Persuasion Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
A new adaptation of Jane Austen's classic
On the brink of financial ruin, the Elliot family is forced to vacate their ancestral home in order to recover their debts and avoid losing face amongst their parish. The task of organizing their effects falls to levelheaded Anne Elliot, destined for spinsterhood at age 27 after being persuaded eight years earlier to refuse the proposal of Frederick Wentworth, a dashing (but destitute) naval officer...
| Rupert Penry-Jones | Captain Wentworth |
| Sally Hawkins | Anne Elliot |
| Alice Krige | Lady Russell |
| Anthony Head | Sir Walter Elliot |
| Julia Davis | Elizabeth Elliot |
| Michael Fenton Stevens | Mr. Shepherd |
| Mary Stockley | Mrs. Clay |
| Peter Wight | Admiral Croft |
| Marion Bailey | Mrs. Croft |
| Amanda Hale | Mary Musgrove |
| Jennifer Higham | Louisa Musgrove |
| Rosamund Stephen | Henrietta Musgrove |
| Stella Gonet | Mrs. Musgrove |
| Sam Hazeldine | Charles Musgrove |
| Louis Shergold | Little Charles |
| Adrian Shergold |
7.40 out of 10 (1618 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Oh dear Jane!
posted on 21 Jul 2009I had eagerly awaited the first screening of this film ever since it was given to me on DVD at Christmas. Having reserved a special slot for it last night, I sat down to watch it with my daughter (aged 17 and a Film Studies student), with chocolates of course, in eager anticipation. We love Jane Austin.After just the first two minutes we knew we were sunk. The shaky camera shots and angles, general poor cinematography, direction and wooden performances had already left us feeling flat and dissatisfied. Despondent, we viewed on.Anne, played by Sally Hawkins, looked oddly and with no particular purpose, directly at the camera on several occasions, breaking our hard-won 'fantasy of the moment' and engaging us directly in an almost 'I'll find you' stalking fashion.Poor Rupert Penry-Jones, who played Captain Wentworth, did his best with the script and direction, bless him. I hope they paid him well, however, as he was practically drowned on one occasion by a huge wave which predictably breached the seawall, drenching him and his co-actor. They were nearly swept out to sea. Health and Safety would have had a field day! Poor Rupert was left spitting out sea water in order to deliver his line. Presumably there was not enough money left in the kitty for a re-shoot of this scene. Anyone with any sense would have not attempted it on such a day in the first place.Other than Mr. Penry-Jones, Alice Krige gave the only convincing performance as Lady Russell but her efforts were soon counterbalanced by those of Anthony Head's unconvincing portrayal of annoying Sir Walter Elliott.Towards the long-awaited end of the film, Captain Wentworth appeared to oddly grace Anne with a visit every two seconds having taken great pains to avoid her for the majority of the movie. It was as if he had developed a memory impediment which caused him to forget his very reason for being. In contrast, Anne ran, hyper-ventilating, from pillar to post in search of the good Captain who, in the meantime, had managed to call upon almost the entirety of Bath we are told, in the course of only three or four minutes, without even having worked up a sweat.We experienced none of Anne's charms crossing the screen. Indeed, we were left wondering what charismatic Captain Wentworth had ever seen in plain, spineless, opinion-less Anne and why someone, anyone, did not tell mean, winging Sir Walter to just shut the heck up.The crucial kiss, normally our favourite girlie moment, was painfully drawn out. As they moved in closer, Anne kept opening and closing her mouth which had the effect on screen of making her look as if she were chewing gum before lips finally met. Eww! The most enjoyable thing about last night was the chocolates and the half hour exchange of views between mother and daughter on just how bad the film had been.What a pity to ruin such an enchanting and engaging story, filmed in some of England's finest scenery.Sorry Jane.
