I am a big Jane Austin fan. I always like the books better than the movies. However this movie is true to the book and I enjoyed it very much.

I bought this movie in a pack of 3 so unfortunately can't even give it away as I definately would. What a waste of money this movie was. I fast forward most of it so can't really tell you everything but only that Billie Piper was so poor a choice for an actress. She dyed her hair blonde for the movie but unfortunately she has a deep undergrowth coming through. Umm, not sure if she knew that girls didn't really dye their hair in that era and that I am sure she would've been able to afford it even if they did. Without watching her hair roots everytime she was on camera, she and the rest of the cast gave off such a poor performance that you didn't care what happened. They must of had a small budget as the movie never leaves the estate.

While this movie did not bother me too much and was quite enjoyable in some places, I will never understand why modern movie-makers feel like they have to make politically correct comments in movies from this time period. I do not recall when Wilberforce started his anti-slavery movement in England, but if Austen didn't make a reference to it in her book, is it likely that Fanny would have questioned Sir Thomas's slave-owning tendencies? Both this movie and the '99 version did it, this one thankfully MUCH less. Yes, we all know NOW that slavery is wrong, evil, etc., but back then it was a way of life, and I seriously doubt that meek little Fanny Price would have said anything about it.

I like Billie Piper's acting, I do. Her turn in "Shakespeare Retold: Much Ado About Nothing" was excellent, and though I haven't seen all her episodes, I found Piper's Rose very good as well. She more than held up her own against veterans like David Tennant and especially Christopher Eccleston.

"Mansfield Park", though, was very bad. Very...not good.

Fanny is supposed to be a mousy, sickly creature; it's why Edmund gives her a horse to ride for exercise every day. When she misses a few days, she gets sick. Why is Fanny running about and chasing people around the house? I can't tell if this is poor script or poor acting or both. This is not Fanny Price.

Most people have picked up on the major plot alteration as well, with Fanny not being forced to leave Mansfield Park despite her rejection of Crawford. It's a major plot and character point - Fanny getting kicked around and basically living at the whim of the Bertrams. Also, her rejection of Crawford is a major, major problem, and her being sent away is evidence of that.

To be honest, I can't remember much more; it was kind of painful to watch. Not any better than the 1999 Frances O'Connor "Mansfield Park", though I personally wouldn't say it was worse. (1999's Fanny the budding writer?!) Austen sighs in her grave and hopes Andrew Davies will write the next "Mansfield Park" adaptation.

What was good? Blake Ritson turned in a fairly good Edmund, and Hayley Atwell turned in a fantastic Mary Crawford, with all her complexity - her kindness towards Fanny, her protectiveness towards Fanny, and her moral laxness. I'm biased towards Jemma Redgrave. I was also amused that the Bionic Woman played Maria Bertram and that young Fanny (Julia Joyce) had played the younger version of Billie Piper's characters twice before.

It might look stagy, but I found the 1980s BBC "Mansfield Park" truer to the book than either of the new versions. Nicholas Farrell and Sylvestra Le Touzel in their first cooperative outing were good. A young Farrell gives his Edmund real life (especially given how productions looked then), and Le Touzel, while she does have the wide-eyed spaciness of some of the 80s adaptations, presents the most Austen-ish Fanny I've seen yet.

After seeing Pride and Predjudice with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle and Jayne Eyre with Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson where every cast member in both of these fantastic adaptations was just perfect I could not watch this movie Mansfield Park at all but I made myself watch it and I don't know why I did. There was no substance to this story adn it did not feel like anything related to Jane Austin. It was some airy fairy version of something. Billy Piper was so wrong for this period character with her blonde layered 70's hairdo and thick dark brown eyebrows and she did not have the mannerisms of a lady of this time like Jennifer Ehle had in Pride and Predjudice. Billy Piper was so miscast and was the worst miscast and the rest of the actors too in my opinion. It was just plain boring to me. Miss Crowleys hair too was like something I wore at my first holy communion when I was 7 I think back in the 60's. It was nothing like the hairstyle from that era with her wispy pieces from her ears and the fancy pulled back bun which was way too modern. I found the female actors just did not have the mannersims of this time period and did not act them well at all as ladys of regency of 19th century england. Blake Ritson was the best cast in this. He just "had it" and was convincing of this period. Before I knew it, the movie was over and I thought what was this all about where is the story here. Too Short of a movie.......................If Toby stephens, Colin Firth, Ruth Wilson and Jennifer Ehle had been cast this would have been superb as long as they had the correct team players as well. The cover of the DVD was strange as I found Billy Pipers hair and dress somewhat of a different time too again she looked like someone I would see today with bleach blonde hair layered with a 2008 top. Sorry Billy I am sure you are a good actress but do not do these period pieces again girl!!!!
This was Just awful.................................I was very disapointed indeed.