Mansfield Park (1999) - Comedy, Drama, Romance

Hohum Score

9

Engaging

At 10, Fanny Price, a poor relation, goes to live at Mansfield Park, the estate of her aunt's husband, Sir Thomas. Clever, studious, and a writer with an ironic imagination and fine moral ...

IMDB: 7.1
Director: Patricia Rozema
Stars: Frances O'Connor, Jonny Lee Miller
Length: 112 Minutes
PG Rating: PG-13
Reviews: 27 out of 184 found boring (14.67%)

One-line Reviews (99)

Why else would Mr. Crawford find her compelling?

But I thought the film was fascinating, because it reveals a huge problem that filmmakers, especially, face.

In 'Emma', for example, the joy was in a precocious young heroine gradually learning that there were things she did not know; but haughty Fanny Price, the main character in this film, is always right, witty, invariably possessed of good judgment and anachronistic feminist attitudes - in other words, completely unbearable.

Early on, we see Mrs. Norris, a mean-spirited, pretentious attachment to the Bertram estate, express shock upon hearing Sir Thomas' assumption that Fanny will move into her and Mr. Norris' cottage.

Full of dull characters, doing dull things, in even more dull times I thought.

" A crucial bit of missing information is that after Maria got married , Henry was bored visiting at the parsonage and is making Fanny fall in love with him because he had nothing better to do.

Such a character isn't especially appealing to today's moviegoers, and it's hard to make such a character engaging.

I found this Fanny a truly engaging character, and for the first time I found myself cheering for her and Edmund (in the book I couldn't care less about her love for him, and the only reason I wasn't surprised he returned her affections in the end is because it's an Austen book and I knew the heroine would get her happy ending).

Fanny is transformed from the unpleasant insipid and boring character in the book to a thoroughly obnoxious, totally modern, and very rude woman who would have been ejected from that century before she caused a break in the space/time continuum.

I wouldn't say it's one of the best movies ever made, but it's certainly enjoyable enough.

The acting (with the possible exception of the film's Edmund, Jonny Lee Miller, who seems a trifle too bland) is top-notch, especially Embeth Davidtz and Alessandro Nivola as the worldly Crawford siblings, Frances O'Connor as Fanny, and playwright Harold Pinter as Sir Thomas.

A solid film, highly enjoyable and watchable.

Simply uninteresting.

" Beyond the name of the book, and the names of the characters, the movie bore almost no resemblance.

Overall, pretty and well-acted, but dull and probably the most disappointing Austen adaptation I've seen thus far.

But if I were to watch it as a stand alone movie, I would find it rather enjoyable and well put together.

This is the one novel of Austen's that gets her in trouble for her languid views on the uncle's use of slaves in the West Indies.

Don't waste your time with this crap!

Lovely to watch and good acting, but rather dull and disappointing .

But it is entertaining and delightful.

I in fact read, or tried to read, the book and found it dull and uninspiring, unlike other Austen novels.

It may very well be impossible to satisfy some Jane Austen purists, but director Patricia Rozema and her crew deserve commendation for this enjoyable and intelligently made adaptation.

The Bertram sisters Maria and Julia both vie for Henry despite the fact that Maria is already engaged to the dull Rushworth.

In doing so, I found it interesting, exciting, emotional, and dramatic.

I didn't entirely hate this Mansfield Park, the photography, costumes and locations are stunning, and the acting particularly from Johnny Lee Miller, Lindsay Duncan and Harold Pinter is very good.

Worth watching - A good solid film, a charming interpretation .

I found this movie to be an enjoyable watch.

An enjoyable watch, from someone who didn't read the book .

The screen play was confusing, and ingored several key elements...

An entertaining story that did deviate from the book .

The opening sequence is a stunning statement of intent, as young Fanny arrives at Mansfield Park.

I'd like to see the BBC miniseries of "Mansfield Park" and see if that's any more enjoyable.

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.

Gorgeous costumes and sets, evocative music.

Casting included a glamorous looking Embeth Davidtz as Mary Crawford, Alessandro Nivola as Henry Crawford, Jonny Lee Miller as Edmund (Jonny first appeared in the computer intensive 1995 "Hackers" with Angelina Jolie), and an impressive performance by young Hannah Taylor-Gordon who portrayed Fanny in her childhood days (Hannah did a remarkable job in 1999 "Jakob the Liar" opposite Robin Williams).

It was not entertaining by any standard, just a waste of time and certainly not worth the admission price.

The dialogs are sometimes modern and sometimes period - very confusing.

The themes of slavery are drawn out well, and neatly linked to ideas of servility and entrapment of women in late eighte enth century society.

What makes this movie enjoyable for me, though, when I manage to mentally separate it from the novel I love, is the pretty and somewhat unconventional directing.

In many ways similar to Richardson's TOM JONES, what is most exciting about the film is that it does not take its cue from the society under scrutiny, fidelity to which makes so many 'classic' adaptations so stilted and sterile, but its extraordinary heroine, with its seemingly capricious shifts in tone, sprightly, often hand-held camerawork, a style laced with deceptive irony and yet emotionally devastating (the film is quite stunning in its representation of the place of omen at the time, and much more sympathetic to 'aberrant' characters like Mariah than Fanny).