Exquisite
posted on 17 Jul 2009This lovely production has a brooding quality that mirrors the circumstances of the author. Unlike the rest of Austen's heroines, Anne Elliot, in a delicate anxiety-ridden performance by Sally Hawkins, isn't twice as clever as everyone else. She's been "persuaded" to make the wrong choices over and over. Her own character we see emerge in the course of the story, and her defiance of convention, class and family brings us a very "modern" heroine.Unlike the more sour comments here, I thought the production values exquisite, the cinematography mirrors both the romance Ms. Austen is noted for, but also a melancholy that is at the heart of all of her work. Beautiful scenes, for example, shot on a sea wall with a monochromatic palette very near the color of cold steel, we feel acutely the dilemma of the heroine forced to be in situation after situation where she has to face her past in the presence of her beloved. The beautiful visuals are matched, if not surpassed, by a delicate and evocative musical score.Anne's redemption comes slowly, perhaps too slowly for the more impatient in the audience. And Rupert Perry-Jones' Captain Rupert all but stops the camera with his impressive portrayal of Captain Wentworth. More empathic than Ms. Austen's usual love interests, Mr. Perry-Jones also stops the hearts of the viewers with his agony, visible to us, but not Anne Elliot.It would be difficult to pick a favorite out of Masterpiece Theater's "The Complete Jane Austen," but for me, this one might be it. It's economy, lovely cinematography, efficient screenplay, and splendid cast (save Amanda Hale who stops the show every time she appears on screen in a distracting, mannered performance that a director should not have accepted) especially the gentle beauty of Alice Krige as Lady Russell. "Persuasion" is free of the more clever elements that teeter many of Ms. Austen's works, and this production makes the most of a love story whose heroine earns her redemption with courage that is not facile or glib.To those who think "the book was better," of course. So glad you have your attitude. Pity you can't let go of it and enjoy this fine little production.
Right idea, poor execution
posted on 09 Jul 2009This was an interesting attempt to film a difficult story (featuring as it does the internalized suffering of a depressed heroine), but in the end I think it may have undercut itself with some curious choices. Which is too bad too -- I never did like the old 1995 version with its unattractive heroine (Anne was supposed to have pretty at one point) and its quaint mannerisms, and had hopes that this one would be more entertaining.The good: the decision to use voice overs was a good one -- its a very useful device when adopting a literary work, and let us get much closer to the feelings and circumstances Anne found herself in without clumsy exposition scenes. Anthony Head also made a fun Sir Walter, and Alice Krige I think could have been a very good Lady Russel if they had given her any screen time (and thankfully was not a comical fashion victim the way the '95 Lady Russel was).The rest: I had a lot of hopes for Sally Hawkins as Anne in the early going of this one. Unlike Amanda Root's so flat and depressed I'd be better off dead performance in the 1995 version, I thought I saw a chance here for this Anne to actually grow, and to have moments when she could show some life in between the pain. But it never really seemed to go anywhere, and while I thought Hawkins' reaction shots and painful moments were far more distinct than in the 1995 version, she never really seemed to grow in this one, which I thought was an important theme from the book. Even the one little tacked on post-marriage shot still seems to find her the same, neither acting nor looking any better than when we first met her. This version was also unnecessarily short. I liked the casting of Anthony Head, I liked the more lively Musgrove sisters (although the senior Musgroves could have been better done), I liked Alice Krige as Lady Russel, the two other captains (other than Wentworth) had potential, but the movie seemed to have little time for them. And critical scenes seemed to have been cut short for no apparent reason -- when you only run 1:30 surely you can afford 5 more minutes to get a pivotal scene such as the concert correct.Meanwhile I did not get much out of the performances of Anne's sisters, or Mrs. Clay. They left no impression. And the two men vying for Anne's hand, whether it be because of lack of screen time, or lack of chemistry, just never ignited. There were a few moments of endearing awkwardness by Wentworth, a few moments when I thought her cousin was revealing just a touch of the slimy insincerity that would have made his character perfect. But they never went anywhere, and the characterizations remained incomplete. Perhaps time was an issue again.And finally of course, the running scene at the end of the movie was just completely ridiculous. Who thought of that? Why? It felt like they suddenly realized they were running out of time and had to desperately wrap up everything in one long ludicrous scene. It made no sense, and was a terrible way to wrap up your film.In any case, an almost here. There was enough good, enough potential that it disappointed in not getting the rest of it right. I actually still think this one might be more entertaining than the obscure and stiff 1995 version, but it felt incomplete, only half thought out, and missed almost without a good excuse for doing so. Should have been better.
