User Reviews

Persuasion is my favorite novel ever, and I was very much looking forward to a new adaptation of it. Trying to put aside the novel and focus on the film on it's own merits, I thought it was a fairly mediocre production that was far too rushed. The film moved along at such a speed, that it was hard for me to feel like I really cared about the characters. As has been said many times, the last ten minutes of the film were just terrible, with it suddenly becoming a Monty Python episode with almost the entire supporting cast dropping by at Anne's or stopping her in her mad marathon around Bath. I'm not usually one for nitpicking historical details or etiquette breaches, but I thought the scene where Anne resets her nephew's collarbone and carries on a lengthy conversation with her brother-in-law, her sister and her brother-in-law's father, dressed in nothing but her shift and corset, and showing no embarrassment at all, rather far-fetched.

Sally Hawkins was so tremulous and timid as Anne, with the exception of the above-mentioned collarbone scene, I couldn't see why other people relied on her so much and what exactly inspired such confidence in her abilities (other than apparently she was a fledgling doctor and seemed to have spent the eight years since her broken engagement studying medicine). Rupert Penry-Jones wasn't bad as Wentworth, but I felt he was given far too little to do, so that he wasn't very memorable at all. He also didn't seem much like a Navy man, more of a Beau Brummel type.

The supporting cast was either sadly neglected or terrible. Anthony Head was good as Sir Walter Elliot, and Tobias Menzies very charismatic as Mr Elliot, but both very wasted. The other two Elliot sisters were absolutely terrible, especially the actress playing Mary, who seemed to believe she really was in a Monty Python sketch. Lady Russell gave no indication of a strong character who would have had such persuasive power over Anne to make her give up the love of her life (even an Anne as weak and wilted as Hawkins). The Musgrove sisters were hardly there, and there was no sense in why Louisa would have held such charm for Wentworth.

I said I would try to leave the novel out of my review, but a few changes which baffled me--one being the omission of the lines about how Anne had given up dancing, especially since they have the couple waltzing at the end. That scene doesn't make as much sense without the earlier indication that Anne stopped dancing after she gave up Frederick. The other was the conversation between Anne and Capt Harville about women loving longest when all hope was gone, they moved the conversation to between Capt Bennick and Anne at a much earlier point in the film, and there's no sign Wentworth overhears them. That conversation was the whole entire spur that caused Wentworth to believe Anne still cared for him and that he should try again. There's almost no point in having in it the film if Wentworth doesn't hear it, as the audience already knows Anne's feelings and doesn't need it for confirmation. The final change was the letter scene, by having Anne try to read it as she races around Bath, it takes away the beauty and sentiment (they also cut the letter short); and the lines about how her 'sweet words' or whatever that caused him to write the letter make no sense, since he didn't overhear any vital conversation about her feelings. Wentworth's letter is one of the most beautiful passages in fiction in my opinion, and to truncate it and place it in such an awkward setting paramount to sacrilege.

I watched the 1995 version of BBC's Persuasion and I liked it a lot. However, I decided that Persuasion was my least favorite of Jane Austen's six novels. This was not because the movie wasn't well done, but if we're talking about a romance that lasts almost a decade, I would like my hero and heroine to truly connect in terms of their looks and intelligence. A romance should possess some youthful quality despite of the age. It doesn't matter how old people are, it's really about the girl wants the boy and the boy gets the girl. I think the 1995 version's romance between Captain Wentworth and Anne Elliot was more cautious.

I saw the 2007 version and watched it over and over again. I love it! The more I see it, the more I see things in the movie that I missed the first time I watched it. I think it's witty and humorous. I'm a Jane Austen addict and I'm happy that there are versions out there to explore other possibilities. No movies can ever do a book justice or be exactly like the book. Something in a book would always be trimmed and adapted for a movie. Most people read Austen's novels and interpret the characters differently. I think this is why she was such a genius at creating her characters. They are multi-dimensional and no one is all good or all bad, and they're really human. If the movie makers are really true to the book in telling the story, then the movie is in danger of being stale and boring. We would not have the descriptive passages from the books and we would end up with just dialogs.

Of course in Jane Austen's time, it was improper for a girl to run around chasing after a man or even kissing him in public. I laughed when Sally Hawkins (Anne Elliot) fell and when she was running around Bath looking for Rupert Penry-Jones (Captain Wentworth). The entertainment value is there. Rupert Penry-Jones' Captain Wentworth is aloof and being a naval captain, he doesn't display his emotions easily. You'll need to look at his eyes to see that he's jealous or to see his joy of seeing Anne and trying to conceal it. He is cold because deep down he is resentful of being turned down by Anne. He didn't have the reassurance that she would ever accept him. When he asked to call on her at precisely at 11:00 a.m., he was really angry with her possibly being engaged to Mr. Elliot. It was a pretense to ask about her relationship and not about the duty to deliver a message. There was a lot of underlying tension.

