Wow! Such a good movie.

Truly Dreadful Film

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

It's great to have such "natural" acting, but a shame that this means a lot of mumbling and muttering in the British accent and vernacular. I have to turn up the volume very loud and still cannot make out so much that entire scenes go by where I have no idea what was said.Otherwise, just from trying to watch this film I can tell it is probably a very good movie -- IF you can understand it. If one could get a copy with good English subtitles it would be well worth it, no doubt, if your first language is not British English. (Unfortunately the only copy I have access to right now is mechanically translated, which machine is worse than me at making out what is being said!)

Although I have read all of Jane Austen, I am not a particular fan; I prefer her over any Brontë, but far prefer Eliot, Dickens, and Hardy over the lot of them. My favorite of her novels is her last, Persuasion, so I was poised to have my high hopes dashed. But this film exceeded even elevated expectations for reasons visual, verbal-- and reverential (the marvelous Ciarán Hinds as Captain Wentworth).First, the visuals. Film adaptations of Austen (and her ilk) generally deliver a touch of grime along with glamor, but it's invariably picturesque: the tattered and torn peasants and ruffians are museum-quality. Not here. Director Roger Michel gets plain old mud on the skirts of his ladies during their long walks. Bad and/or yellow teeth abound, as they did in 1814, nowhere more notoriously than in England. Such small details are big indicators of how Michel, like Austen, prefers honest naturalism to pure aestheticism. Ivory-tower film-making is left to the likes of Merchant and Ivory.I hasten to add, however, that Michel also left the costume design to a very talented 33-year old, Alexandra Byrne, who went on to win an Oscar (for Elizabethan togs). Her Empire dresses and Royal navy chapeau-bras will not leave you wistful for Greer Garson wearing Adrian.As to the verbal: The screenplay perpetuates, as it should, Austen's repair to caricature for her satire. It is one of the author's failings, and it is writ large here; protagonist Anne (delicately brought to life by Amanda Root) is the only member of the Elliott family who isn't a grotesque: vain Sir Walter, strident Elizabeth, narcissistic Mary--all lack complexity, as do most of the women and many of the men. The caricatures do, however, provide comic context for the heart of the story. The number of times dutiful, plain Anne is influenced by persuasion from one buffoon or another is effectively stifling, and is therefore one of the ways in which this film adaptation truly reflects the novel. But this is cinema, not literature. Certain key moments in the film, some of them silent, reveal more than the dialog does to attentive viewers . At the shore in Lyme, all characters but two play with the sand and the surf; the two are Wentworth, who stares out at his true home, the sea, and Anne, who also simply gazes serenely out over the water toward— freedom? adventure? Wentworth's true home? It sets Anne apart with lovely subtlety. Another moment occurs at the end (which returns to the opening scene, with ships), when she and Wentworth set sail. At the sight of their the full-rigged ship, I felt a tug toward freedom, too, away from all the persuasive pressures of society. Wentworth's ship, now her home too, truly did feel like independence, perhaps especially for a woman whose horizons in the early 19th century were still barbarically circumscribed.