A truly awful adaptation
posted on 01 Jul 2009This whole ITV Jane Austen season has been extremely disappointing. They seem to have been at great pains to make the characters and dialogue seem more modern and accessible, but have succeeded in losing Jane Austen's 'voice' to a great extent.My main complaint about this production is the way they butchered the storyline. It's one thing to make minor changes in chronology in supporting details, but to change the climactic scene, which Austen built up to with such consummate skill, meant the whole thing just didn't work. I refer of course to the scene, meant to take place in Bath very near the end of the story, in which Captain Wentworth overhears Anne's conversation and suddenly is able to resolve all the misunderstandings which have bedevil led them since the beginning of the book. The whole book is structured to build to this climax - one of the most moving moments in all of Jane Austen's work - I cannot believe the hubris involved in thinking you could craft a story arc better than Austen! Others have already commented on the ludicrous running scene towards the end. This would appear to be an attempt to add excitement to the ending - which would have been entirely unnecessary if they'd just left the original storyline as it was.I actually found the cast pretty good (which is the only reason I gave the production as many as three stars) - it was the writing and directing which was utterly incompetent.
Sombre in tone
posted on 29 Jun 2009Adrian Shergold's adaptation of Persuasion was the last in the ITV Jane Austen Season, and it ended on a high note. Very different style from the previous two, and is rather sombre in tone, as befits the story and characters in the novel. There is a voice over so as to enable the audience to get closer to the character of Anne Elliot played very well by Sally Hawkins. Rupert Penry-Jones is very good as Captain Wentworth, whose interaction with Anne is concise and to the point. They are not strangers, but they are estranged. Adrian Shergold employs a lot of hand held camera, and uses a lot of close ups in order for the audience to recognise the relationships between characters and their feelings. Quite often Sally Hawkins looks at the camera, and I felt this worked very well. My only slight annoyance with this adaptation was the director's unwillingness to have two people who are talking in the shot at the same time. Preferring to move from a close up of one to a close up of the other (shot reverse shot as it were) continuously. This works well occasionally, but when it is as often as it is in this adaption you become very aware of the camera and its movements, which detracts from the story and the conversation itself. This is my only slight problem with this adaptation. The supporting cast was brilliant, with Amanda Hale brilliantly playing Anne moronic younger sister. Alice Krige was great as Lady Russell, and Anthony Head as Sir Walter Elliot. This is to mention only a few. To say that ITV's Austen Season did not start well would be an understatement. However, with last weeks brilliant Northanger Abbey and this weeks Persuasion they have finished on a high. Each had its own tone and style, and forgetting Mansfield Park, they worked rather well. I would recommend this film to both fans of the book and newcomers to Austen's work. I have deliberately refrained from comparisons between this and the 1995 version, both are very good and this one has some very inventive camera work.
Okay - if you'd never read the book. Disappointing if you have.
posted on 25 Jun 2009I'll accept that not every adaptation needs to be completely faithful to the book. This movie took that liberty and missed several chances to build drama and connection between the characters. Several pieces of text were given out of order which lessened their impact and importance to the story.While the scenery and sets were beautiful, the director's use of having Anne look into the camera was distracting. The first time was touching, the many times afterward were affected and annoying. The use of a hand-held camera during some scenes added to the urgency of the some scenes, but again, was overused and became obviously stylized, rather than moving the story forward.I don't watch a lot of PBS, so I expected a lot from this movie. Persuasion is one of my all-time favorite books. I won't watch this version again.
