Jane Austen has always been one of my favorite authors. I feel that she provides a good picture of the society and manners of the period. I have read and reread her books and have viewed as many versions of the movies made about her books as I can. This is the best version of Mansfield Park I have seen. It is a fairly close to the book.

I am a huge fan of Jane Austen films. If you are one who wants the book on film, this may not be for you. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and compare it to other Jane Austen contemporary films such as "Emma" with Gwenthyn Paltrow, "Pride and Prejudice" with Keira Knightley, and "Sense and Sensibility" with Emma Thompson. I proudly will add this to my DVD collection and recommended this movie to those who like the others I have mentioned. (If you have not seen the others - I recommend them too!). Enjoy for you will not see it a moment too soon! :)

I was appalled at this version of 'Mansfield Park,' inasmuch as it bears no real resemblance to the Austen book. (The Austen book is not a comedy; Fanny Price can be a frustrating heroine for a modern reader because she would never dream of "standing up for herself," such a concept would be unthinkable to a character like hers, which represents the ultimate victory of sheer goodness over the blandishments of personality, as represented by the opposing persona of Mary Crawford.) This film's presentation of Fanny Price seems rather to be the director's/writer's supposition of what Jane Austen herself might have been like, but it's not even a fair representation of the voice of the narrator. Filmmakers need far more insight into the premises, not merely of the 18th century in general, but more precisely of the Austen consciousness in particular, not overlooking what a profound place religion played in her heart, and that is what is needed in order to portray Mansfield Park the way it might have seemed to its creator. Of course, then it probaby wouldn't be nearly as popular. Remove the title to this film and it has some merit on its own in terms of crafting, but -- but--.

No, this is not a mirror-image of Austen's work. In fact, it's not even close. However, it is an entertaining film and one that kept me watching, if for nothing else than the splendid myriad of scenes depicting Frances O'Connor strutting around courtyards in an early 19th century corset.

If you are an Austen fan, this film might act as some sort of heretical treatise than an actual depiction of her vision of Mansfield Park, but for people like me, who know next-to-nothing about her work, I can say that the film was highly enjoyable.

PLOT: Fanny Price is sent to live with a very aristocratic family. It is here that she delves into the realm of flirting with simple head-nods and that magic twinkle in your eyes. Drama, untold buckets of drama, unfold, and Fanny learns that to find love through purity is often a very difficult thing. In the end, Fanny finds love, and millions of women once again will be swooning over 19th century romanticism, wishing to God that there were more men nowadays who thought like they did back then.

3.5 out of 5

So the movie isn't a carbon copy of the book. So? Can we move on?
This movie is thoroughly enjoyable in its own right. I am unpleasantly surprised at how many reviewers seem to think this movie focuses too much on slavery. This topic takes up what, 5 percent of the movie? Yes, there is one arguably graphic scene where Fanny discovers Tom's sketchbook with disturbing images from his father's slave plantation. Well, it's pretty accurate, isn't it? Weren't slaves a topic of considerable attention in that time period? Weren't they treated pretty badly? She is horrified and Sir Thomas is ashamed. On to next scene. What was it, two minutes?
Yes there is a split second where we see some breasts. I think the director showed that much of what was going on to drive home the contrast between characters' integrity, and how deeply betrayed Fanny feels afterward. It's just a breast, people. Sheesh.
And I didn't think either of the Fanny/Mary Crawford scenes were suggesting lesbianism in the least, for two good reasons. The first, the play read-through, was entirely for Edmund's benefit. Mary wanted Edmund to "practice" with her, remember. But he refused. By behaving the way she did (with Fanny), Edmund couldn't resist the temptation of being the recipient of such attentions, and indeed agreed to play the role just as Mary wanted.
The second scene in question, after Fanny is caught in the rain in front of the manse, is a pretty typical representation of how intimate female friends spoke and behaved with each other back then- read more history on this subject if you're interested. So Mary tells Fanny she is "so lovely." Can't a woman tell her friend (even if she's only her "friend" to gain access to a man) that she is lovely? Does that make her gay? Come on. Mary wanted to marry for money and was using Fanny as a pawn; end of story.
I thought this movie was wonderful - funny, romantic, suspenseful, and creative. Frances O'Connor is spectacular. Let this movie stand on its own, and let Austen's book stand on its own. There is room on my shelf for both!

If you enjoy Edwardian drama that lets everything hang out, this film may be to your taste. It makes strong statements about infidelity, class relations, race relations. It's very much a 'tell all' of the rich and famous of that time. For that point, it's interesting.

