I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

For any book purist there is much to nitpick about this version of Persuasion. Filled with odd script and directorial choices which include Anne breaking the fourth wall and staring into the camera, a determination to make the film visually dour, and a last minute long-take sequence that borders on the sheer absurd, it is nevertheless anchored by some fabulous acting and chemistry. And isn't that all we really want from an Austen adaptation? Sally Hawkins plays Anne Elliot, a 27 year old spinster from a wealthy family who was once engaged to the handsome but titleless Frederick Wentworth. Years later Anne is now considered withered, plain and doomed to spinsterhood (Regency England was so harsh to 27 year old women!). On top of it all her impractical and vain father has squandered much of the family fortune. Into this mess ventures Wentworth, as handsome as ever and now graced with a fortune that makes him a very eligible suitor indeed. Everything seems cold between Anne and Wentworth and she resigns herself to watching him marry a much younger woman... but sparks fly between the old lovers and hope grows in Anne again. The story is one of my favourite Austen books but be warned! If you liked the novel this adaptation eschews huge chunks in order of brevity. And yet I can't help loving this adaptation and it's probably my favourite one. Hawkins is a perfect Anne and Rupert Penry-Jones is an excellent Wentworth. The two of them exchange enough burning glances to light a spark in this rather dour adaptation. With such perfect chemistry it's only a pity that they are surrounded by a better film.

This version is far worse than the 90's version. I did not like the actress that played Anne in this version. Frederick was acceptable, although could be a little more weather-beaten, but Anne was not good. She seemed desperate with all the crying and running around. In the book, Anne is affected by his presence in the beginning and reminiscing the past and her decision, but she is not crying and longing for him! She actually wants to avoid him! She grows to feel the full extent of love again and is behaving as a lady ought to behave in these times. In the 2007 movie version Anne is deeply touched by the news that Fredrick is back from the sea and she even cries! Book's Anne is more composed. The fact that in the movie, they made her write a diary seems enough to show her feelings about Fredrick, crying wasn't necessary.

Despite a perfectly good cast and pleasant scenery, this production was absolutely execrable. Astonishingly so.'Persuasion' is my favourite of Austen's novels, and the 1995 TV version was an exceptionally good adaptation in terms of tone, performance and translation of the text. This version, in stark contrast, has evidently been made by a collection of people who think 'irony' means 'like iron', and who have somehow failed to notice that Jane Austen is FUNNY. It was so painful to watch that eventually I had to turn it off; I know it's bad form to review something one hasn't watched all the way through, but this was so thoroughly dreadful that I cannot conceive of any way in which it could have been salvaged.Austen is, amongst other things, one of our most gifted comic writers, and 'Persuasion' is a funny, funny book. It's Austen's take on the Cinderella story, and (as ever) she's poisonously funny and merciless about the flaws of her characters, even as she makes the reader care about her protagonist and hope against hope that she'll escape from her crappy family and make herself a life with the guy who gets her.It most emphatically is NOT a dull, whiny, emo, earnest Hallmark Channel romance. Dear God. This was SO BAD. And I felt sorry for the actors, whom I don't hold responsible at all: this wasn't a case of people being unable to act, it was a case of the scriptwriter and director having completely misunderstood their source text, stripping away all the wit and charm and lightness of touch - all the things that make it AUSTEN, rather than Catherine Cookson. (Cookson's working class characters generally have greater pressure and trauma to deal with than genteel poverty and/or unhappiness, so a greater degree of emo is justified. With Austen? Not so much.) Given the crappy script and direction with which they were presented, the cast did the best they could. Unfortunately, they were being directed by an idiot.It's folly to suppose that you can only have depth or pathos if everything remains heavy handed weepy emo all the way through, with sappy mournful incidental music hammering away the message that Poor Anne Is Sad. All these interminable close-ups of the actress looking miserable were endlessly dull, and the various supporting characters came across as cardboard cut-outs, rather than the richly observed, horrifyingly recognisable monsters that they mostly are. It's painful having to watch the excellent Anthony Head being given what should be such a juicy role in Sir Walter, and not being allowed to do it justice because the script has reduced him to a dull cypher.I can only imagine this adaptation being enjoyable to someone if they are related to a cast member, or if they are labouring under the misapprehension that Jane Austen's books are interchangeable with any random Mills'n'Boon historical romance. (Newsflash: they aren't.) It's no coincidence that both 'Bridget Jones's Diary' and 'Clueless' are hilarious. These modern adaptations of Austen texts stick pretty damn closely to the spirit of the originals: they are FUNNY. That doesn't mean they can't be touching, or even have moments of pathos, but, by God, they are most definitely not emo.In conclusion: if you actually like Jane Austen, and are not related to a cast member, I strongly suggest you give this a body swerve and check out the excellent 1995 version instead. This is DIRE.

I think it very telling that so many people, without having discussed it first, had the same reaction to the long awaited "kiss" at the end of the film. She looked like a fish. A gasping, dying fish. Yeah, I get that she ran all over town (still not sure why they played it that way) but come ON! That had to be the worst on screen kiss in the history of kisses. The only reason I didn't give this movie a single star is because of the guy who played Frederick. He was easy on the eyes and not a horrible actor. But even he wasn't enough to get me to ever watch this travesty again. I'm a romantic and I've seen my share of climax of the story kisses and this . . . this deserves to be buried and forgotten.And that constant creepy stare at the camera didn't help anything either.