Any Jane Austen is better than No Jane Austen
posted on 30 May 2009That being said, I must say I liked the 1995 Amanda Root version much better. Even though it was only a little bit longer it was truer to the book especially the endings. I join many others in dissing that ridiculous running back and forth in the streets. I was just willing to tolerate the anachronistic kiss in the street (Amanda and Ciarn(?) also do this), but a young lady of that era sprinting through streets!!! I thought, checking my watch, that they would have time for that lovely party scene at the end where Wentworth declares his intentions to the whole company. Instead we get a dumb run through the streets and Wentworth presenting Anne with the house? How did he get hold of it? Or did Sir Walter lend it to them?. I don't think Sir Walter could sell it off as it was entailed to William. Rented from William? with their animosity I think not. I don't mind if they cut stuff but I really hate it when they change things for no earthly reason. And was that the Moonlight Sonata (by Chopin, born 1810) she was playing? Or maybe not.
nice enough, but a deception for the true Austenite
posted on 27 Mar 2009I had my reservations about this adaptation, having read several comments on IMDb. Being a real Austenite and collector of all Austen-adaptations, I resolved to watch this movie unbiased. A mission impossible, however. Apart from the dreadful Dutch translation (please watch it without subtitles) the director allowed to much freedom for quite irrelevant characters like Charles and Mary for overexposing themselves (especially during the walk towards Winthrop, I would have cried for their overacting were it not that I was to busy hoping Anne would be put forward a little more). Moreover, the decision to deviate from the original novel doesn't pay off at all. The deviations were unnecessary and added nothing to the storyline. The writer did'nt seem to understand the underlying social and familial tensions at all. Why did BBC choose to make another adaptation of this fine novel, having already made a brilliant one not a decade ago? Chances of seeing an even better one, with a prettier and even likelier heroine this time, are slim. A pity this adaptation receives the world-wide airing and recognition the 1995 version didn't get.In short: nice enough for a rainy Sunday afternoon, but if you really want to enjoy a masterful Austen-adaptation, please take the trouble to find the 1995 version.
An enragingly bad job of adapting the Austen novel
posted on 17 Mar 2009The PBS series of TV dramatizations of Jane Austen novels began Sunday with PERSUASION. It was agonizing to me, awful on nearly every level, especially when compared to the 1995 movie from Britain. The PBS attempt to crush the novel into 87 minutes is a fiasco, and as I watched I ranted repeatedly against the writer, the director, and the producers. The 1995 movie took another 20 minutes or so (107 minutes) and it made all the difference in the world -- both because the additional length gave it additional depth and weight, and because it avoided PBS's witless decision to cram far too many backstory elements into the film when they didn't have time to make them all clear and complete enough. When they were told it had to come in under ninety minutes, they should have refused to be a party to it. If somehow they were forced to do it, they should have found a writer and director who could do a far better job of discerning and deleting the unaccommodatable sub-stories. Then the poor job of casting was compounded by the director's feckless lack of sensibility in judging how to make us care about these people. For those of you who saw the PBS disaster I urge you to watch the 1995 movie version.
90 minutes too long
posted on 11 Mar 2009When I found out that Persuasion was showing on our national channel and that it was said to be one of the better adaptations, I was delighted. I was very disappointed though and kept looking at the clock to see how much longer. It wasn't anywhere near as good as the 1995 version.Rupert Penry-Jones is a very good (looking) actor, but compared to Ciaran Hinds he is just a boy. If nine years had passed and he had done so much and seen so much, I would expect him to be a bit more grown-up. The younger sister was an idiot and got too much screen time, the father was brilliant and didn't get nearly enough. William Elliot was amiable and you never got the sense that he had anything else in mind than marrying Anne and make her happy. I will stick to Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds, at least they gave me butterflies when they finally kissed!