My chief complaint is the story is not as faithful to Jane Austen's work as it should be. There are so many ways this film differs from Jane Austen's version. Bluntly, it all comes down to the producer hammering watchers over the head with concepts such as slavery, infidelity, etc. that were touched on lightly in Austen's book.


Rebecca Kyle, June 2008

This movie did absolutely no credit to Jane Austen's work. It was completely different from the book. All the innocence and morality of Austen's "Mansfield Park" was supplanted by immorality. The director did a horrible job.

While the movie was entertaining...it just wasn't what Jane Austen wrote. Fanny Price was much more headstrong and outspoken in this version than in the book. She wasn't like any of the characters in any of Austen's books. I think I would have enjoyed this movie more if it wasn't called Mansfield Park. I couldn't help but comparing the two, and, thus, was disappointed. However, on it's own merit, it was an entertaining movie. By Austen standards, it just didn't make the mark.

We enjoyed watching this version of Mansfield Park, but prefer another version starring Jemma Redgrave. Although all the actors were good in both, we found the one with Ms. Redgrave more entertaining. Would still recommend it regardless!

It is very dificult to review this film given that the title is "Mansfield Park". I think that the movie might be just fine and interesting on its own, but I feel like it robbed the plot outline and title from a classic Austen novel and then refused to honor it. For those of you who have never read the novel, go ahead and watch the movie as it is interesting and well acted.

If you have or are planning to read the novel, you whould not have anything to do with this film. It's not even close.

I love this updated video version of Jane Austen's Mansfield Park. It is easy to follow and great to watch. I had rented this from my library and dedcided this needed to be in my favorite dvd collection. I have seen the other versions(all are good)but just really liked this one.

This is by far the best film version of Mansfield Park, and is a million times better than the saccharine version starring Billie Piper that has recently been shown on PBS. This is a far more skillfully executed, with the civilized zingers that are so prevalent in Jane Austen novels delivered with panache, instead of the clumsy woodiness so often seen in other productions of Austen. The sensual undertone of sexuality is much more believable than the chaste handling of other directors - I can't believe that the young people of any age tied up their hormones, regardless of the 'rules' of the day. In short, this is a magnificent version, and one which you will pass on to any friends to introduce them to the joy that is Jane Austen.

Very poorly done. I was very, very disappointed. Not in the spirit of the book. I would not recommend this to anyone.

I saw the movie first, and recommended it to a friend who was soon shreiking with laughter at the deviations from the book -- Fanny capering across the yard, chasing Edward with a riding crop, her aunt, whacked out on morphine, etc...

I read the book, enjoyed it, and then came back to the movie.

There are a lot of adaptations whose main purpose is to put as much of the book on screen as possible, keeping everything in the same order, and being fiercely loyal to the author's vision. This is just one person's opinion, but I think that's the wrong way to go. When I want pure Jane Austen, I read.

I think that if a filmmaker goes to the time and effort to make a movie from a favorite book, they have the right to interpret and get creative. (If you disagree, you should probably just stay away from this movie.)

I thought that infusing Fanny with a little of Jane Austen's personality (through her letters and early writing) was a charming reinvention that didn't change Fanny in her essentials. She is still uncompromisingly moral and still trusts herself unflinchingly.

I appreciated the film's focus on the slave trade. It added a lot to the characters of Sir Thomas and Tom to contrast the world of manners with the barbaric "interests in Antigua" that make it all possible. The issues and the manner in which they were addressed were historical and they added to the plot. The rich had worse vices than bored housewives, after all.

Edward was not a very compelling romantic lead in this movie. I thought that was its weakest point. My only other criticism is that there were no front-hook corsets in this period -- but movies always ignore that. It's a tradition :) The costuming and the setting were beautiful. The music fit the mood of the film perfectly

The movie takes Jane Austin's plot, mostly. It slaughters the characters, particularly Fanny Price. The young woman portrayed here bears no resemblance to Miss Austin's creation. She may be a spunky and "modern" person, but she does not have a fraction the depth of the original and is an almost total opposite of her. Edmund is reduced to a shadow figure. Sir Thomas and his lady are both villified, especially the latter. There is no excuse for the liberties taken. The producers could have done a parody set in the present time if they chose, but to destroy the original, to spoil it for people unfamiliar with the book, is unpardonable.