Then, the scene went into everyone all of a sudden showing up not understanding Anne was desperately trying to talk to Wentworth in private. They became emotional and physical obstacles to Anne reaching out to her man. I think the scene was well done and her frustration was communicated to the audience. The tempo was superb. At last, she caught up with the captain but then her brother-in-law was talking too much and one would wish he would get the message and leave them be. Finally, when Rupert Penry-Jones took off his hat, he almost took my breath away. I can understand now why Anne would wish to sail away with this man and why she spent over 8 years pining for him. So, maybe there is some merit to the captain being youthful. The book does describe him as being handsome and it is a major point of why Sir Walter began to accept him. And really, I don't see why Penry-Jones' performance was necessarily colder than the others. I thought they all are and this was how Jane Austen usually described her heroes. They tend to be men of a few words. I wouldn't like it if the heroes are giddy and over acting. I think both Sally Hawkins and Amanda Root portrayed Anne well. They're different but both gave a good performance.

My only complaint on the movie is that it is too short and everything seems to move too fast. 2 hours would have been better as to give the audience more time to connect with the characters. Still, the 2007 version has a lively tone, and it's not like Dickens' novels that deal with murder, kidnapping or other horrible things that happen to people. We couldn't make fun of them, but Jane Austen's love stories are full of characters that have plenty of room for irony or humor.

That 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.

OK, so I am biased. The Amanda Root/Ciaran Hinds Persuasion is one of my very favourite films and Persuasion is my favourite Austen book, and I was wondering if they would mess this up as ITV pretty much messed up Mansfield Park. Firstly Sally Hawkins was a very good Anne. A likable and quietly confident Anne, although what on earth was all that running around at the end about? Was the director a fan of Run Lola Run??!

I was less impressed with Rupert Penry Jones. Very pretty, but he didn't look like a sailor to me. He was rather wooden in his acting and I found the modern haircuts on the men distracting too. I disliked the changes too - the silly ending, but the way they changed the crucial scene with Wentworth over hearing Anne and writing her a letter was a real mess up.

I quite enjoyed the programme, largely due to Sally Hawkins, but I re watched that 1995 production afterwards to compare, and it is superior in almost every way - casting (Ciaran Hinds, Fiona Shaw, Sophie Thompson, Corin Redgrave, Phoebe Nicholls, John Woodvine, Catherine Schlesinger, Sam West, Simon Russell Beale - all much better than their counterparts) the atmospheric filming - loads of candlelight in the 1995 one, that lovely opera song. Only really the poorer picture quality and the 4:3 DVD picture were bettered in this new production.

However, both production had on the street kisses, which were quite inappropriate for the times, although I guess they can't resist having SOME action!!

While I'm loathe to criticize any adaptation of Jane Austen's novels, simply because I love them so much, I have to say this is a very disappointing production. Random thoughts:

• The interpretation of Anne as a weepy, fluttery, diffident woman misses the mark of Austen's character (IMHO). Contemporary screen writers seem to miss the true strength of characters like Anne (and other Austen protagonists). They don't seem to understand the context of the times. Just because Anne rejects Frederick's offer of marriage doesn't mean she is some weak and weepy creature. In fact, it required great strength for Anne to walk away from the man she loved. Rather than being a bundle of nerves, in the book Anne is more stoic and self-contained - full of emotion but unable or unwilling to show it. As a young woman, she knows (or so she believes) her duty to her family and makes a decision to walk away from her heart's true desire. As she matures, she realizes her mistake and it takes (again) strength to realize that and to take steps to right that earlier decision.

• The interpretation of Sir Elliot as (primarily) an angry man. Again, in the book he is so self absorbed and filled with such a languid ennui you rarely see him rise above a burst of petulant whining. Here he is presented as almost someone to be afraid of with his tirades. This screen adaptation, like so many recent others, misses the humor of Austen's character(s). Sir Elliot is a vain fool, not an angry tyrant.

• Sister Mary. Such a cartoonish interpretation of this character. The facial expressions and strange vocals, I for a moment thought I was watching Molly Shannon from Saturday Night Live doing a take-off. Now here was a character that could have been interpreted with a modern edge and still have remained true to the character. A woman with no discernible focus in her life, she appears bored and unfulfilled - her petulance, hypochondria, and need for constant attention could have been subtly played and connected on a more sympathetic level with the audience.

• This abridged version of the book left out some of the minor characters and it suffers for it. The version I watched on Masterpiece Theater clocked in around 90 minutes. Gone are the relationship that develops between Louisa and the Captain, the Musgroves (what a waste of Stella Gonet and Nicholas Farrell!), and, yes, even the burgeoning relationship between Anne and Capt. Wentworth. Criminal omission -- Capt. Wentworth penning his letter to Anne while surreptitiously listening to her speak about a woman's constancy to Capt. Harville. Critical scene and curiously excised from this screenplay.