Poor adaptation of Austen's excellent novel.
posted on 01 Mar 2009For reasons beyond my understanding, scenes are re-ordered as well as completely fabricated for this latest adaptation of Austen's classic novel. (Anne sprains her ankle while out for her long walk in Uppercross? Seriously?) Despite the efforts of some of the otherwise fine actors, they can't salvage this sinking ship. I realize that allowances must be made for time constraints but some of these decisions are simply bad writing.Others have complained of the lack of chemistry between Anne and Captain Wentworth but honestly, they have so few scenes together and the scenes do not build in anyway that it is hardly due to the efforts of the actors that there fails to be any chemistry between them. This story has so much emotion and feeling and sadly, this version does no justice to Austen's writing and characters.When the character of Bennwick delivered the lines during the scenes in Lyme that are actually spoken by Captain Harville that lead us to the conclusion of the story, it was a bad sign.The 1995 adaptation is far superior. I recommend renting or buying the DVD of the earlier version.
Excellent adaptation-can't understand the negative comments!
posted on 29 Dec 2008I thought this was excellent having seen the 2 earlier adaptations and virtually ever other Jane Austen screen and TV production. It was certainly the best of the recent ITV Jane Austen productions. I watched it on a flight to Japan on a very small screen and liked it so much that Í watched in twice on the return flight as well as watching the amazing Pan's Labyrinth twice also-sad I know! I think there was a lot of screen chemistry between the 2 leads (far more than Kieran Hinds and the exceedingly plain Amanda Root) and had no problem with the last "running" scene. The musical score was also first class, with haunting piano music throughout. Although I enjoyed the 1995 version, I found it quite understated and a bit drab and found it hard to sympathise with Kieran Hinds and Amanda Root who were quite dull and unattractive (superficial I know but that is how I felt and probably why Pride and Prejudice was such a hit because Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth are good looking so that you can empathise with them!). I thought Rupert Penry-Jones was quite good, brooding rather than wooden. Sally Hawkins had was good enough looking and with a strength of character that you cared about her. I found Amanda Root too feeble. I must say that I never read Persuasion and hence can make no comment on the faithfulness of the adaptation but it didn't differ too much from the 1995 version in narrative and presentation. Recommended despite the previous negative comments.
Let me persuade you that this new version of the classic is very nice, mostly due to a terrific cast
posted on 25 Dec 2008Anne Eliot (Sally Hawkins) is the daughter of a once-wealthy but spendthrift father in the early 1800's. Unmarried at 27, she convinces her papa to lease their opulent house to others and move to Bath, keeping the family afloat with the rental income. As there are few alternatives, her father agrees. Anne, a winsome and extremely intelligent girl, tries to make the best of the situation. In truth, she still regrets that she once turned down a marriage proposal, on the advice of others, from a handsome but relatively poor naval officer. Now the officer, newly-rich Captain Wentworth (Rupert Penny-Jones) returns to the area when his very sister and her admiral husband move into Anne's old residence. Whew! A reunion between the parties is inevitable. Anne, visiting a sister who lives nearby, meets the Captain through her brother-in-law Charles' family. But, Wentworth pays little attention to Anne, making it clear that he does not welcome the renewed acquaintance. Instead, Wentworth declares he is ready to marry and he turns his attentions to the two sprightly younger sisters of Charles. Anne, however, discovers that her heart still belongs to the Captain. What's a poor girl to do? This new version of Austen's classic succeeds admirably, mostly due to the wonderful cast. Hawkins and Penny-Jones are terrific as the main players and all of the other cast members are well-chosen, too. It is their reading of Austen's words that breathes new life into the old story. I say this because, while the costumes and sets are nice, they are definitely not on the grand scale of an all-out cinema production. But, does this truly matter? No. Austen's tale of love, once lost, finding, perhaps, a new beginning is timelessly beautiful. In short, let me persuade you, the viewer, to watch this latest version. Any fan of Austen's, or of a great love story, will be happily content at film's end.
