Gabriele C. from LAKE WALES, FL Reviewed on 8/10/2012...
i have just finished watching this movie . i must admit , that i was positively influenced in getting this movie by previous reviewers . this is my opinion about this movie in comparison with the 1995 version .
i happen to like this movie to a point . it is defenitly more accurate than the 1995 version . it is also longer , to accomodate more dialoge and more of the story line . i happen to like jane austin movies and own probably most of them . due to the movie being much longer , it makes more sense than the 1995 version , which often left you befuddled , because things just didnt make sense . this movie at least explains some things .
the acting has been called stiff and wooden . i happen to agree -- but then ... like some good movies , it leaves some things to the imagination and seems to assume that the watcher is familiar with the story and thusly can be expected to understand " implied meanings " and "read facial expressions". i am very much familiar with britsch TV and/or movies , so i am more so inclined to understand the undertow of unspoken emotions and acting that expects you to think , rather than everything being presented out in the open .
the costumes and movie sets are a bit old fashioned and not as good as the 1995 version . i happen to think , that they are not as bad as some reviewers make them out to be , but they cannot really be compared to the newer british period movies , when more effort was being made to be historically accurate .
it all comes down to the actors . i think , many of the characters where wrongly cast . charles musgrove , elizabeth elliot and the musgrove girls were very well played in this older version . frederic wentworth was ugly and didnt really impress as a strong character . in the 1995 version the actor was very much better cast . anne elliot i liked , but the acting could have been more lively . wentworth and anne elliot in this movie were much more "compatible" and "matching " , than the two actors who played wentworth and A, elliot in the later version . in the 1995 version , frederick wentworth came across as a character that could be understood to be a captain in the navy and he was much stronger portrayed [and better looking] . A elliot in the 1995 version was well cast and did a good job , except to me she didnt "pair well" with the person who played wentworth . they didnt seem to "go together " .
the casting for the other characters in the 1995 version was much better done and seem to bring the differetn persons to life .
i did like this version , because of it going deeper and more accurately into the story line . i like the 1995 version because of character casting and scenery and costumes . IF they had done a remake of THIS movie with the actors from the 1995 version and those sets and costumes , they would have had one amazing movie .
would i recommend this movie ??? yes , because of its greater accuracy . but if you want to watch one version for its beautiful costumes and a dashing mr wentworth , then watch the 1995 version ...
Tina H. from COLORADO SPGS, CO Reviewed on 9/20/2010...
Enjoyable movie - typical British acting (over acting), but followed Jane Austen's story more closely than the other version I've seen. Definitely one I'll watch again.
Movie Reviews
Very impressed. Especially after seeing the 1995 version...
zveronic | Vancouver, BC. CA | 10/02/2001
(5 out of 5 stars)
"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."
Interesting, but not exciting
cloudia | Seattle, WA United States | 01/14/2003
(3 out of 5 stars)
"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."
This is the easily the best version of Persuasion
zveronic | 07/29/2002
(5 out of 5 stars)
"This is the best version of Persuasion that I've seen, and I've seen them all. It follows the book almost perfectly, without any unnecessary, aggravating modern day innovations. This is Persuasion as Jane Austen wrote it. Attitudes and opinions were different in the early 1800's and it is absurd to force the attitudes of today onto characters from the past, as so many modern movies do. I hope this version is produced on DVD soon."
The magnificent "Persuasion"
Jack G. Ross | 02/22/2007
(5 out of 5 stars)
"This version of Persuasion has small gems of introspective thought and analysis throughout. Anne's character develops physically and mentally into a woman who now believes that she can correct the terrible mistake of taking bad advice in her youth. All of the virtues that Austen attributes to Anne Elliot are fully realized as Anne goes from an "insignificant person" to a woman who learns that she is competent, caring, poetic, and understanding. She is determined to not make the same mistake again, and this production delves into the maturation of Anne from a doormat to a woman of great depth and wisdom. The version with Amanda Root is an excellent production also, but the length of that movie does not allow for the time to show these incidences of insight and poetic imagination that Anne brings out in this older Persuasion version. I would highly recommend this slower yet deeper version of Persuasion, and I recommend the newer version for its sheer beauty of production, acting, and cinematography."