I had no trouble enjoying MANSFIELD PARK because I had no comparison to make to the novel, which I never read. I saw nothing about it that made me think it was catering to 1999's sensibilities, despite the use of a scene where someone is caught in flagrante with another. Aside from that indiscretion, the dialog seemed like authentic Austen to me and the whole affair has been expertly photographed in England, of course, on lush locales that are breathtakingly gorgeous to look at. The swirling camera swerves often from the interior of a room to the vast horizons outside with the greatest of ease.

And, of course, the British cast cannot be praised highly enough. All of them perform to the manor born in the appropriate style. FRANCES O'CONNOR (who closely resembles a young Jennifer Jones) is Fanny Price, the poor girl sent to live with rich relatives at Mansfield Park, who becomes an elegant young woman and a writer. (Sounds suspiciously like the author herself inserting her character on this role).

And JONNY LEE MILLER is Edmund Bertram, a young man obviously smitten with her from the start. It takes the entire running time of the film for the young lovers to discover they always did love each other, but along the way we're treated to some interesting episodes of British class distinction amid the manners and mores of a bygone era, including some sharp bits of humor.

Interesting that after essaying this quiet, unassuming role, Jonny Lee Miller would next take on the fight against a vampire in Dracula 2000. So much for British dexterity and range.

Summing up: Some admirers of the novel seem to be put off by this one, but I have to admit I enjoyed it, even if I did find Fanny's inconsistent feelings about her suitor,Henry, and her inability to make up her mind, rather frustrating at times.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know that this movie is not a true depiction of Austen's book, but an interesting period piece nonetheless!!!

this is still a movie worth watching! While not following Austen's original storyline exactly, the film takes a few liberties that ultimately end up working.

This was a beautiful film!
I loved the characters and felt connected.

This is a must have for any period film lover!

Did not like the story. Quality is good and color excellent. Just not a good story.

This is not the book. The only thing that this shares with the book is its' title. Total dissapointment! Get the BBC version if you don't want to read the book. But you are missing out on a timeless classic.

I remember watching this in 1999 when it came out and not liking it. I just reread the book and decided to give it another go. I loved it! It was so beautifully done and brought in the history of the time with added clarity. Even though some of the things were not in the book specifically, they fit into the puzzle, adding some deeper colors that fit into the period. For example with the understanding of slavery in that time and what was really going on in places like Antigua.

I recieved this movie in good condition and its an awesome movie, its a must see.

Why one star? I didn't know how to leave it empty.

What a disappointment. I wonder that this even qualified for the use of the title. Yes it has the plot and the characters' names, but that's about it. The character development, especially of Fanny is terrible. We don't even know what qualities in Fanny lend her to so "good" as we do in the book and the BBC version, nor would this character even qualify for those qualities. The characters are, unfortunately current "Hollywood" style.

And where was the warning...brief upper nudity scene, I hardly think this was in Jane Austen's style. Leave Mansfield in it's time era, don't try to update it to this time...it just doesn't do.

I was so disappointed I actually got rid of the DVD. It's naughty and not at all a Jane Austen.

The film was not without charm...when it doesn't stray too far from Jane Austins' novel. When it did ...were left with awkward Father/Uncle groping of Fanny and lesbian innuendo....their is also a mini condemnation of slavery and slave raping thrown into this love story.
Patricia Rozema obviously couldn't get people to watch anything she's written so she got Miramax to help her "Update" Jane Austin's "Out of touch" novel...problem is that Jane's work is alive and well and people want to see it when it's done right.
Patricia should at least mess up an man's Novel next time with her over the top PC feminist take of the world. I'm sure here first draft had Fanny falling in love with Mary Crawford.

When you sit down to watch this film, I suggest you rename it in your head. Think of it as being entirely unrelated to the Jane Austen novel and you'll certainly enjoy it. What you absolutely must not do is look for a film that captures Austen's caustic sarcasm or, indeed, most of her novel "Mansfield Park."

Personally, I really do love this film, but only when I'm keeping it separate from Austen's masterpiece. The main problem with this film can be summed up in one person: writer/director Patricia Rozema. What she thought she was doing to the classic novel, I have no idea. She has changed the characters considerably: Fanny, who is shy and timid in the novel, becomes a courageous writer with a sarcastic wit; her uncle, Sir Thomas Bertram becomes an odious man with the intention of trading her off into marriage the same way he trades his slaves; her cousin Tom, rather than living unaware of the needs of anyone else, spends his time balancing between being in a drunken stupor and arguing with his father on behalf of their slaves; her aunt, Lady Bertram, is addictied to opium; and her Aunt Norris is not nearly so snide as in the book. Worst of all, I think, is the complete omission of William, fanny's brother and best friend. Rozema also has given the relationship between Fanny and Mary Crawford an air of lesbianism, which irritated me a great deal. (Rozema says in her commentary that the two scenes which give that feeling were born of Austen's comment on the "fascination of their relationship," though, having read the novel, I can assure you that nothing of the sort is even slightly hinted at.)

