This was Kate Hudson's ONLY good role. She did a terrific performance as a young upper-class English lady of the time in Four Feathers. This was the first movie I saw in, and I even thought she was English. Unfortunately, every other movie I've seen her in was crap, not to mention her acting. Kate only plays the typically dumb American blonde valley girl in teen comedies. Very sad to say the least.

I REALLY don't like her.
I did like this movie, in spite of Kate Hudson.

She's beautiful though.

I agree

I do not find Kate Hudson to be a talented actress at all.
I disagree.

You are right about that observation!
In all due respect, I do not find Kate Hudson to be a talented actress at all.
Perhaps in light comedies such as "About Adam", but that'a about it.

Your writing looses it's power when you use all the ridiculous punctuation-it appears to be the ramblings of a 14 year old girl-do you draw a little smiley face or a heart instead of a dot over your, "i"? Essentially the same thing.
"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it." Norman Maclean

it's spelled Ethne because that's how it's spelled in the book

ALMOST EVERYONE in movies these days displays "modernized expressions
or mannerisms" (it's difficult not to!).
Kate Hudson and Kate Winslet (no, I
don't
much care for
Titanic
!)
have both played parts set in several time periods, and
most
of the time done
reasonably well, I think (
not
counting
Titanic
, which to me was just plain
weird, and which was "historically accurate" about the ship only,
not
the
people/passengers!). I don't think that they necessarily look/act as if they were
REALLY "born during that time", but SYMBOLICALLY they're okay to PLAY
that sort of part. (I personally never really went for/believed in Winona
Ryder in that sort of part or that sort of time period, but hey, tastes
differ. ^~ It's a matter of opinionauthenticity or the appearance
thereof
could
be in the eye of the beholderetc. ^~ And Nicole
Kidman was lovely in
Far and Away
[back when she and Tom Cruise
were still togethersighold times!], but IMO she does not generally
REALLY pull off the "long ago" thing with
extreme
believability,
plus she is just plain
too well known
it becomes difficult to
look at her and not see
her
, after a whileanyway I think that
Nicole Kidman has done some of her
best
work in movies where she
was just supposed to look beautiful and
not
very old-fashioned
(she's really pretty good when she just has to look
pretty
and
not
appear convincingly to be from any certain/old time period! ^~)
Whether or not they appear in talk shows is their own business.
What
I'm
more interested in is, noticing whether or not they
become too stereotyped and that sort of thing
in their movies
!
Anyway I liked Kate Hudson as Eithne. ^^ (Obviously, tastes do differ. ^^)
And really, the entire casting/directing/filming/etc. was done in a fairly
modern stylethe whole project SYMBOLIZES old times, rather than being
really IN themwhich is finemost^~ of us can't ACTUALLY^~
time^^ travel^^ anyway (except in one direction, forward only, and
not necessarily at the desired speed/pace, either!). Oh, well. Anyway
I
think that the cast is all right in the "symbolic of the original,
but of course filmed/cast/directed much later!" sense. ^^
=^^=
(P.S. I'm spelling "Eithne" the way I think the name [an Irish (Celtic/Gaelic)
name] is usually spelled. I can't help it if IMDb doesn't think that's how
it's spelled [see cast of characters]. [I just went into the old "Fourth
feather?" thread (it wasn't talking about Eithne's feather but some people
thought it was), and at least two people including me spelled the name as
"Eithne" in that thread in 2005! ^^])
(Anyway, when I first posted this post, I
was
going to use IMDb's spelling
of the name, but now I've changed my mind about that. ^~)
=^~=

My problem is more that you know so much about her privatly that is hard to see her just act. She has appeared in more things such as talk- or awardshows as herself than she has acted, which kind of annoys me. She isn't the only one, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, Nicole Kidman, Dustin Hoffman and many others. They should remember they are actors and that is, what at least I, want to see them do.