ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

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.

Dionysiavb If this is the first film adaption of one of Jane Austin's books that you have watched you will find it really enjoyable. As someone who has seen Tom Wright's 'Pride and Prejudice' and Ang Lee's 'Sense and Sensibility', I was really disappointed to see that this version had blatantly and lazily ripped off cinematography from both. To make it worse, they did a far worse job of it. It was like eating off-brand Doritos; you really want to enjoy it but it's just reminding you of something that's far better.If this is the first film adaption of one of Jane Austin's books that you have watched you will find it really enjoyable. As someone who has seen Tom Wright's 'Pride and Prejudice' and Ang Lee's 'Sense and Sensibility', I was really disappointed to see that this version had blatantly and lazily ripped off cinematography from both. To make it worse, they did a far worse job of it. It was like eating off-brand Doritos; you really want to enjoy it but it's just reminding you of something that's far better.

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.

canuckteach Caught this on a weekly PBS presentation - was glued to it at once. Had to buy the DVD, and re-watch it a few times over. It's so good, we discovered, by accident, that you could listen to the DVD with no picture, and enjoy it as a radio drama with amazing sound effects (branches waving in the breeze, birds singing). So lifelike were the performances, I started dreaming about the characters.Being an Austen newbie, I didn't realize how young the S&S characters were supposed to be--so, it came as a revelation to me that Elinor and Marianne were under 20, and that Col. Brandon was only mid-30's! But cut me some slack - I'm reading the novel now. Oh my: was Jane Austen a virtuoso? right up there with Shakespeare. by the way: I thought I would hate the 1995 S&S movie the next time I took it off the shelf, but I'm re-watching it now, and it's 'ok', once you get around the (more) advanced age of the key cast members.So, here's the rundown, comparing 1995 S&S, and this 2008 version: *Edward is more lovable and less 'clumsy' than Hugh Grant's portrayal (I always thought that Grant's clothes looked like they were wearing him)* there's a duel scene between Brandon and Willoughby - it fits perfectly, but wouldn't have worked with the 2 respective cast members of 1995 S&S * Willoughby is smaller and younger-looking than we saw in 1995.. and although oddly attractive, he has a furtive look about him.. conversely, Brandon is a full-sized handsome fellow with a look of steel under a velvet glove..* Willoughby's conversation with Elinor near the end of the story is restored - I think this screenplay resolves things very well, maybe better than Austen's novel..* like the book, it takes a long time before it is revealed how Lucy managed to land a 'Ferrars' fellow.. this happened a bit quicker in 1995..* look for a delightful scene where Edward, contented with his new, humble situation in life, cheerfully chases chickens..!Enjoy...! p.s. wasn't that Lucy Steele street-smart? first question I asked after initial viewing: "does Lucy get to keep the money?" everyone (female) thought I was so mercenary for asking about money..! sorry - but after 2 centuries, lots of readers are still debating it! what a coup!