This film is so flawless, it's hard to think of a place where it misses a single beat. I'm a great fan of the Merchant/Ivory cannon, and believe them to be unbeatable in their perfection of the Ideal. Here we are given a masterful lesson by Roger Michell in the perfectly Real. And it's OK to like both. I do not agree at all with the premise that romance and long dresses make any movie a chick flick, which is a fairly modern invention - both in grammar and a particular vein of shallow popular movie making. This is not that, and I cannot watch a true chick flick - they're not even good movies, none of them will be named here, you know which ones they are.Most of the well known period pieces made in the last 20 years are some of the very best movies we have. I think them not so much an acquired taste, as an appreciation that must be learned. Like many of the finer things and varied seasons of your life, it took someone showing you before you knew what you were looking at, or looking for. It is that way here. Once you see the truth they have to tell, then decide you don't prefer them - at least you've validated your own choice through actual experience. But to dismiss them out of hand from ignorance, or prejudice, or misplaced masculinity makes such a view less relevant. And I think more importantly, causes you to miss out on something you might find quite beautiful, had you seen it.For the uninitiated, let me take a moment to explain. It is the inner beauty of good people, the proper behavior and right conduct toward others as a societal norm - just because they are others like yourself, not because you wanted anything from them. Real Gentleman and True Ladies. This all happened for the first time in history on this scale and at this level within the Victorian and Edwardian eras. Though this is the period right before the Victorian, they are directly connected and that's what is on display here. It will feed your spirit if you let it. All of which comes out of the ethics and morality of Christian nations, and does not trace back to any other cultures on the earth.Just as the West came out of the Greece of Alexander, the modern world was birthed by the Britain of this time, and everyone knows it. The turn into the 20th century is the end of the England we Americans as a society, came out of. We did not get this goodness in us as a nation from ourselves, we got it from someone who had it before us. Good Infection as C.S. Lewis calls it. There is hypocrisy, contradiction and cruelty, of course, and people who are not so nice - that comes with a fallen race. But that is not what you are being shown. There is no excellence in the error of men, there is no light in their darkness. Darkness is the absence of Light - Light displaces it. All of the bad that men have done to each other is hardly worth making a film about, on it's own.Good films come from good stories, and stories get their strength from the Power of Words. Like the ones I'm using here. It's a power that God put into words, man had nothing to do with it. Films and stories are important only because Words are important. If it sounds like I'm preaching a little, you can't fault me for that - that's what Preachers do. So do film makers, film goers, writers, and people - like you. All with something to say, when given a chance - will say it. And everything ever said will be Judged.Thus ends my attempt at persuasion, for those of you who might give great period pieces a view. Let their good words minister, let their morality speak. In an age where people have become products, and talk is cheap. You'll get a little bit of help from the Light that is in them. A spoonful at a time is all we are given, because a spoonful is all we can handle. Pictures, and words and stories of the way people used to be. The goodness of God is the goodness that you see. Including the goodness in films like Persuasion - an example of how good film making ought to be.

Ann (Amanda Root) is the daughter of a spendthrift aristocrat (Corin Redgrave). When funds run low, the family is forced to vacate their stately mansion, rent the house to a retired Navy admiral, and move to smaller quarters in Bath. Ann's sister and father run off blithely, leaving Ann to tie up the loose ends of the arrangement. A kind and wealthy neighbor lady offers help but Ann, who once followed the lady's advice in rejecting a worthy man's proposal, confides to the neighbor that she should have accepted the offer. Nevertheless, Ann is impressed by the new tenants of their house and is startled to learn that the admiral's wife is the sister of the man Ann rejected long ago. As Ann trots off to visit another sister (Sophie Thompson) and her two young boys, she runs into her former admirer, Captain Wentworth. Only now, their situations are reversed, for the Captain has gained wealth and reputation while Ann's monetary funding is in decline. And, he ignores Ann for the most part and concentrates his attentions on the pretty younger sisters of Ann's brother in law. Ann, however, soon realizes she still loves him. What's a poor girl to do? This is a very fine movie, lovely to look at and featuring great performances, too. Thompson is an absolute stitch while the the other cast members, including Redgrave and Fiona Shaw, are first rate. Root is a conundrum, giving a very nice, quietly thoughtful performance but she does not have the dazzling appearance of most leading ladies. Perhaps, that is what Austen would have wanted. Costumes and scenery are of the put-your-eye-out variety. The main problem of the film is that it assumes too much, that the viewer is familiar with the book. Instead, the movie watcher is thrown into the Georgian world, without sufficient explanations of what is occurring or why. Most other adaptations of a well-loved book will, subtly, inform the viewer of the reasons behind the action, but not this one. Therefore, one may have to view the film a second time or sit down and read the wonderful book to feel the full impact of the movie's story. But, then again, nevermind. This is a lovely, classy film with an amazing set of characters and situations. Do not let anyone, even this reviewer, persuade you from getting this film tonight. It is totally worthy of much praise.