Palácio das Ilusões

This isn't an awful movie. It's quite watchable. Some of the acting, especially from Pinter is excellent.

But the rest resembles those films made from classic novels in the 30s where no one concerned in making it had time to read the book. A quick treatment by a college student, a quick script conference, then off we go. Rozema has almost no idea of what the book is about but is entirely unembarrassed by her ignorance in her interview on the DVD.

Austen fans don't have to wait long to discover just how far off the wavelength she is. The first contact between Sir Thomas and Fanny is a reproof for running through MP's corridors shrieking like a banshee. Lines are taken from Mary Crawford in the book and given to Fanny in the film. How's that for missing the point? One by one characters appear looking no more recognisable than if they were appearing in a literary celebrity edition of Scooby Doo.

I agree with other reviewers that if the film was called something else and the characters had different names, it would be impossible to trace it's origins to Austen's book which is definitely not a conventional love story about bright young things getting together having overcome a few obstacles.

There's very little to choose between the morals of Rozema's characters, so nothing of the catastrophic descent into the abyss is associated with the production of Lover's Vows, nor do we have any glimpse of Rushworth and Crawford vandalising Sotherton. Mrs Norris is one of the most deliciously evil creations in literature - Rozema reduces her part to a few lines. Thomas Betram is a "modern" artist - yikes! William Price, Fanny's brother and one of the key relationships in the book, is missing altogether. Susan, her sister, has been reading too many Style magazines.

Mansfield Park might have been a bit like this had it been written by Georgette Heyer or even Jackie Collins. As an Austen adaptation it is execrable. But it's so far off the mark, that as something else entirely, it's not all that bad. Maybe they should just change the title.

What has this movie done to a book as charming as 'Mansfield Park'?! The storyline has been altered until it is virtually unrecognisable! Fanny Price is nothing like she is in the book, the other characters have been equally changed for the worst and as far as I could tell hardly any of Austen's witty prose has been retained!! It seems this adaptation is 'Mansfield Park' in name only.

This is probably the most difficult of Austen's novels to bring to the big screen because the characters are so much a product of their time. Fanny is supposed to be shy, submissive, compassionate and pious. She was never outspoken, headstrong or feisty. In short, she is not Elizabeth Bennet and she never will be. To attempt to portray Fanny in this light is missing the point of her whole character. She is dull and boring by today's standards, but her disposition was admirable during the time that she lived.

I really don't know what the filmmakers were thinking with this adaptation - they probably weren't!! At any rate, it is only because Jane Austen is long dead that they would dare to produce this version. If you haven't read the book you'll probably enjoy it. If you have read the book, don't bother with this. It will ruin your whole experience of the novel.

Having read and loathed the book (relatively speaking of course; I usually love Austen), I went into the theater with no small trepidation. The book "Mansfield Park" has a singularly unappealing protagonist in Fanny Price, a simpering and timid milksop, which was a big shock after "Pride and Prejudice" whose Elizabeth Bennett is surely one of the most enchanting fictional heroines ever. The book is also dense and long without the trademark Austen lively wit. And then, there is the confusing "play within play" plot which further muddles the story.

OK, I got that off my chest. Phew. Now about the movie. I enjoyed it very much in its own fashion. It is rather unfaithful to the book, other than the general plot line. That's not necessarily a bad thing. In this free adaptation of Austen via Rozema, Fanny is portrayed as a determined woman, of intelligence, strength of character and mischief. She is more Austen and Elizabeth Bennett than the Fanny from the book, and her appeal is magnified by the performance of the wonderfully expressive new Australian actress, Frances O'Connor. They also canned the whole thing about the play (just barely skimmed over), thank God. The story moves along briskly, starting with the poor relation Fanny coming to live with the rich Bertrams, then making friends with the second son Edmund whom she comes to love as she matures into young womanhood. As with all Austen novels, it is about an independent-minded woman who finds her way into a wedded bliss, through many trials and tribulations. Between Fanny and her heart's desires lay obstacles, mainly in the form of a very attractive but amoral pair of brother and sister, Henry and Mary Crawford. Mary sets her sight on Edmund, and Henry, although initially interested in the empty-brained Bertram sisters, starts pursuing Fanny. The chase begins as a challenge, but gradually turns into something resembling a genuine feeling. In Rozema's hand, Henry is a scoundrel but is made rather appealing and sympathetic, someone who gives the annoyingly decent Edmund a fair competition. Fanny almost gives into him (not so in the novel) and her resolution to hold onto her true love is made more courageous because of Henry's appeal.

