caterinamiriello That is a seriously terrible adaptation of the novel Jane Austen wrote. This adaptation has been written by someone who does not understand Jane Austen and what she writes, and just wishes to use her novel to produce nice romantic stories. This would not be so bad if her very words were not used throughout the movies, in a way completely, completely and again completely out of place. The expedient of making the characters loudly repeat excerpts of the book, without caring whether those parts were meant as inner reflections or as dialogues, shows no effort in understanding the novel. But what really bothered me, to the point that I had to give up watching the movie entirely, was that Anne makes her famous speech on men and women, the one that finally conquers again Captain Wentworth's heart, to someone else (Captain Benwick instead of Captain Harville) and in another occasion (in Lyme, at the first dinner they have all together)! And, of course, Captain Wentworth does not even hear the speech. But, hey, it's just the most important scene of the novel, what does it matter when it takes place? Seriously, the only merit of the movie is that there are really good actors (except for Rupert Penry-Jones, which does not know what he is doing, but I don't blame him entirely, for the direction assigned him terrible lines to act). The character of Captain Wentworth is not understood nor by the writers nor by the director of such movie. In short, like what happened in the novel and in the 1995's adaptation which is highly superior to this one, this movie irresistibly made me "take the pen and put down my sentiments", because it is really terrible to see. And a waste indeed, because with such great actors to play Anne, Sir Walter, Elizabeth, Mary, Lady Russell etc., and such lovely locations, this could have been a really good movie.

irishbelle98 This adaptation of Persuasion was so-so in my mind. The music and cinematography was pretty well-done, but there were some issues in casting (I think). Sally Hawkins was altogether to flimsy and breathless for my taste. In the book, Anne Elliot is somewhat of a beautiful mix of a Lizzy Bennet and a Fanny Price. In this film, she was just . .. odd. And of no personal offense to her, the scene where she is crying over Wentworth's alleged engagement is awful! The sniffling and wiping is just too much. I think she lacked some of the "spunk" Anne is supposed to have (though it is not much) Wentworth was definitely better than Anne, but there was almost a cockiness and immaturity that wasn't at all attractive. However, he was handsome and his expressions were good. Though these two had there qualities as separate characters, they did NOT go together as a couple. There was always an awkwardness about them- even when she is accepting his proposal (I won't even BEGIN on that disturbing "kiss"). Overall, I found that I wasn't even very rejoicing at the final scene where he has given her the house. Despite all these complaints, this was a nicely made adaptation. I would recommend watching it if you haven't already read the book.

iloveUGA123 I ended up watching this version before I watched the 1995 BBC version, and I loved it! I enjoyed it so much that later I decided to finally watch the BBC version. I did enjoy it, and they were both very similar, it's just that the actors for this version were much, much more attractive than those on the 1995 version. I actually thought that the acting was better in this version, and I enjoyed it much more! I love what the movie is about, and how after they finally see each other 8 or 9 years later, you can still tell that they are head over heels for each other! You could tell that Captain Wentworth was still very hurt by Anne, but that he still loved her so much, and just didn't want to show that he did because he was so hurt by her. Captain Wentworth's plan did work, because Anne was very jealous and sad whenever he was around Henrietta or Louisa, and acted like he really liked them. It looked to me like she tried to make it seem as if she didn't really care at times, but you know that she really does. I would highly recommend watching this movie because I know that you would enjoy it if you like these kind of movies!

nomdesouris-1 Despite a perfectly good cast and pleasant scenery, this production was absolutely execrable. Astonishingly so.'Persuasion' is my favourite of Austen's novels, and the 1995 TV version was an exceptionally good adaptation in terms of tone, performance and translation of the text. This version, in stark contrast, has evidently been made by a collection of people who think 'irony' means 'like iron', and who have somehow failed to notice that Jane Austen is FUNNY. It was so painful to watch that eventually I had to turn it off; I know it's bad form to review something one hasn't watched all the way through, but this was so thoroughly dreadful that I cannot conceive of any way in which it could have been salvaged.Austen is, amongst other things, one of our most gifted comic writers, and 'Persuasion' is a funny, funny book. It's Austen's take on the Cinderella story, and (as ever) she's poisonously funny and merciless about the flaws of her characters, even as she makes the reader care about her protagonist and hope against hope that she'll escape from her crappy family and make herself a life with the guy who gets her.It most emphatically is NOT a dull, whiny, emo, earnest Hallmark Channel romance. Dear God. This was SO BAD. And I felt sorry for the actors, whom I don't hold responsible at all: this wasn't a case of people being unable to act, it was a case of the scriptwriter and director having completely misunderstood their source text, stripping away all the wit and charm and lightness of touch - all the things that make it AUSTEN, rather than Catherine Cookson. (Cookson's working class characters generally have greater pressure and trauma to deal with than genteel poverty and/or unhappiness, so a greater degree of emo is justified. With Austen? Not so much.) Given the crappy script and direction with which they were presented, the cast did the best they could. Unfortunately, they were being directed by an idiot.It's folly to suppose that you can only have depth or pathos if everything remains heavy handed weepy emo all the way through, with sappy mournful incidental music hammering away the message that Poor Anne Is Sad. All these interminable close-ups of the actress looking miserable were endlessly dull, and the various supporting characters came across as cardboard cut-outs, rather than the richly observed, horrifyingly recognisable monsters that they mostly are. It's painful having to watch the excellent Anthony Head being given what should be such a juicy role in Sir Walter, and not being allowed to do it justice because the script has reduced him to a dull cypher.I can only imagine this adaptation being enjoyable to someone if they are related to a cast member, or if they are labouring under the misapprehension that Jane Austen's books are interchangeable with any random Mills'n'Boon historical romance. (Newsflash: they aren't.) It's no coincidence that both 'Bridget Jones's Diary' and 'Clueless' are hilarious. These modern adaptations of Austen texts stick pretty damn closely to the spirit of the originals: they are FUNNY. That doesn't mean they can't be touching, or even have moments of pathos, but, by God, they are most definitely not emo.In conclusion: if you actually like Jane Austen, and are not related to a cast member, I strongly suggest you give this a body swerve and check out the excellent 1995 version instead. This is DIRE.