Persuasion

Rating:
Summary: Appalling acting and hideous video quality
Review: I couldn't even sit past the second scene. The actors seemed as if they were reading their scripts without any direction or preparation; it was shot for TV in a way that simply doesn't hold up compared with modern productions, and the sets and costumes are unbearably '70s. I could do a better production myself just by getting my friends together for a casual reading and videotaping it, and so could you.

I strongly recommened reading the book (which is fantastic), then watching the '90s movie, which though very understated and not as explanatory as it should be, is at least watchable.

Rating:
Summary: Not true to the book
Review: I found this version of Persuasion difficult to watch. In this version, Anne Elliott puts herself forward far too often and is the center of attention. However, in the book, she is neglected in her own family, her opinions unimportant and unsolicited. The production qualities that others have commented on were not too far off many of the other BBC productions of classics done at the same time. Overall, I was disappointed.

Rating:
Summary: The 1995 version is better
Review: I found this version to be too stylized to suit my taste. Anne looked at least 10 years older than the book description, and unlike the book, she walked around like a queen the whole time with a "clever" grin and gleam in her eye. This became tiresome as I sat through the whole thing, because a) the actress didn't bother to ACT (hello!) and b) it made everything that happened less credible. In the book, she is unhappy and dejected (rejected by her father and sister) and grows into herself by the end. But here, she acts like she's queen of the manor ... after she's unwelcome in her own house??!! And the man she wants completely ignores her??!! Come on!!

Rating:
Summary: Very impressed. Especially after seeing the 1995 version...
Review: I saw the review above and thought that I should offer another opinion to anyone thinking of buying this video. I felt that the 1995 version was extremely shallow and the characters not faithfully suited to Austen's intended personalities at all. This version's Anne shows extremely well the reactions and feelings of a mature woman who is remembering a distant past. She remembers more and more as the story continues just how afflicted she has been and how lowly she has felt over the previous years. She tries to keep her feelings in check but they slowly overwhelm her. I found this version very touching despite the 1971 production. The Anne of the 1995 version seems to be always pouting. Her unmarried sister is shown more as being rude and apt to throwing tantrums even though Austen protrayed her as indifferent, selfish and conceited. That is just the beginning of the incorrect portrayals of Austen's characters in the 1995 version. If you loved the novel, see this movie.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but not exciting
Review: If you've seen the 1995 movie starring Hinds and Root enough times, read the book and want to see another execution of the story and that's all, then this isn't too bad. It's very length is satisfying; it's about four hours in all, enough time for a little more shading of character and manner. We see the Musgroves and Anne arriving at the inn at Lyme for example, and the character of Sir Walter is a little less obvious and hilarious, though equally narcissistic. What is remarkable is how much alike the two versions are; they really both are very accurate adaptations. And it's good to see the Italian concert scene as executed by different actors. There are different production values of course, this version is much more cheaply done, perhaps that is why the sailors are in civvies throughout the show. And this version does delve into the connection between Mrs. Smith and young Mr. Elliot, a connection which was entirely ignored in the film, but at least makes more sense than his chasing after his broke cousins for their money. And if you're an afficionado you may notice that this Mrs. Smith entirely lacks the charm of the film one. Lady Russell is also quite different, a sweet old lady, rather than a society queen and fashion plate with philosophical inclinations. This version doesn't capture at all the dull depression and cruel neglect experienced by Anne Elliot that the 95 film does so well. And I'm sorry to say that the actress playing Anne seems rather more like a model than a great lady with a warm heart. Still it's fun if you can't get enough Persuasion, but read the book and see the movie a bunch of times before attempting the miniseries.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but not exciting
Review: If you've seen the 1995 movie starring Hinds and Root enough times, read the book and want to see another execution of the story and that's all, then this isn't too bad. It's very length is satisfying; it's about four hours in all, enough time for a little more shading of character and manner. We see the Musgroves and Anne arriving at the inn at Lyme for example, and the character of Sir Walter is a little less obvious and hilarious, though equally narcissistic. What is remarkable is how much alike the two versions are; they really both are very accurate adaptations. And it's good to see the Italian concert scene as executed by different actors. There are different production values of course, this version is much more cheaply done, perhaps that is why the sailors are in civvies throughout the show. And this version does delve into the connection between Mrs. Smith and young Mr. Elliot, a connection which was entirely ignored in the film, but at least makes more sense than his chasing after his broke cousins for their money. And if you're an afficionado you may notice that this Mrs. Smith entirely lacks the charm of the film one. Lady Russell is also quite different, a sweet old lady, rather than a society queen and fashion plate with philosophical inclinations. This version doesn't capture at all the dull depression and cruel neglect experienced by Anne Elliot that the 95 film does so well. And I'm sorry to say that the actress playing Anne seems rather more like a model than a great lady with a warm heart. Still it's fun if you can't get enough Persuasion, but read the book and see the movie a bunch of times before attempting the miniseries.