The movie is lovely to look at, and the music is appropriately frothy. The performances are variable, with the clear distinction in the outstanding Ms. O'Connor. Embeth Davitz's turn as mercenary Mary is chilling, and Harold Pinter is excellent as the mercurial Sir Bertram, who is simultaneously affable and brutal. I had the most problems with Johnny Lee Miller's Edmund, whose wooden delivery made me wonder why he had Fanny's devotion.

The film's not a masterpiece by any stretch (and is inferior to SENSE AND SENSIBILITY in wit and to PERSUASION in heart), but nonetheless very enjoyable. A lesser Austen is still an Austen, I guess. The film also has a modern sensibility that's sometimes jarring. There is a very 20th century outrage in slavery, quirky pauses in camera work, Fanny talking directly to the camera (tricky but it works) and even a hint of lesbianism that's rather uncalled forAt any rate, it's entertaining, different, and worth the price of admission just to see the luminous Frances O'Connor. I feel I owe her a small debt of gratitude for making Fanny finally palatable, and for that, I expect grand things from this actress.

Maybe it was a mistake to watch this adaption of Mansfield Park the day I finished reading the novel. This production is too modern. Now I understand that they probably wanted to make it "more appealing" to today's moviegoers, and I know that it's hard to fit all a book into a film - but why did they change the essence of who Fanny Price is? She is a highly moral, quiet, smart, very put-upon young lady. While Frances O'Connor is a wonderful actress, she played Fanny all wrong. She was smiling (constantly), having pillow fights, speaking her mind. There was no sense of period or restraint in her portrayal. I think the writer/director should have had more faith in the characters in the book.

With so many storylines to choose from in the book, I wonder why new ones were added, such as the slave trade and opium use? It is a shame that Sir Thomas didn't have the character arc seen in the book, that has him appreciate Fanny more and show her greater kindness when he returns from Antigua. In the film he is just always a big, mean bully. Jonny Lee Miller's Edmund is not nearly pious and conflicted enough. He is meant to be joining the clergy.

I am sure I would have thought it was an average film if I didn't know the original source, but it was a big disappointment.

Although I know better than to expect a "pure" adaptation of a novel when Hollywood gets hold of it, I was nevertheless unprepared for the horrible mangling this novel received at the hands of the screenwriter. Having immensely enjoyed recent renderings of "Sense and Sensibility," "Emma," and various versions of "Pride and Prejudice," I expected to receive similar enjoyment from this film. I had not read any reviews or advance press before watching it. I had, unfortunately, just read the book itself this summer and it was fresh in my mind. In my opinion this is the WORST rendition of a Jane Austen work I have ever seen. Perhaps if I had never read the book, I might have enjoyed it somewhat more, but to me it was unbearable to see a book I thoroughly enjoyed so completely rewritten. I am astonished at the comments of some of the reviewers here opining that Jane Austen would have approved. Poppycock!

I began to feel sick early on. To me, the character of Fanny Price and other major characters bore as much resemblance to Jane Austen's heroine as Danny Devito bore to Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Twins." The entire invention of Fanny as a budding writer, the deletion of her younger brother who was so important in the plot concerning Henry Crawford, the image of Fanny as somewhat outspoken and rebellious, the depiction of Fanny's aunt as an opium addict and her uncle as a brutish, raping slaveowner.... The list goes on and on. Henry and Maria being caught by Fanny in the house, Fanny voluntarily kissing Henry and agreeing to marry him and then retracting. Ugh!

I really detest writers who want to mold everything in the modern vein. Fanny Price was not a modern heroine, but she fit her time. There was far too much PC propaganda and feminist hogwash which you might expect in a movie about our society but is ridiculous set against Fanny's time. She was devout, loyal, quiet, humble, stubborn only in her keen perception of others' character as measured against her conviction of what was good and what was not, possessing an innate strength of character which did not rely on others' perception of her and which she refused to compromise. Jane Austen would not have approved of this new Fanny for precisely this reason: her Fanny did not care about the "new" conventions of moral thought and permissiveness in her own society. The movie downplayed the seriously flawed characters of Henry Crawford and his sister. It portrayed him far too sympathetically, made it appear that he truly and deeply loved Fanny and seemed to blame Fanny's (non-existent) double-mindedness for his downfall.

All in all, this is an extremely disappointing film if one cares about what was really written in Mansfield Park. I think "Clueless" as a modern version of "Emma" (and which I also enjoyed) is more true to Austen than this let-down of a movie.