Creepy Mr Eliot!
posted on 15 Dec 2008I am a huge Austen fan and did enjoy this movie, although a few things bothered me.First, I found the Mr. Eliot in this adaptation repulsive and creepy..and find it difficult to believe that Anne could possible find him a sensible and charming young man.He looks suspicious from the very beginning, making the news of his being a villain really nothing unsuspected.Second, the scene where Lousia falls involves Anne suggesting that Captain Benwick be sent to fetch a surgeon..and yet Captain Wentworth reiterates what she says...but doesn't actually do anything about it?! We are left to assume that Captain Benwick did, in fact, go after a surgeon. Meanwhile, Captain Wentworth and Anne calmly attend to Louisa which is a lovely romantic moment in itself but would NOT have happened as they were all of them in state of PANIC.The wonderful thing about Austen is the reader is allowed in on the feelings and emotions of the central characters...though nothing is explicitly revealed until the very end. In this version, we see Captain Wentworth relating his true feelings to Captain Harville..which removes all subtlety from the story...we are supposed to appreciate from the actors emotions and behaviour how they truly feel WITHOUT being told explicitly.Mrs. Smith is an important character. I believe the underlying lesson which Jane Austen wished to convey is the importance of respect for those less highly positioned in society...as it is this respect and kindness which Anne demonstrates towards Mrs. Smith which ultimately reveals to her the true character of Mr. Eliot.I understand why Mrs. Smith and her late husband's dealings with Mr. Eliot were omitted from this and other versions, though it is a shame...as it is this which reveals to the reader the true forbearance and strength of character of Mrs. Smith. She seems always to be portrayed as a silly gossiping character just there to fill in the details of Mr. Smith's true character, although there is much more to her than that.In this version she is seen coming after Anne to tell her this news and yet it no longer seems to mean much to Anne as she is frantically running to accept Captain Wentworth's proposal..The proposal is a result of Anne's remarks to Captain Benwick relating to the inconstancy of women..it torments Captain Wentworth..."You pierce my soul" so much so that he can no longer remain silent and bursts with his feelings in writing...in this version..the proposal comes simply as a result of Captain Wentwork finding that Anne is not to marry Mr. Eliot. The strength of the emotions expressed in the letter cannot really be attributed to having simply acquired this knowledge...Overall however, it was an entertaining adaptation, I particularly liked Sir Walter Eliot in this film, though i preferred the Mrs. and Admiral Croft of the 1995 version, (they seemed younger and more charismatic). The two lead characters were also well done (though I found Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root more believable, and the Captain Wentworth of the 1995 version actually made me laugh) and I particularly enjoyed the scene where Captain Wentworth helps Anne into the carriage with the Crofts.
Very Sweet
posted on 23 Nov 2008Although this movie does not reach the standards of previous movies it is very watchable.Being a fan of Jane Austen, i found this adaptation a really nice and sweet movie. Even though there were few changes but they did not affect the movie harmfully... Sally Hawkins portrays Anne very well and Rupert Penry Jones was almost perfect as Captain Wentworth. The rest of the cast also did a fine job. Although i didn't like Sir Elliot character.... He was portrayed as a very fussy self repressed guy... which he isn't. If this movie was made for theater. It would have been much better and the director would have refrained from using a hand-held camera in the beginning. It can make anyone go dizzy. But other than that a really must see drama.
a travesty of Austen
posted on 19 Nov 2008I'm not usually one to slate a film . I try to see the good points and not focus on the bad ones, but in this case, there are almost no good points. In my opinion, if you're going to make something that bad, why bother? Part of the film is take up with shots of Anne's face while she breaths deeply, and violin music plays in the background. the other part is filled with poor and wooden acting. Rupert Penry Jones is expressionless. Jennifer Higham plays Anne's younger sister with modern mannerisms. Anne is portrayed as being meek and self effacing, which is fine at the beginning, but she stays the same all through the film, and you see no reason for captain Wentworth to fall in love with her. Overall the production lacks any sense of period, with too many mistakes to be overlooked, such as running out of the concert, kissing in the street, running about in the streets with no hat on (why was this scene in the film at all? the scene in the book was one of the most romantic scenes written.). To sum it up, a terrible film, very disappointing.
