Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

deirdrechalmers The acting was quite good. All the principle characters were well represented. The problem was, Jane Austen's dialogue is perfect, as are all her set pieces. No updates are required, no new wives, older sisters, or children she did not herself see fit to place in her story. Duels, characters showing up where they are not meant to be. And all of it pointless, adding nothing to the story, the plotting or the characters. How is the story improved by Sir John Middleton suddenly having a wife, and Lucy Steele an older sister? Watch the 1995 version.

VReviews Over a decade after Emma Thompson's Oscar winning adaption of Jane Austen's most popular novel, Sense & Sensibility; screen-writer Andrew Davies brought the story to television released as a mini-series through the BBC. Given the critical acclaim Thompson's adaption received, one can't help but make comparisons. However, just as with Shakespeare, the fascination and enjoyment often comes in the choices of how and which pieces of the story will be developed and in the skill of the acting.The choices made in this adaptation bring more detail to the genesis of the Dashwood's circumstances, and the past dubious indiscretions of the cad Willoughby. To hardcore aficionados of Jane Austin, the opening scene between the unidentified lovers may feel out of place, even awkward especially since Austin didn't pen such a scene, nor is it even close to 19th century sensibilities. However, if you forgive this odd beginning, what follows is a much more illustrative and informative picture of life for the Ladies Dashwood as it was prior to Mr. Dashwood's death, than previous adaptations have afforded. They lived in splendor, yet due to the inheritance laws of the time, they also lived in a precarious state of anxiety not knowing if or how their father's first born son would honor Mr. Dashwood's request to take care of his 2nd wife and daughters. The mini-series format was much better able to take the time to fully develop this part of the story, which really provides the dramatic grounding to Austin's emotional tale. For instance, the scenes in which John Dashwood and his conniving wife Fanny discuss what his promise to his late father really meant, was excellent in it's distastefulness. Just as the stark dichotomy between the majestic Dashwood home is juxtaposed against the bleak and clinging coastal cottage that the Dashwoods are reduced to. These scenes are not only included, but are detailed out beautifully allowing the audience to fully appreciate the change in circumstances of the Dashwoods, and their need not only emotionally, but financially to be married.The casting by Kate Rhodes James is stellar; except perhaps for Dominic Cooper as Willoughby whose slight-of-frame, roguish, modern boy charm doesn't quite transfer to the 18th century. Subtle, yet purposeful directing by John Alexander lends a nuanced portrayal throughout. For example, Dan Stevens does a fine job in depicting the honorable and reserved, yet intelligent Edward Ferrars. This is an Edward who sees through his sister's insincere and mean-spirited discourse, and deflects the barbs thrown at the sisters Dashwood with a slight expression of the face, and perfectly placed word. His performance is more shaded and genuine than Hugh Grant's stammering and visibly conflicted Edward.The BBC has a long history of putting out top-notch period dramas, that along with multi- award winning writer Andrew Davies, and this glorious three-part/three hour format provides an enjoyable and entertaining immersion into Jane Austin's Sense & Sensibility.

jlcdrama I just saw this mere hours ago and I couldn't get it out of my head. I'd like to start off by saying that I read the book and then saw the 1995 version of Sense and Sensibility and couldn't imagine what could top it. It's simple: this mini-series.Within minutes I was saying that I liked this adaption better than the 1995 movie. I mean no disrespect to Emma Thompson who wrote and starred in that movie, but this was a lot better. There were a few flaws in the film that I hadn't really paid attention too before until I saw this version. The main one being the age of both Thompson who played Elinor and Alan Rickman who played Colonel Brandon. Both were far too old to be playing Elinor who is supposed to be 19 and Brandon who was 35, in which Thompson was in her thirties I believe, and Rickman was 49. The problem wasn't so apparent until I saw this version.The age problem for Rickman in particular helped convey in the movie that Marianne should have wound up with Willoughby instead of Brandon. The point Austen wanted to make in the book was that Marianne's idea of Brandon being too old was silly seeing as 35 isn't that old. Shallow viewers of the 1995 version would be bothered by the more obviously older man (who looked to be in his fifties) marrying a teenager.The main thing that won me over in this movie was the portrayal of the men: Edward, Colonel Brandon and Willoughby. Hugh Grant in the 1995 film was good, but at times he seemed too awkward and insecure. Dan Stevens played Edward as having a bit of a sense of humor (like in the book) but still a private man. I instantly liked him. But honestly it was Colonel Brandon and Willoughby when stood out the most.Willoughby is often forgotten to be the villain of the story, this mini-series made it clear from the start that he isn't a good man. Purists might not like the opening scene of Willoughby seducing Eliza, but I thought it worked well particularly when Willoughby showed Marianne Allenhelm. It reminded us that Marianne is treading through dangerous waters and has no idea of who she is dealing with. In the 1995 film, Thompson left out the scene with Willoughby explaining his actions to Elinor after Marianne is jilted by him. My thought there was that Thompson felt that would draw too much sympathy for Willoughby, but I think that was a mistake. This mini-series included the scene and showed more of Willoughby's selfish character. I felt no sympathy for him at all. In fact I found it hard to believe a word he said. As it should be.Colonel Brandon is often forgotten about by scholars and that is shame because he is one of my favorite heroes. This adaption did him justice because not only did David Morrissey look the part, but Brandon was given more screen time. Unfortunately both Austen and Thompson didn't show much of Marianne's journey to falling in love with Brandon, but this one filled in that gap. At last we were finally able to see why Colonel Brandon was meant for Marianne instead of Willoughby. When she said that Brandon was "a truly romantic man" I squealed because I'm sure Austen meant the same.Beyond the men, I will say that the Elinor, Marianne and all of the other characters were done incredibly well. I found nothing lacking in any of them with the exception of Mr. Palmer who was much more amusing in the 1995 version, but since he was a minor character I wasn't offended.In short, Thompson's version was good but this one outshone hers. Sense and Sensibility had more complicated plot which is why I think a mini-series like this was better suited for it on screen since more time can be devoted to it. If you want to watch the best version of Sense and Sensibility, this is for you. I also recommend reading Colonel Brandon's Diary by Amanda Grange if you are as smitten with his character as I am.