In sum, I don't understand filming this story yet again and not trying to produce something truly wonderful. I hope the upcoming films of Austen's novels are better.

This is the first adaption of Jane Austen's Persuasion that I have watched, so I am judging it solely off its representation of the book, with no reference to any other film interpretations.

There are not any particular spoilers below, I just wanted to be on the safe side.

I was really disappointed on the whole when I watched it. In fact, I started making note every time something happened in the film that did not happen in the book. I am very familiar with the book, having read it many times, as it is a favourite of mine.

Anne's character was distorted in an unflattering way, Captain Wentworth was not explored enough in depth. His relationship with Anne, both past, and current was distorted. The section of the film that took place in Bath was really quite terrible. There were a number of events that were distorted in an impractical, unrealistic way, and quite unnecessarily.

I did not like the way the characters were given lines in the film that took the place of the narrator in the book. This was obviously a tool used to impart the information shared by the narrator in the book, but it was just another distortion.

Sir Walter was really the redeeming feature of this film, I thought Anthony Head portrayed him very well. I found Sally Hawkins as Anne to be not likable enough, and not accurate of Austen's Anne. Anne was sweet, and gentle, with a hint of faded prettiness. Hawkins' Anne merely came across as awkward, spinsterly and dumpy. I could not see anything in her that would have made a young Captain Wentworth fall in love with her, for she was supposed to have been quite pretty when she 'bloomed' when she was younger. Rupert Penry-Jones was fair enough as Captain Wentworth, but not overwhelming or compelling.

The viewing was not a complete waste of time, but I won't be watching it again, or recommending to anyone, if they want an accurate representation of the book. It does not measure up to other film interpretations of Austen's other works, by far.

My first principle with an Austen adaptation is that the longer I spend in her world the better -- e.g., 5 hours of P&P is better than 2, and 2 hours is the minimum to do the characters justice. Someone who commented over at www.austenblog.com worked on the film and said they filmed many more scenes than were included in the final product. I wish we had been given those too.

I had never heard of either of the leads so I had no expectations, and found them to be effective within the confines of a sketchy and shallow script, and the decision by PBS executives to cut the overly short film even more.

I didn't appreciate the filmmakers turning Anne Elliot into a weepy, stammering fool but Hawkins is a very talented actress and she did a good job of expressing Anne's emotions and her strength of will, and also how Anne accepted her existence as a drudge as her deserved fate. Unlike some other viewers I think she's a pretty woman, and would have been more so except for that headache-inducing hairdo.

A lot of people are complaining about Wentworth, but Penry-Jones showed me an angry, proud, wounded man. He was mad at Anne *and* at himself, and alternated between trying to ignore her (hence the attention to Louisa the Hoyden), watching her yearningly when she was unaware of his attention and retreating into his shell when she was, and then being relaxed, easygoing and warm with others.

Wentworth couldn't trust Anne or himself and kept everything shoved down so far he was choking. P-J's portrayal was mainly in his eyes, especially his burning gaze, and the tightening of his jaw, or twitch of the lips, or averted gaze. In P-J's portrayal Wentworth seemed to be a man who could not say what he felt and therefore forced himself to say next to nothing, but who couldn't stop his feelings for Anne from reviving. At times, such as when he watched Anne play Beethoven, his eyes seemed to devour her, and then when watching her got too painful he left the room.

Some complaints:

-- too little character exposition and too little demonstration of how intertwined the characters are.

-- the characters are introduced and then disappear before they can make an impression.

-- butchering Wentworth's letter. WT ...? As played, though, it was clear that Wentworth watched Anne and Benwick and was so pleased with her kindness to Benwick, specifically, and with the company, generally, that he relaxed and then was rattled when he toasted the Navy and saw Anne across from him.

-- I'm sure the filmmakers thought having Anne run around Bath and then INTO Wentworth would convey her desperation to not lose him again -- you know, for once she ignores duty and propriety, blah, blah, blah ... if Austen had wanted Anne to do that she'd have written it.

-- the Crofts tell Anne about Louisa's engagement without actually giving her the facts, as they would if they were actually imparting news, and Anne stands there gulping and gasping in the most cruelly exposed way while they watch her, with what seemed to be an ulterior motive.

-- I didn't buy the portrayal of Sir Walter -- he's a vain snobbish nonentity, not an enraged bully.

-- Anne parades around - unselfconsciously! - in an unfastened dressing gown and her underclothes. I don't care if every one was some kind of relative - it would never happen.

-- Mrs. Smith chasing Anne down the street ... laugh or cry? I can't decide.

