Watch Mansfield Park For Free

Really Surprised!

One of my all time favorites.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

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.

I have to confess that I have little experience with Jane Austen, or with period pieces. I only came to this film as it stars Billie Piper of Dr. Who fame.Of course, the costumes of the period show off Piper's assets, as well as everyone else.One thing I find fascinating is the constant focus on marriage. It seems that love hardly enters the picture. It is a competition to see what kind of a match (titles and/or money) can be made.I was beginning to despair that Edmund (Blake Ritson) would ever choose the right woman to marry, but he got his head right in the end.

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.

I recently read the book (a bit of a slog but brilliant) and was interested to see a screen adaptation, wondering how on earth they could breath life into Fanny Price who seems to be more of an ideal that a real person. I haven't yet seen Patricia Rozema's version but this one is such a travesty that I watched the whole thing in fascination and horror; much like not being able to look away from a traffic accident. This one's sort of like Moll Flanders' adventures in Jane Austenland. Jane is now such big bu$ine$$ that they simply take one of her plots, add some good actors, a stately manor or two, some hifalutin sounding dialogue, heaving bosoms and stir. The acting's quite good including the girl playing Fanny who's so disastrously miscast and costumed (and what's with her hair?) that it renders the whole thing ridiculous. This cynical mess has as much to do with Jane Austen's intentions as a ham sandwich. James Retsin's great, as always.