The worst flaw in Rozema's film, though, is undoubtedly her commentary on slavery. The audience is basically force fed constant, and sometimes very graphic reminders of where the Bertram's wealth is coming from. The whole slavery subplot detracts from the main story and seems to be more of a shock tactic than anything else.

Luckily, the film has some redeeming qualities in its cast. Hugh Bonneville and Victoria Hamilton are perfect as the absurd Mr. Rushworth and the obnoxiously self-centered Maria. Frances O'Connor is a charming heroine, and the way in which Rozema utilized lines straight from Austen's letters and journals as Fanny's speech gives the audience a chance to place Jane Austen as the heroine of Mansfield Park, as well as granting us a rare chance to hear more examples of her sharp wit.

So, keep it separate from the book, try not to get lost by the slavery subplot, sit back and enjoy an otherwise beautiful film!

Good modern version. It took some liberties with the plot. It cut out several storylines for minor characters which is expected for a movie. I liked the BBC mini-series better because it was able to develop charatcters & the story better.

This version of Mansfield Park still has some of the same themes as all of the movies made from Austen's (a woman's plight, lack of power, and meddlesome family involving matters of the heart) but it also focuses on the slavery issue and the conflicting feelings of those involved, to the point that the son is incredibly self-desctuctive precisely because of his opposition to that horror of history. The characters are colorful but this story is darker both in the slavery aspect and in the details of the Price family's poverty. It does have some bright aspects including a happy ending for most of the parties involved. Also, one thing I found intersting was that the father offered to allow his daughter a way out of an advantageous upcoming marriage if she didn't feel happy. He was more concerned with the prospect of her happiness than with the "connection". Great job on that character in this movie because his concern for his daughter, along with his obvious conflict over the issue of slavery, allowed us to have some sympathy for him.

Of course, Jane Austin is at her best in this novel. A revealing notion of the life in the 18th century England. The love story is unusual and intense. The actors are super, too.

I've not read the novel on which this sumptuous film was based, so I cannot compare the two. I can only note that I loved both the stillness and the scenery in this class-act production. It was a very stylish film that I liked well enough to order for myself the same day I saw it on television. It was a thing of beauty that told an addictively involving story.

This is a most entertaining and enjoyable piece of work by Jane Austen. It is delightful, witty and just a must see!! I have only had it a little while and all ready I have seen it more times than I can count.

This would have been an interesting movie if the film makers had titled it something other than "Mansfield Park." However, since they chose to present it as a rendition of the Jane Austen novel, I think they took far too many liberties with the story.

The biggest difference was in the character of Fanny Price. No matter how badly we in the twenty-first century want to believe it, she was *not* a modern, outspoken, independent woman. She was deeply conservative. If the film makers disliked that aspect, why choose this book to film at all?

No film can completely capture the spirit of a novel. But when I watch an adaptation I want to feel that it was created with a fundamental level of understanding of the book, and appreciation for it. This film fails.

So often Austen movies are mis-cast and the characters you loved become just annoying. I think this movie was cast great. I realize that some liberties were taken, but I thought the tone was great. It moves fast, and Fanny Price is given more life than the book did. It makes her out to be a little bit more like Austen herself would be in my immagination. When so many of the other movies have blown it (by casting too old, too stupid, too mean etc,) this movie got a lot of things right. It made me want to read the book again which was probably a good goal for them.

I greatly enjoyed this movie. While the characters are different from the book, the plot is essentially the same. The literary Fanny is, to put it bluntly, a "drip" and the literary Edmund is a sanctimonious prig. The Fanny in the film is bright, sardonic, and literary-minded, much like the young Jane Austen, while still being high-minded and loving. This Edmund, while still being serious and with a vocation for the church, is more capable of having fun. One can see why they're together. In the book, I couldn't.

I'm glad I chose to rent this before I bought. I own many Austen romances in movie form, but I won't bother buying this one. I didn't care for the interpretation at all. The cast had decent potential, but no one really stood out. This really wasn't romantically protrayed. I also didn't appreciate the raunchy undertones that were added. Not necessary and not appropriate for a wide audience.