Persuasion (2007) (Repackage/DVD)

(***contains some spoilers***) I enjoyed this movie very much. The musical score is beautiful, and adds great depth to the story. Costumes and locations also draw viewers into the story period. Although not an "Austen purist", I have read "Persuasion" and I own most of the various film adaptations of her novels, including the previous version of "Persuasion" starring Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root. Comparing the two DVDs, I find that, while the earlier version of "Persuasion" may more exactly align to the book and is a wonderful movie, this newer adaptation has an updated approach that allows viewers to more closely engage with the characters, especially with Anne Elliot and Frederick Wentworth. Sally Hawkins plays Anne Elliot as a well-born Englishwoman who loves her family, close friends and home with such depth that she accedes to their disapproval of her attachment at 19 to as yet unproven young naval officer Frederick Wentworth and breaks off her engagement. The movie picks up 8 yrs later when Captain Wentworth has made his fortune in the Navy and returns to the area where Anne sees him again through his interaction with her extended family and friends. In this 2007 movie version I better understood the relationship between Wentworth and Anne. I felt Anne's grief and regret at losing through her own choice what she later realized was her best chance for happiness, loving him still and forced to watch him being pursued by others. I recognized Wentworth's anger and resentment at being dumped as a young man because of his "station"; his pride smarting at the continued denigration he experienced from Anne's supercilious family and close friend Lady Russell. I saw his fascination with Anne despite all this, his inability to love or marry another because of her. In Rupert Penry-Jones' portrayal of Captain Wentworth, you sense that he is constantly aware of Anne both in and out of her actual presence. There is also a fuller realization of his own culpability in the events that transpire due in part to his own behavior. In his initial desire to prove his indifference to Anne, he himself is the one that nearly derails a second chance at happiness. The ending scenes are what I found most expanded from the novel. While Anne's racing around Bath on foot to find Wentworth was perhaps unusual, it is in keeping with her determination to seize her happiness despite any obstacles. Though she deals graciously in her own sweet way with interruptions along the way, her absolute determination to reach Wentworth is very evident. The scene where she responds to his proposal has got to be one of the most intensely filmed, yet innocent, love scenes in recent memory. Sally Hawkins' whole demeanor - her eyes, body language - as she tells Wentworth in period language that she'll marry him was absolutely stunning. In the final scene, there was a certain justice in Anne receiving from Wentworth the home she loved and had tried so hard to maintain despite her family's spendthrift ways. All in all, a great movie and refreshing take on a classic period novel.

I'm a big Jane Austen fan. Jane Austen is my favorite author of all time. If I had to travel back in time, she would be near the top of my list of people I would like to meet and have a conversation with. I relate to the fact that Jane Austen never got married. I relate to the fact that she had a bond with her sister. I relate to the fact that she loved writing. I could watch any Jane Austen adapted version or themed movie a hundred times and never get tired. The same goes to leaving my TV on Masterpiece Theatre. Maybe I was a British woman in one of my past lives. I just love watching British period films. Anyways, this is my favorite film version of "Persuasion", and I've seen every single Jane Austen film out there. I always cry each time I see this version. Sally Hawkins is such a great actress and she does an excellent job as Anne Elliot. I really relate to this storyline. I've had boyfriends in my life, and I've always been the good, loyal, honest, trustworthy girlfriend, but I can honestly and genuinely say that I never experienced being deeply and passionately in love with someone. I'm 37, and I've never been in love with a man or told a guy that I was in love with him. To tell a guy that I was in love with him would be a major deal for me. And I've never ever done that because I don't take saying things like that lightly. There was one guy who I think had the potential for me to have those feelings for the first time but I think my current health problems scared him away. I think of Julia Roberts and Javier Bardem in the "Eat, Pray, Love" movie. I think Javier's character says to Julia's character, "You don't need a lover, you need a champion." When he said that, I thought to myself, "Word!" It's going to take a champion of a man to take on me when it comes to love. Anyways, I think Jane Austen books and films fill that void when it comes to the romance department for me. When I watch this film, I really relate to Sally Hawkins' potrayal of Anne. If I was in love with a guy, I would totally be like Anne. This movie has a great cast, but I think this film is excellent because of Sally Hawkins. I found myself feeling my heart racing and being emotional because of Sally Hawkins' portrayal of Anne. And I liked the way that this movie ended. If you want to see an excellent Jane Austen movie, this is it.