I've been a fan of Jane Austen's novels for 3 years; and "Persuasion" is my favorite. I never saw the older adaptation of "Persuasion", so I can't comment on how different the two are. I will leave that to those who seen both of them.

I do agree that the camera work in the beginning was a little annoying; but I felt that the close-ups fit well within the story. It allowed us to really get close to the characters.

I loved Sally Hawkin's portrayal of Anne. She played Anne's emotions very well. We could tell that she was still in love with Wentworth, and that she was in agony over having to see the woman flirt with him. And Rupert Penry-Jones was a fabulous Wentworth. You could see that he was in love with Anne, but that he was trying very hard not to be.

The scene at the concert, when he ended up leaving early because he couldn't stand to see Anne with Mr. Elliot, is one of my favorite parts of the movie. He was so heartbroken because he was afraid he was too late; and he was jealous that Mr. Elliot was spending so much time with her, when he was the one who wanted to be in his place.

All in all, I thought it was a charming adaptation, and I recommend it to all who are fans of Jane Austen's novels.

I must have been out of the country during the whole hype about this new version because I was totally surprised when it came on! After reading through the comments that others have left, I really do feel that I must defend this new version. Unlike most of the other commentators, I did not find the 1995 version to be in anyways better than this one. 'Persuasion' is by far my favourite novel by Jane Austen and had high hopes for the '95 version. I first watched it with several of my friends (all of whom had never read the book before) and by the end half were asleep and the others bored out of their minds. I enjoyed it only because I was an avid fan of the book and it was a decently close adaptation (with the exception of changing Charles Hayters' name, which still confuses me!)I watched this new version with my 16 year old sister (who has not read the book either) and we were both throughly entertained throughout. As others have said, it is pointless to try and compare the novel to any movie version that may ever be made. Changes have to be made in order to make the story work as a movie. Keeping this in mind, I found the 2007 adaptation a far more accessible one than the 1995 BBC version, which, in trying to include every plot line and character came across very long and confusing to those that were'nt already familiar with the story. As a fan, I will always be disappointed to see characters and sub-plots dropped, but if it benefits the overall flow of the movie, then I suppose it must be tolerated. I will agree that the camera work was rather interesting, but it didn't bother me nearly as much as others have expressed (I suppose I put more attention on the costumes anyways!) On the whole, though, I found this movie very engaging and visually pleasing (I really wish I could have been in Bath when they were filming!) Despite the changes, the interesting portrayal of side characters and the random 'Run Lola Run' scene, for me this movie captured the spirit of the novel as a whole that I had not felt in the early adaptation. I feel that if this fresher version is more accessible to those not previously acquainted with Jane Austen's work, then it has well served its purpose.

I agree with those reviewers who suggest that it is pointless comparing the film adaptations with source novels. I would add that they do not live and die in comparison to previous adaptations either.

The acting of the two leads has been criticised for lacking chemistry but I thought that the repression, surely a better title, is a vital part of the story. Here are two people who are afraid of expressing their true feelings.

The scene near the end where Anne goes running is her expressing herself. The letter from Wentworth was the same for him. It is a love story of the time and should be viewed as such I think.

I enjoyed it. Against my better judgement I agreed to see the BBC adaptation the following evening and will accept that it was better overall. But that doesn't take away the enjoyment that the ITV version can bring.

It is a difficult to accept some of the mores from 200 years ago. I felt like kicking Wentworth's beam ends and telling him to act like a man. But then, nice though Anne is, I have to say that she's not the most exciting of heroines. I can accept that part of the story is how a brave and fearless sea captain, fresh from battles with the Spanish and French, can be put onto the back foot by love for a women, and the accepted norms of society, but even so one does feel like shaking him at times. My wife reckons he's the best looking Wentworth ever (a bit like a younger me she said but modesty forbids me to repeat it.) The camera-work was intrusive. In the opening scenes, with Anne running around, reflected at the end of the adaptation, I could see the point of hand held but it did get in the way at other times. And long lingering looks do not do it for me unless there is some deep need for them.

An interesting take on a well established favourite so a brave attempt.

The adaptation is well worth the few pounds the DVD costs. The only advice I'd give is to see it before the BBC one.

6 stars might be seen as a little harsh but it is not a classic.

I think it very telling that so many people, without having discussed it first, had the same reaction to the long awaited "kiss" at the end of the film.

She looked like a fish. A gasping, dying fish. Yeah, I get that she ran all over town (still not sure why they played it that way) but come ON! That had to be the worst on screen kiss in the history of kisses. The only reason I didn't give this movie a single star is because of the guy who played Frederick. He was easy on the eyes and not a horrible actor. But even he wasn't enough to get me to ever watch this travesty again. I'm a romantic and I've seen my share of climax of the story kisses and this . . . this deserves to be buried and forgotten.

And that constant creepy stare at the camera didn't help anything either.