Very agreeable
posted on 07 Nov 2008I have to say-i loved this film.Being 15, i was not really much of a Jane Austen fan when the original version came out-and i am currently waiting for the Jane Austen complete works to arrive, so that i can read the original book.I have to agree, the end scene was a little ridiculous, but i was on the edge of my seat nonetheless, not knowing the fate of Frederick and Anne. Although i really should have, after reading pride and prejudice and sensibility and the other adaptations it is pretty predictable but still a wonderful story and film. I do not think it has been given enough advertising, and effective marketing, but i like it that way ,it makes it more special to me, and the others that watch it and fall in love with the characters.
A Sad Disappointment
posted on 26 Oct 2008I have to confess that I am severely disappointed.This version can in no way compete with the version of 1995. The reason why I watched it was that I wasn't entirely happy with Ciaran Hinds as Captain Wentworth and thought that Rupert Penry-Jones looked much more like the Captain I had imagined when I read the book. And he was too.Unfortunately that is the only redeeming quality of the film. The rest is as un-Austen-like as possible.Miss Elliot would NEVER have run through the streets of Bath like this. It wasn't in her character and it just wasn't done by a lady of the those times. The Anne Elliot of the book was a lady and she had dignity. There are other painful anachronisms but this was the worst.Although there are 3 important quotes from the book, they are at entirely inappropriate moments, warning those who know the book that yet another important part of the book will either be missing or completely changed.And although this version is not much shorter than the other one, it feels like everything is rushed. Very little care was taken to introduce the characters, show their dispositions and motives. Important scenes were omitted. How could they possibly have butchered the final scenes in this way ? A disaster ! And it was by far not as beautifully photographed as the other one.No, no, no. If you love Austen, then don't waste your time with this.
One of my favorite Jane Austen stories!
posted on 26 Oct 2008I rather enjoyed this adaption of the novel. I viewed it prior to reading any comments posted. I was very caught up in Anne's feelings, her family use of her as a nursemaid, organizer and overall sport. I liked the segments in which she made eye contact with the viewer on significant points in the story; particularly the expressions of her concealed angst over Capt. Wentworth's inability to forgive her, her emotions when she thinks he is engaged, etc. I also enjoyed the distance they kept, while often making eye contact and sharing many unspoken moments. The diary, the journaling... I love it. I have not read the novel, but will curl up with it on this weekend!
Somewhat based on the novel
posted on 02 Aug 2009I was looking forward to a new adaptation of Persuasion. I had been so impressed by the 1995 version, I had hoped the next would be even better. I am afraid the '95 version still holds that top spot, this one doesn't even get out of the starting gate. My first issue with this version is the fast and loose way the screen writers played with the story. This version is 'based' on the Jane Austen novel, but they so ripped it apart and glued it back together that it hardly qualifies as the same story. What would anyone take one of the finest authors in English literature and presume to re-organize her story. Moving major elements of dialogue and character development around like so much scenery. Perhaps, if the director had spent less time having Anne run around her house and run around Bath, he could have developed some of the characters and situations. What was that final running scene all about anyhow? It felt like they had arranged to close down some streets in Bath for a day and wanted to make the best of the situation or they had lost one of their shooting sites and was covering. I agree with other reviewers that the Wentworth actor showed none of the character and maturity that a sea captain during war would have developed. That actor had no spark and no interest, as opposed to the actress who played Mary - was she on medication? Lord Elliot was really good as the vain, snob - but he was one of few actors in the film worth noting. So many shortcomings its not worth wasting your time. Either read the book or watch the '95 version.