This is an amazing, heart-wrenching production, proving that beauty is only skin deep. My wife and I have been re-watching all the Jane Austen videos and find this one to be a breed apart. It not only is the most serious story of the six novels that Jane wrote but probably the most autobiographical and emotional one, as well. The story is well known to all Jane Austen followers but this rendition adds a lot of pain and remorse that are not dwelled upon in the other videos we've seen. Except for the final 10 minutes or so, the viewer is immersed in sorrow for poor Anne Elliot as she is used and abused by her father and sisters. She's treated as little more than a servant by them and taken for granted as the person best fit to do the dirty work. In this way, sweet, loveable Anne is much like Cinderella with her mean step sisters waiting for the glass slipper and prince charming to save her. That finally happens, all right, but not after many twists and turns. One can argue about whether or not this makes sense, but the emotional impact is hard to miss. We only wish that Anne would have been dolled up more at the end as she is redeemed by Capt. Wentworth and embarks on a new life of hope and prosperity. She certainly deserves this, with all the folly of a class-conscious society that surrounds her. This production is a short, 93 minutes, but well worth the time for anyone interested in British life in the early-1800's. For most of us, be very glad you live today.

EUREKA! I have found it. I have found the key word. The key word is ENJOY! I ENJOY being alive. I ENJOY breathing the air. I ENJOY being able to sleep, to dream, to think, to write. I ENJOY reading books. And I especially ENJOY writing personally-revealing reviews of personally-revealing books that ignite the imagination and send the mind flying! OK. OK. Enough about me. What about you? Why might you want to read Jane Austen's "Persuasion"? Why, to ENJOY the book of course! OK. Very good. But why stop there? Why stop at the ENJOYMENT of reading the book? Why not let your mind go beyond the ENJOYMENT of reading the book? Why not keep going until you arrive at the ECSTASY of seeing, hearing, experiencing something imaginary, something ideal, something unreal, as if it were really happening right here, right now, in real life? Sounds great! But how? By bringing the book to life in your mind. Yes. Yes. Yes. But how? How?? By seeing the 2007 movie “Persuasion,” starring Sally Hawkins and Rupert Penry-Jones, BEFORE reading the book. That's how. I did see/hear the movie BEFORE I read the book. And I'm glad I did. As I read the book, the movie kept coming back to life in my mind. In addition, the book revealed -- in depth and in detail -- all of those seemingly minor thoughts, feelings, and incidents that did not make their way into the movie. By means of the written word, a book can open a character's heart and mind to the reader. By means of voice-over, a movie can do the same kind of thing. But not to the EXTENT that a book can. Be that as it may, whatever the movie may lack in such EXTENT is made up for, many times over, by the movie's astounding EFFECT. Indeed, insofar as EFFECT goes, there is something in the movie that surpasses anything and everything in the book; in any other book I have ever read; and in any other movie I have ever seen. That extraordinary "something" that I am raving about is the kiss scene. Not just the kiss, mind you. The scene! (Not to mention the love letter -- and the race against time -- leading up to the kiss scene.) In that kiss scene, a moment of time becomes an eternity of bliss. The infinity of space shrinks to nothing. Nothing except! Nothing except a small warm pocket of space wherein there is room enough for only two human beings, two people, a man and a woman, this man and this woman. Each is the whole world of the other. What will become a kiss evolves and revolves between the two of them, binary stars, paired, gradually encircling one another, beyond the reach of all the universe that is not their own. It is just the two of them. Nothing more. Nothing less. Try as I may, I cannot tell you in words. The book cannot tell you in words. You have to see the movie to believe it. Seeing it, hearing it, you will believe it, even though it is nothing but make-believe. "Nothing but make-believe"??? What a thing to say!!! As if make-believe were of little or no value. A next to nothing sort of thing. A waste of time! of money!! of life itself!!! OK. OK. I stand corrected. How dare I down-talk make-believe! Let me slow down here, stop, and ask myself a couple of questions: 1. What would thinking be like without the make-believe of imagination? 2. What would life be like without the make-believe of dreaming? Those two questions have these two answers: 1. We cannot think without imagining. 2. Nor can we live without dreaming. So, no more down-talking make-believe. Not by me anyway. OK. Agreed. Now that's settled, I can turn my back on things that do not interest me, and return to what does -- i.e., "Persuasion" -- book and movie. Much as I much prefer books to movies, the "Persuasion" movie of 2007 is exceptional. So exceptional that, if I had to choose one over the other, either the book or the movie, I would choose the movie. By the grace of good fortune, however, I don't have to choose between the two. For, I have both: the movie and the book. Each is excellent. Both are superb. And the two together are scintillatingly synergistic. When push comes to shove, however, my mind must admit, and my heart must confess, that, to my way of thinking and feeling, the movie is even better than the book, simply because of the kiss scene. That kiss scene is so good, so well done, so realistic, so believable, that I believe it to be real, even though it is make-believe. Is believing in make-believe such a bad thing? I think not. Speaking of thinking, consider this: Once you have seen/heard the love letter, the race against time, the kiss scene, and the other scenes in the movie, you can replay them in your mind by conducting "search and enjoy" missions: just pick up the book; flip to the juiciest pages; and read to your heart's content. What could be easier? What could be more enjoyable?? Certainly not the realities of everyday life. Ugh! Why get into that when you can get into this: a good book.

