GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Steineded How sad is this?

Bereamic Awesome Movie

Mimi Marinova I read the book some days ago and was very impressed, so I decided to watch the movies too. I was disappointed. I couldn't finish the 1999 version at all, and this one either. Well, this one was kinda better, but still it missed some important stuff from the book. First of all, Fanny was too lively, running around and laughing like crazy. This is not Fanny from the book. She is supposed to be very composed and shy. Sir Thomas was too mean. Lady Bertram wasn't beautiful at all. She is supposed to be an extraordinary beauty and of a very sweet temper. Nothing like that. It looked like Mrs. Norris and Lady Bertram were switched. Mrs. Norris was more beautiful and talked in this gentle voice. Whoever did the casting for this movie was really incompetent. Henry Crawford was not very charming either. He is supposed to have this talent of making women fall in love with him. Well, you couldn't get that from the movie. He looked quite unattractive, not only in terms of looks. The actress who played Mary Crawford was the only good thing about the movie. She looked and acted exactly as she is supposed to be in the book. Edmond was supposed to be much more in love with her though, we don't really get that. In terms of the plot, they omitted stuff that was important. For example, the conversation of Maria and her father where he asks her whether she still wants to get married to the idiotic fiancé, and she says "yes." Well, from how it was put in the movie, it doesn't make sense why she'd say she still wants to go along with it. But in the book this conversation is preceded by Maria's disappointment in Henry Crawford. She expects him to propose and be serious about his intentions, instead he goes on a trip for weeks without even writing to her. She marries Mr.Rushworth as a sort of a consolation and revenge to Henry.The picnic scene is stupid too. It's supposed to be a ball and Fanny has to open the dancing with Henry. We don't get that at all. We don't get the whole story around the golden necklace that was given to Fanny by Mary. Actually, that's as far as I got because it was unbearable already.

marspeach Gah, what can I say about this adaptation. The good? Well…it was better than the Patricia Rozema version! And…a couple of the actors were well-cast. And…that's about it. Yup, it was a dud. Patricia Rozema made a terrible movie, but you could tell she cared about the movie she made. This one…it was as if their hearts weren't in it. The script was dull and the budget was almost nonexistent. Everything took place in the same couple of rooms or on the lawn at Mansfield Park. That means no Portsmouth and no Prices, other than Fanny and William, and no trip to Sotherton. And the casting and characterizations…most were decent (with a couple bizarre exceptions) but nothing amazing.The bizarre casting choice for me was definitely Billie Piper. This is a horrible thing for me to say, but I thought she looked more like a prostitute than Fanny Price, with the cleavage, the bleach blond hair (but still black eyebrows!), and the buck tooth veneers. The screenwriter really didn't seem to know what to do with her character either. She had moments where she was quiet and shy and observant and others where she was running around laughing like Patricia Rozema's Fanny. They wanted to stay truer to the book character, I guess, but were still afraid to keep Fanny really as she was. Really, the only compliment I can give is that she and the actress who played young Fanny really looked alike.I guess if you're really turned off by the old-school production values in the 1983 version or you can't find a copy, it would be better to watch this version than the 1999 one. That version was so horrible though that anything looks better in comparison. I hope one day we get a new full miniseries version that features the "real" Fanny Price as she is in the book.

michawheeler I must say that before I watched the movie I already had low expectations of it. I must also say that although I understand that book to film adaptations must have some changes I really hate it when they completely change the spirit of the book, especially when the book is a masterpiece of English literature. Why call it an adaptation? Say you're inspired by the book but not that you have adapted the book into film.Now that that rant is over, i will start with the next rant. I will not say anything about the miscasting of Billie Piper as Fanny (Maggie O'Neill as Mrs Norris and Jemma Redgrave as Lady Bertram were also I feel miscast), nor about the enormous liberties taken with the plot, nor about Fanny's hair, nor about Fanny bouncing about like a fairy, I will even hold my tongue about the actress's manicured eyebrows as these have already been covered by other reviewers. But there are so many other things that are wrong in this 'adaptation'.What I really liked about the book is how Fanny is the only constant in the story, everyone around her changes their feelings, opinions even their characters but Fanny although timid and shy sticks by her strong moral standards and shows a strength of character that surprises everyone who thought who knew her. In the movie this development is completely missing. I did not see the conflicted Crawfords almost becoming good people, I did not see Sir Thomas regretting the way he brought up his children nor did I see Edmund falling in love with Fanny. (I had to stifle a chuckle when the light shined off Fanny's messy hair and Edmund was suddenly struck with love as if shown the way by the Holy Spirit) I didn't even see the seduction progressing between Maria and Henry Crawford which is a pity as this is the only Jane Austen book that touches on infidelity.An other thing I really disliked is how they changed the characters of Mrs Norris and Lady Bertram. Mrs Norris is one of the vilest characters created by Jane Austen. She is not just an annoying, ignorant person, she controls and abuses Fanny and almost all the Bertrams psychologically in a very selfish and snide way. Lady Bertram in the book was a very stupid and lazy woman that was often infuriatingly and unbelievably aloof of everything that was going on around her. The Lady Bertram in the film was an undecided concoction that needs to be protected from the fact that her husband might be in danger in Antigua and could describe men dying at war as 'disagreeable' but has the sharpness to realise that Fanny was in love with Edmund since she was a little girl. Last things; the opening narration was just lazy, most of the acting bland.To end on a good note, i really liked the music, James D'Arcy who plays Tom Bertram is very good looking and my inner (and secret) squealing, girly, rom-com loving girl enjoyed the bit were Edmund runs after Fanny and they get together at last - although the joy was short lived when I remembered that this was supposed to be Mansfield Park.

Kara Dahl Russell For a teenager who has never read Austen, this adaptation might be fine. But only for them. This is a disjointed "Cliff Notes" version of Mansfield Park, and if you have not seen another version or read the books parts of it would be head scratching.Why has it been so hard to do a good adaptation of this book? The one in the 1990s took such liberties that it barely seemed to be the same book - the mindset was completely modern and prurient.Here we have Billie Piper who looks like a pretty country wench. She has a charming personality that develops nicely - but she has flagrantly died blonde hair, with black eyebrows and - through much of the pic - dark brown roots. So much for unspoiled cousin. It is incredibly distracting, and the rest of the cast is in the greasy hair, rumpled clothing genre that shows a real disrespect for period accuracy.One thing is good here - Haley Atwell is the best Mary Crawford of all the versions. She is note perfect, flirtatious without being at all modern or suggestive, flippant and completely without any moral or ethical compass. Henry here is actually good looking enough to be a slight temptation for our heroine.Jemma Redgrave takes one of the most interesting roles in the story and manages to make her actually boring until her last scene - much too sensible. This is just a production that really missed the mark, a real low for Austen fans.The only serviceable version is the one with odd duck (perfect for the role) Sylvestra La Touzel (despite the very very gay Henry Crawford - he's just laughable).