Pretty but unmistakably dull .

The main difficulty lies in the character of its heroine, Fanny Price, a quiet, timid girl to a modern audience can seem at best dull and insipid and at worst self-righteous and priggish Kingsley Amis went so far as to describe her as "morally detestable".

To my surprise then, I found this to be a well-crafted and entertaining film.

Besides not following the basic elements of the story, the actual film is confusing.

Enjoyable Having Not Read the Book .

Visually, the film is gorgeous, capturing the many-hued brilliance of the tranquil English countryside and the dreary, somber grayness of Fanny's impoverished seaside home with equal effectiveness.

That would have made for more exciting viewing.

All in all I thought it was a very enjoyable and witty (because of the little commentary Fanny does to the camera) It was also refreshing to get some of the issues that Austin glossed over included.

The smoldering sexual tension between these beautiful young actors, along side the cold and mannered social practices of the day make this an entertaining film to watch.

After a while, you need to keep a score card based on who loves whom, this one's sister likes that one, etc.The picture is one big boring episode.

This Fanny is actually exciting, to quote Edmund, [her] "entire person is entirely agreeable".

we've all known someone just as empty-headed as the character Austen created.

I found Fanny boring, and to me Edmund truly seemed to treat her like a sister in the book, and I remember thinking that if I were him I wouldn't have romantic feelings for such an insipid person either (to be honest, he was pretty dull himself).

It is as trite and nerveless an approach as the current trend to replace Christmas Trees with Holiday Trees.

And then, there is the confusing "play within play" plot which further muddles the story.

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.

Jane Austin's life story was interesting, but boring.

The music is annoyingly repetitive - a single chord that plays over and over.

Those who say this film does not resemble the book at all, or has "nothing to do" with the book, or that Fanny Price is "the complete opposite" of the character in the book have in truth either never really read the story, or are engaging in extremely careless exaggerations.

This version of Mansfield Park is very entertaining and great fun to watch.

Although her stories are quite predictable, they are usually very enjoyable.

What made the whole movie work is O'Conner's portrayal of Fanny, if they have made Fanny timid and shy and submissive as had been suggested, I think the movie would've been boring and turned me off Austen forever (now I'm going to find P&P and S&S to watch).

I remember having to read Pride and Prejudice for English class in 9th grade, it bored me to sleep.

I found this film immensely boring.

If the director had stayed true to Jane Austen's superb "Mansfield Park" this film could have been enjoyable and full of life, instead it was flat & a waste of my time.

At times i felt bored and confused.

Enjoyable adaptation .

The "writers" clearly felt the need to jazz up and otherwise admittedly somewhat dull story with a twisted sexual theme.

All these things notwithstanding, up to a point it's entertaining enough.

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.

A couple of people walked out about 1/3 of the way through the screening I attended, and several others walked out just as the credits began.

It stands out and is particularly entertaining.

Waste Of Time .

A very boring adaptation of Jane Austen's splendid book .

And the dialogue is intelligent and truly engaging.

Then it is more enjoyable.

it is fairly entertaining and does keep you interested throughout.

I thought the tension was built well before Sir Thomas caught the family practicing "Lovers vows" but it was pointless becuase he didn't even get angry.

I read Pride and Prejudice in a first year literary class, but it was a fairly dull experience for me, and I have never picked up Mansfield Park once.

I saw an earlier version of Mansfield Park Mini-series and as it followed the book it was very boring and confusing.

I enjoyed it very much in its own fashion.

Actually, `Mansfield Park' emerges as a reasonably entertaining film, true to the spirit of Austen in its sharp-witted dialogue and its exploration of ever-shifting romantic relationships that are the staples of all the author's works.

The other characters are rather dull and devoid of the personalities that made them so compelling in the book.

I always thought her novels to be boring insipid and simpering when force upon us as unwilling students in English Lit classes.

Enjoyable, gorgeous to look at version of the Austen story...

The end result is a mass of confusion which attempts to focus on Jane Austen's book "Mansfield Park", biographical sketches of Jane Austen herself, as well as an historical look back at black slavery issues simultaneously and doing none justice.

and having Jonny Lee Miller and Alessandro Nivola just made this movie a little more enjoyable, if you catch my drift.

Nevertheless, the film was very touching as well as entertaining.

Twisted -- but enjoyable -- Austen .

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.

Austen's novels are slow, delicate sketches, not terribly suited for film.

What works on the printed page does not always work well on the screen, and a film which attempted to preserve the Fanny of Austen's novel would probably come out as intolerably dull, like the lifeless BBC TV series made in the eighties.

This delightful and well-crafted film is very entertaining and enjoyable.

You know, some of the classics are classic, and some are just pretty boring.

I cannot put it more plainly than to say that this one of the worst movies I have seen.

The pace can be sluggish at times and the music is repetitive and over-bearing, while the writing is stilted and takes you out the era and the story is muddled and because of omissions like the Grants there is not enough of the themes here that shaped the original story so well.

Rozema has cured dull Fanny's rectitude and given us all the benefit of Rozema's superior insight and cultural sensitivity.

Entertaining .

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.