Wonderful character development!

Perfectly adorable

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

I never get over how some reviewers simply expect too much from an 84 minute film . Any adaptation of Mansfield Park would certainly benefit from a four part , four hour miniseries ; this rendition cuts out Fanny's return to Portsmouth completely and leaves out a significant minor character , Yates , thereby cutting corners badly on the playful attempt to perform a play at Mansfield Park . So why do I give it a 10 ? The gist of any Austin novel is in the subtleties of the relationships , pure and simple , and this adaptation does a superb job in doing just that ....with the most significant relationships ( again , three or four hours would be needed to do the job adequately ) . Piper plays the mild and reserved Fanny perfectly in the limited time given , in every stage of her relationship with Edmund . BBC did a superb job back in 1998 wit Far From the Madding Crowd , layering in fine detail ( at the expense of cinematography ) the movie versions just couldn't fit in . Mansfield Park deserves the same . However , this low budget gem will be appreciated by anyone with the sense to realize that this is not a miniseries !

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.

This is a really disappointing version of a clever book, with inappropriate characterisations and appalling acting from its lead actress. As Fanny Price, Billie Piper is just wrong in every respect - too modern, too flirtatious, and too aware of her station.However there are some compensations, even if the characters are portrayed with little reference to the original book - Douglas Hodge, Jemma Redgrave, and Maggie O'Neill are pretty good, while Blake Ritson has a decent stab at the role of Edmund.It just doesn't feel right or have the correct sense of period. It's a bit without character, and a missed opportunity.

For a teenager who has never read Austen, this adaptation might be fine. But only for them. This is a disjointed "Cliff Notes" version of Mansfield Park, and if you have not seen another version or read the books parts of it would be head scratching.Why has it been so hard to do a good adaptation of this book? The one in the 1990s took such liberties that it barely seemed to be the same book - the mindset was completely modern and prurient.Here we have Billie Piper who looks like a pretty country wench. She has a charming personality that develops nicely - but she has flagrantly died blonde hair, with black eyebrows and - through much of the pic - dark brown roots. So much for unspoiled cousin. It is incredibly distracting, and the rest of the cast is in the greasy hair, rumpled clothing genre that shows a real disrespect for period accuracy.One thing is good here - Haley Atwell is the best Mary Crawford of all the versions. She is note perfect, flirtatious without being at all modern or suggestive, flippant and completely without any moral or ethical compass. Henry here is actually good looking enough to be a slight temptation for our heroine.Jemma Redgrave takes one of the most interesting roles in the story and manages to make her actually boring until her last scene - much too sensible. This is just a production that really missed the mark, a real low for Austen fans.The only serviceable version is the one with odd duck (perfect for the role) Sylvestra La Touzel (despite the very very gay Henry Crawford - he's just laughable).