galensaysyes This serial, like Pride and Prejudice and Emma by the same scriptwriter, is my favorite rendition of its novel. In the first hour it's my favorite by far; in the rest, just my favorite.The first part, which required the most invention, introduces the protagonists and unfolds the story quite compellingly; later the pace and the choice of incident become more iffy, as though the intended runtime had been shortened during shooting: some closely spaced scenes have a similar tone, without enough contrast between, and some minor characters are introduced and then abandoned. Why the ocean is there, I don't know; it points up the two sisters' different moods but has a way of making some scenes seem like Emily Bronte. I also don't understand why the families are introduced in poses as for portraits; this tends in the opposite direction from the seascapes, towards satire, which seems out of keeping with the general approach.I take it the scriptwriter has adopted a darker view of the period since his earlier Austen dramatizations; those were charming and merry; the latest two leave out the funniest lines, turn the funny characters into unfunny ones, and seem bent on pointing up the sad plight of women in men's toils. This of course is one of Austen's subjects, but I believe her characters never say outright, as Marianne does here (in some such words), "Are we only men's playthings?" The sentiment is apt, but the perspective seems a little awry .In any case, where this production exceeds its predecessors is in the casting, especially of the Dashwood family. Its Elinor is the only one I've found right, and Marianne, who has been done well by before, is conveyed more fully here. And they're just extremely likable; by the end I was ready to marry both of them myself. Also, the family seems a real family, with relationships that could only be products of having lived under the same roof for years. And the production is sensitive to the qualities of the actresses cast: e.g. having Janet McTeer as the mother, it gives her credit for more sense than the novel does. This elides the point that she's the person from whom Marianne inherits her romanticism; on the other hand, this is clearly portrayed as a byproduct of her youth, and so no further excuse is needed.The male principals, I thought better cast also. The best of all is Willoughby, although until his last scene with Elinor I didn't see where the production was heading with him. Always before, he's seemed like another Wickham, but here he isn't; he's well-meaning in his own mind, but too weak to carry out his better intentions. Marianne practically throws herself at him, and from our one look at Brandon's ward we can imagine she did the same; he plainly doesn't have the strength of character to have rejected them. The novel gives him a break the serial doesn't: he says he didn't know about his ex-girlfriend's indigency because he'd forgotten to give her his address but she could have gotten it if she'd tried, and Elinor believes him. Perhaps the scriptwriter didn't, or thought the audience wouldn't; anyhow, in the novel Elinor's final judgment on him is more severe: that his only motive throughout has been selfishness. I was sorry this speech was eliminated, but it would have been superfluous, since one infers the same from the actor's reading of the scene. As for the other beaux, this Colonel Brandon comes nearer the mark than the others, in being younger and more reserved; Edward is better, too, but not so much so: he's like a synthesis of the former Edwards and another actor I can't place; rather in the Hugh Grant line, but more skillful at it. I don't fully get the character; but then I didn't in the book either.The sisters, however, are something else again. Here at last is an Elinor I can believe in--about the right age, long used to being the voice of reason in her family and of being accepted as such, from necessity rather than choice; practical, circumspect, long-suffering, but with her spirit alive and unspoiled. A nice touch is the indication at one point that someone so unfailingly right in her advice can sometimes be a drag to live with.Of the prior Elinors, I thought Emma Thompson's was an expert portrayal, as one would expect, but the actress's core character--the one all her characters are built around--is a mild neurotic of a type I don't see as having existed before the 1920s, and certainly not in Austen's time. Moreover, the rhythm of that character is a distinctively 20th-century rhythm, and Austen's prose had to be wrenched to make it fit; Thompson did so with considerable skill. but the result was a translation more than an interpretation. Then there was the age issue: Thompson's Elinor was a middle-aged spinster; Austen's wasn't. The Elinor of the earlier BBC serial seemed closer in some ways but still not right; she looked rather like a clumpish Cinderella, and gave some of her lines inflections that sounded cold and cutting in a way not the character's.Yet as impressed as I was by the new Elinor, by the end I was even more impressed with Marianne. She's played as young (until she grows up), with all the silliness, stubbornness, and excess that are part of the baggage of that time of life. And of course the sexuality. Few scenes have been more erotic, with less "happening" in them, than her forbidden tour of the house she imagines will be hers. Both of the prior Mariannes were fairly accurate (except for the air that Kate Winslet's characters always have of being spoiled university girls), and both quite alike in being romantic above all; this Marianne has more dimension, as well as more suggestion, about her, and reminds me of girls I've known.