I both love and hate this adaptation of Jane Austen's Persuasion. First what I hate about it: I also have the old, 1971 (I think) adaptation, with Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall, and even though I didn't like it that much as far as casting and costumes, and some other elements, it at least told the whole story. It was incredibly faithful to the novel. Possibly the biggest problem with this adaptation is that it is far too short. Austen's stories are concise as well as long. They are complex tales that require some time and attention to detail to present properly. This movie didn't go nearly far enough to do that. If I weren't already extremely familiar with the story, I would likely not have understood it at all. There was so much left out, so much under-emphasized, and so much left unsaid. Even the characterization of the two lead characters was weak. I could list everything in great detail, but I'll just say that if you've only seen this movie adaptation and have never read the book, you have no idea what you're missing. What I loved about it: For someone already well familiar with the story, this movie presents almost a dream about it. It has that quality, of a dream, and it's beautifully done. That's exactly how it felt to me, as if I read the novel, feel asleep, and had a beautiful, vague, foggy dream about the story. To me that felt wonderful, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it on my next viewing, because I won't be so shocked at how much is missing. So, thanks for the lovely dream, but to anyone who hasn't read it, please do yourself a favor and also read the book.

I am hooked on Jane Austen because of the romance. If you are like me in that respect, do not miss this adaptation of Miss Austen's Persuasion. I dearly loved the Amanda Root/Ciaran Hinds version but there is not as much passion displayed by Amanda Root in her Anne Elliott as there is in this version with Sally Hawkins playing the same role. And since we have two very different screenplays and directors, differences should be expected. The director of this version allows Sally Hawkins to look squarely into our eyes and pour her emotions out so that we could feel what Anne Elliott was feeling just as if we were sitting or standing face to face with her. And those evolving emotions of dread, shock, loss, despair, and resignation were palpable thanks to Sally Hawkins personality and wonderful skills as an actor. If you can watch this Persuasion and not be caught up in Anne's situation then your own heart is made of stone. No true purist can give any film adaptation 5-stars and still consider themselves a purist. So, how much leeway do you give screenwriters and directors in retelling an Austen classic? If you are an Austen romantic I think you take each adaptation for what it is and enjoy that version for what it brings to us in retelling Miss Austen's story--whether it is an adaptation of Persuasion, Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, or any other classic novel no matter the author. Now I grant you, the 2K sprint at the finish in this version of Persuasion might have been a little over the top, but it did fit Anne's character in this version. The end of the Ciaran Hinds/Amanda Root version was fine for what it was because Amanda's Anne was so understated. So her catching up with Mr. Hinds' Captain Wentworth in the reunification scene being underplayed does not detract from that version, even though by comparison it lacks the emotion that was allowed Sally Hawkins' Anne. Which is closer to the Jane Austen novel? Due to the ending scenes alone I would have to say the Hinds/Root version, yet they are both compromises due to length of time allowed and the fact that they are ADAPTATIONS, as they must be for the screen. The bottom line is that if you pass up seeing this version of Persuasion, you would be missing out on a wonderfully retold story and actors that will tug at your heart recreating Jane Austen's characters as interpreted by this screenwriter and developed by this director.

I got tired of what I was reading. Read the book then decided to buy the movie. I was surprised how often the movie used phrases from the book l love the movie.

This version doesn't follow Austen's book to the T. They have also taken on some liberties of their own. But isn't that the thing for films to do? Every adaption, opinion, and writing is not the same, nor should it be. This version has it's own "individual stamp" on it. I have read the book about six years ago, so I am rusty. But I read this book more than Austen's others. I bought the '95 version on iTunes a few years ago. That version may have been verbatim to the book, but it just made the story dull and boring. I saw the movie three times and it was not a charm (twice with iTunes and once on Amazon). I was very disappointed that I deleted the download. I didn't believe that Hinds and Root were in love with each other and the pacing of the film was very slow. This 2007 version was a nice change. The acting was believable. I really liked Rupert Penry-Jones and Sally Hawkins as a couple. Sally isn't model gorgeous but real. She is who I imagined when I read the book. She looks "homely" with a faint past existence of possessing beauty. Rupert is now my forth favorite Austen hero actor (Colin Firth, Jeremy Northam and Johnny Lee Miller my first three faves). I liked this version the most. The characters were a lot more likeable and believable. The pacing of the movie ran smoothly and wasn't boring. And the photography was perfect.