Rating:
Summary: Who told these people they could act?
Review: My family bought the entire BBC Jane Austen collection through Amazon.com for Christmas and decided to first watch the only video we had not previously seen - "Persuasion." Let me first say that the "Pride and Prejudice" of this series is marvelous, "Mansfield Park" we love, and "Northanger Abbey" and "Sense and Sensibility" are good. I will reserve comment on "Emma" until later. However, this adaptation of Jane Austen's great novel "Persuasion" is just one step above completely hideous. The only excuse we can give is that it was BBC's first attempt at a Jane Austen novel.

There is so much wrong it is hard to know where to begin. The script itself is coarse and insensitive, sometimes crudely spelling out the jokes or medical conditions for a presumedly ignorant modern audience. The book by comparison is witty, elegant and subtle. Most of the actors were atrocious. It looked like amateur hour tryouts. Some sets were anachronistic as were the costumes and characters, and the production was crudely directed and badly edited.

First, the casting was generally horrid. The exceptions were Sir Walter Elliot who was played with charm and wit, but the star, Ann Fairbank, is not much of an actress and certainly not as Anne Elliot. She presents herself as a 40 year old ex-glamour queen with a forward personality and a grotesque hair piece. She constantly gazes into the distance, completely spaced-out, but then the hair piece enlarged her head to the point she could have been mistaken for a space alien. She is totally unconvincing as she "reads her lines" and has not the slightest spark of electricity with the sadly cast Captain Wentworth. Charles Musgrove is much better as an actor, but although he is supposed to be Anne's age, he looks 25, more like son to mother. Louisa Musgrove is a frivolous girl and a better actress than the star, but the famous accident at Lyme is a bomb. Elizabeth Elliot is far too nice, and the ambitious, pretty Mrs. Clay is portrayed by an overweight, lazy and homely middle-aged woman who could hardly be thought to lure either Sir Walter or his sinister heir by her beauty and wiles. Worst of all was Admiral Croft. He could not act the part, and he wore a full beard unlike any Royal Navy officer of the Regency period. He should have been on the Titanic and gone down with the ship. He kept flubbing his lines, and the director must have been too lazy to reshoot the scenes. We have honestly never seen acting this poor in community theater or even most high school productions. Most sets were appropriate; however, the scene at Lyme showed pink front attached apartments with wrought iron trim that looked like they had been built in the 1920s or later. The costumes were laughable. (Did anyone do any research?) Most of the costumes, you would think, were more more fitting for the 1840s through the American Civil War, except for the fact that the fabrics, patterns and bright aniline dyes had the suspicious look of the late 1960s. For example, Anne often wore a bright green plaid day dress with puff sleeves that gave the impression of a cheap costume rental used for "Anne of Green Gables." If the director didn't shoot himself, he certainly should have considered it.

The video did provide our family with hours of entertainment as we made fun of the production. Now that we are in the mood, we can watch "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes."

Rating:
Summary: Persuasion sucked!!!
Review: My mom, my sister, and I watched this film and it is very corny. I left the room about an hour into it. I can stand most bad movies but this one is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It doesn't even deserve the one star I'm giving it.

Rating:
Summary: Too slow and could not get past the bad wigs!
Review: So, so much better than the Amanda Root version! Once is good (once is great, if you've already read the book!), but for ever after it will be your inspiring favorite. We know the book and story are the best, and this is the best adaptation available... the characters are a perfect match with Miss Austen's characters. Don't be fooled into getting anything other than this video! If you want to see Jane Austen done right, just like Gweneth Paltrow's 'Emma', then you'll want to see this!

Rating:
Summary: Not Faithful to the Book and Really Bad!
Review: This is my favorite Jane Austen novel next to Pride and Prejudice. The Masterpiece Theatre versions of classic novels have usually been very faithful to the books, but this version deviates drastically and tediously expands the story to four hours. Every subtle nuance in the book is drawn out and explained just to fill out the time. Thank god Masterpiece Theatre improved and got better. The 70's versions of Emma and Pride and Prejudice are fantastic. The movie version from 1995 is more faithful to the book and the characters as well as being great!