ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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.

Red-125 "Sense & Sensibility" (2008) directed by John Alexander, is an excellent BBC version of a great novel. I have just watched--and reviewed for IMDb--the 1971 version, also done by BBC. Each version has it's strong and weak points, but I slightly prefer this version to the earlier one.Production values were excellent, as they were in the earlier version. The BBC actors lived up to their reputations, and, of course, the story is fascinating. However, I think the casting was better in the recent version. Both Hattie Morahan as Elinor Dashwood, and Charity Wakefield as Marianne Dashwood, looked like my concept of the characters described by Austen. David Morrissey as Colonel Brandon, and Dominic Cooper as Willoughby were equally well cast. However, Dan Stevens was too worldly and sophisticated for the role of Edward Ferrars. I'm not convinced that he would have truly preferred a small country parish to life in London. Claire Skinner was excellent as the ever-so-polite and ever-so-evil Fanny Dashwood.Watching two movie versions of the same novel back-to-back is like reading two versions of a French or Russian novel in translation. You get a very different work of art depending on the choices made by the director of the film or the translator of the book. If the movies were allowed to follow the book chapter by chapter, they would be eight or ten hours long. So, some scenes must be abandoned or at least compressed. That's where the writer and director have to make decisions about what stays in and what goes out. Those decisions, in turn, determine the sense and the feel of the product that we see. It's a long time since I've read the novel, so I can't be sure which version is truer to Austen's work. However, both films both fascinating, and worth seeking out. Because this film was conceived as a TV miniseries, it's structured to work well on a small screen. Nonetheless, if you can see it in a theater, it will probably look even better. Buy it or rent it. You won't be disappointed.

TheLittleSongbird The book "Sense and Sensibility" is a great one. It is beautiful, poised and poignant and just a joy to read. Out of the adaptations of the book I have two favourites. One is the 1995 film with Kate Winslet and Emma Thompson, which was visually stunning and impeccably acted by the whole cast. The other adaptation is this one. I do marginally prefer the film, but this mini-series is mighty fine.This adaptation of "Sense and Sensibility" isn't without its problems though. There are some scenes that felt rushed, particularly the ending and Colonel Brandon's departure from Delaford. Also, Dominic Cooper's performance as Willoughby was uneven. Cooper is a good actor, and has charming presence, but compared to the Willoughby in the book and the Willoughby in the 1995 film, this Willoughby seemed somewhat unlikeable and arrogant and the complexity of his feelings for Marianne I felt could have been explored more.However, this is much to love about this mini-series. For one thing, it looks beautiful. The costumes are lavish, the scenery is sumptuous and the photography is crisp. I especially liked the shots of the cottage and the sea. The music is truly pleasant to the ear, romantic, lyrical and whimsical, the sort of effect Patrick Doyle's score in the 1995 film had on me. The script wasn't too bad really, it had a sense of intelligence about it even if it had some questionable modernisations on occasion.The acting, with the general exception of Cooper's Willoughby, is excellent and ideal for the characters they play. Hattie Morahan is a mature and subtle Elinor, and Charity Wakefield is beautiful, innocent and tragic as Marianne. They are solidly supported by a superb Janet McTeer as the mother, a dashing Dan Stevens as Edward Ferrars and a suitably sincere David Morissey as Colonel Brandon(an improvement over Alan Rickman, Rickman was good but Morissey fitted the character better). Overall, this is a fine mini-series, perfect to go with the 1995 film and it manages to be solid as an adaptation. 9/10 Bethany Cox

javajk-javajk (Spoilers included with this post.) Two "behind the scenes" events from the novel are included in this film version. One "works", the other severely damages the film. The duel scene "works" because it provides another insight into the passionate nature of Col. Brandon, and to his disdain for Willoughby. Holding the swordblade to Willoughby's throat long enough to "make the point" that the cad lost the duel, then walking away from the duelling field is SUCH an effective, humiliating put-down to that snake ! On the other hand, the error of using swords instead of pistols (as in the book) surprised me.The opening clips of Willoughby with Eliza Williams anger me. It is "hallmark Davies" pure and simple. Austen's text made perfectly clear what happened "off-screen". There is NO need for Davies to add what now is his "signature sleaze". I cannot have my young daughter watch the complete film with me, nor can I send the film as a gift to any friends. Granted the clips are reasonably brief; however, I do not need to hear loud "sexual panting" in a movie. . . . The tawdry inclusion reminds me vividly of another idiotic and annoying film adaptation: "Washington Square", with the horrible howler of having Catherine urinate publicly, on-screen (with a close-up shot, to boot !).Restraint displays far, far more power than does blatant exhibitionism. True verbally, and true graphically.I can't sufficiently praise the actresses for the three daughters. Even though Margaret's dialogue is "made up", she is trenchant and very sharp ! "Eleanor" and "Marianne" both win my vote for the best interpretations yet see on screen of these characters.Marianne perfectly captures the self-centered, teenaged "twit" element of the original character. The weakness, to me, was that consistently throughout this adaptation, Marianne openly speaks of her strongly favorable opinion of Col. Brandon. The result is the misrepresentation that Marianne truly has liked Col. Brandon all along. (which is not true in the novel) Fanny Dashwood gives me the creepy-crawlies ! Congrats to the actress on her interpretation ! This version's Lucy Steele, too, deftly played the smiling viper.The actor playing Willoughby is far from attractive, although such opinions always are subjective, of course. Agreeing with others who note that his despicable character is more clear in this version.The actor playing Col. Brandon probably ranks lower than in the 1995 version. He also presented a stumbling block for me, because his performance as "Bradley Headstone" in "Our Mutual Friend" was so powerful, I never could eject the earlier role from my head while watching him in this newest "S&S".Edward's sloppy, floppy hairstyle annoyed me.Very pleasant surprise in the actress playing Mrs. Dashwood. She is a pretty woman, and also betrayed the immaturity which (as per novel) she shares with Marianne.