irishbelle98 This adaptation of Persuasion was so-so in my mind. The music and cinematography was pretty well-done, but there were some issues in casting (I think). Sally Hawkins was altogether to flimsy and breathless for my taste. In the book, Anne Elliot is somewhat of a beautiful mix of a Lizzy Bennet and a Fanny Price. In this film, she was just . .. odd. And of no personal offense to her, the scene where she is crying over Wentworth's alleged engagement is awful! The sniffling and wiping is just too much. I think she lacked some of the "spunk" Anne is supposed to have (though it is not much) Wentworth was definitely better than Anne, but there was almost a cockiness and immaturity that wasn't at all attractive. However, he was handsome and his expressions were good. Though these two had there qualities as separate characters, they did NOT go together as a couple. There was always an awkwardness about them- even when she is accepting his proposal (I won't even BEGIN on that disturbing "kiss"). Overall, I found that I wasn't even very rejoicing at the final scene where he has given her the house. Despite all these complaints, this was a nicely made adaptation. I would recommend watching it if you haven't already read the book.

TheLittleSongbird I love Jane Austen's work, so I actually say with a heavy heart how disappointing this Persuasion was. Especially considering that 1995's Pride and Prejudice(in my opinion the ultimate Jane Austen adaptation), 1995's Sense and Sensibility, 2009's Emma and 1995's Persuasion have proved to be solid adaptations and succeed beautifully on their own merits.This adaptation of Persuasion isn't without redeeming values. The scenery and costumes are stunning and evocative complete with a melancholic atmosphere, the music is understated and beautiful and Anthony Head and Tobias Menzies are excellent and charismatic.On the other hand, the camera work is dizzying, the close-ups of Anne's face annoyed me after a while and it is annoying that when more than one person is talking not all of them are shown on screen. The adaptation is too short at two hours and consequently felt rushed so that we felt nothing for the characters or felt any passion coming out from the story.When it comes to the dialogue it was lacking the wit, poignancy and humour of the language of Austen, alternatively it didn't flow from line to line complete with some unintentionally funny moments such as Anne chasing Wentworth down the street, a somewhat modernised touch that stuck out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of the adaptation.Head and Menzies aside, the rest of the performances are disappointing. I love Rupert Penry Jones, but apart from his handsome looks I found him dull and wooden. Sally Hawkins fares better, her interpretation is confident, though she is let down by bad direction and the decision to make Anne spoilt rather than resourceful. The Musgroves are sadly underused while Amanda Hale is awful as Mary, acting as though she was in a completely different period.In conclusion, disappointing and one of my least favourite Austen adaptations, and this is coming from somebody who didn't think much of 1999's Mansfield Park(not yet seen the 2007 one) either. 3/10 Bethany Cox

bourneagainalways ***Contains Minor Plot Points*** My wife has introduced me to several of movie adaptations of Jane Austen's novels: Emma, Pride & Prejudice, Mansfield Park, Sense & Sensibility, and just the other night it was time to show me Persuasion.Persuasion was not the bright epic one thinks when Jane Austen is mentioned. You know what I'm talking about: two characters stroll in the gardens in an extreme wide angle so we, the audience, can see how well the costume and set designers did. Persuasion breaks that rule and often follows close behind or in front of a character, allowing their emotion to be seen not only in their eyes but entire body. The colors are darker and more real for the time period.Sally Hawkins does an amazing job with a character that for most of the film's beginning never says more than a few words to anyone. Some people have posted how they hated the journal entries and her looking right in the camera, but it helped me understand and feel her loathing of past decisions and circumstances met in the present.Rupert Penry-Jones plays well opposite Sally as the naval officer who feels cheated and despises his former fiancé. His silent, intuitive glances to and away from her speak volumes - a behavior one would expect not only from a scorned lover but a professional soldier. You can feel the ice melt from his heart when Sally tells him that her engagement to Mr. Elliot is of no reality.And what of the other performances? Many of the Jane Austen adaptations I have seen are full of memorable supporting casts and this is no exception. Each actor/actress takes their characters and makes it their own which only gives to this production. Outstanding.

Lily-32 I think it very telling that so many people, without having discussed it first, had the same reaction to the long awaited "kiss" at the end of the film. She looked like a fish. A gasping, dying fish. Yeah, I get that she ran all over town (still not sure why they played it that way) but come ON! That had to be the worst on screen kiss in the history of kisses. The only reason I didn't give this movie a single star is because of the guy who played Frederick. He was easy on the eyes and not a horrible actor. But even he wasn't enough to get me to ever watch this travesty again. I'm a romantic and I've seen my share of climax of the story kisses and this . . . this deserves to be buried and forgotten.And that constant creepy stare at the camera didn't help anything either.