Different Production Values but Excellent Characterization
Read Sonja | CA | 06/27/2007
(4 out of 5 stars)
"I think that this version of Persuasion is very underrated. Reading the reviews for the '95 version you would think that no one had seen this one or any other before it. I can understand why this might be undervalued, the setting is very "stagey", it does not have the overall beauty and rich settings that newer versions can offer. The sound is very weak as well, the audio pick-up makes it difficult to hear all the lines. (British movies, especially older ones, are notorious for bad sound. I can't understand why new DVD releases do not automatically include subtitling, and I don't mean merely close-captioning, because they really need it.) Further, there is the effect of the fabrics and styles which are so obviously from the 70's and can detract somewhat from the experience. Anne is wearing a plaid dress at one point! Finally, as has been pointed out the actress playing Anne is obviously quite a bit older then her 20 something role requires. However, all that being said, this is still one of my favorite productions so far. The reason? Despite all of these drawbacks I still feel that it captures the spirit of the novel better than any other I have watched. I love this Anne. She has a dignity and maturity combined with a sweetness of spirit that almost seems too good to be true at times, but is balanced by a subtle but wry sense of humor that prevents her from becoming inhuman and cloying. No other Anne that I have seen captures this to my satisfaction. In fact I found Amanda Root a very sad Anne indeed. She played her as a timid little mouse of a person beaten down by circumstance and victimized by her family. I couldn't respect her.
To my mind one of the things that raises Persuasion above a mere Cinderella story is Ann's personality. Although her family does not value her she is someone who has such a capacity to love and such a desire to be loved in return that she rises above their pettiness and negligence and refuses to become bitter and hateful or pitiful and depressed in response to their lack of concern. Instead she tries to set an example and behave with the caring and consideration that she would like to receive. Her firmness of purpose and ability to value herself is clear in her every action and although she has her disappointments and doubts, she is certainly not a victim. Her ability to forgive and do what she feels is right despite so many obstacles is a clear contrast to Captain Wentworth's pride driven anger which prevents him from understanding the reasons for her earlier rejection of his proposal.
I wish that more people could appreciate this Anne. I think she is closer to Jane Austen's original character in many respects and that even the actress's age only helps emphasize the maturity of her character. The cover doesn't do her justice for although she is not especially beautiful she is a very handsome woman with a nice smile and I think that too is more like the original Anne who is never described (except by an obviously biased Captain Wentworth) as being especially pretty.
Aside from Anne the other casting is all excellent. Her father and elder sister are the epitome of vanity and false pride. Her younger sister, the attention seeking Mary, is played superbly. Everyone else, from the solicitous but class-conscious Mrs. Russell, the bluff Charles Musgrove, the droll and somewhat eccentric Crofts, the obsequious Mrs. Clay and her lawyer father to the hospitable Hargraves, the dour Captain Benwick and the oily Cousin Elliot are very well cast. Louisa is very well done. Her lack of maturity contrasts Anne nicely showing both the self-centered forcefulness and the fearless sweetness of someone who has not yet experienced the disappointments of life and love. It is possible to envy her youthful vitality and pity her lack of awareness without disliking her personally which I think is a very difficult effect to achieve. In that regard I find that it rings very true to life.
Captain Wentworth also has a boyish charm combined with a hint of that forceful and passionate personality which makes him a good leader on board ship and which made him so temperamental when faced with Anne's refusal. Both his hurt and anger and his later warmth and respect for Anne are played with equal spirit and verisimilitude. Even when he is angry you can see his kindness and strength of character. I don't think that Ciaran Hinds can match that given that he plays aloof and angry characters best. I found him too severe in the beginning and not quite believable when he later relents. It's just not his role. He did a better job as the bitter and more forceful Mr. Rochester in the A&E version of Jane Eyre.
Lastly, the scenery may seem a bit washed out, but that is due to both the location and climate in Britain and the style of filming at the time. Perhaps I am biased in this but I found the length of the film, rather than being off putting, instead allowed me more time to immerse myself in the world and to savor the nuances of the interactions that occur in each scene. I also found the scenery added to this effect and enjoyed the views of Lyme and the walks in the countryside very much for their realism rather than for the larger than life beauty found in more modern films. To my view many of the very things which might be considered negative in this film in contrast with newer ones were what attracted me to it. It doesn't have the polished quality of more recent offerings, but it does have a realism (despite the sound and 70's influence) that makes the experience more immediate. This is a favorite to watch when feeling ill or on a rainy day when something comfortable and non-demanding is required. It isn't especially steamy and passionate, but it is very intimate and warm-hearted.