LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Tacticalin An absolute waste of money

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

julia2702 I got the Austen virus after watching the famous 1995 adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice", which brought me to the original, wonderful book. But the disease hasn't really progressed. Other Austen works haven't impressed me half as much, and Sense & Sensibility – both the book and Emma Thompson movie – left a strange aftertaste, not at all sweet and exhilarating, as it was with P&P. So I was happy to learn that Andrew Davies, who became my idol after giving us such a perfect Darcy, created an adaptation of S&S. I eagerly watched it, hoping that his spin on the story will make it livelier and more likable for me. And I wasn't mistaken, although I cannot say that this is a great series.I really like the casting. Perhaps I would make Willoughby a little more attractive, but the whole Dashwood family and Colonel Brandon were so good, that I can forgive the choice of Dominic Cooper. Can't remember the book well, but I sense intuitively that quite a few liberties have been taken. Still, as a person who doesn't care so much for this novel, I like the story told by Andrew Davies, and except for a few things (like Marianne's visit of Willoughby mansion all by herself) I find the final product satisfying. I love to see an appealing and passionate Colonel Brandon, this adds romance and chemistry – such a gift for a romantic female viewer like me : )To be entirely honest, I expected more from Mr Davies. This is not "P&P" or "Wives and Daughters". But, after all, scriptwriter is not the only one in charge of our impressions from the film. A lot of people work on the project, and such was their view.Some places feel rushed, even when compared to Emma Thompson movie (and this series has 3 episodes!) The scenery is not light & bright & vivid green, but rainy, rugged and more gritty instead. The rhythmic pattern of the story is more choppy and impulsive than slow-boiling. If you want to relax your nerves while a beautiful story quietly unfolds, it is not the right kind of BBC adaptation. However, I still would like to say a big thank-you for this series. I enjoyed the characters, the story, the romance, and I am immensely grateful that someone keeps adapting English literature - which is a gift to humankind - in such a quality fashion.

maryplayspiano I'm a big Austen fan and read all the books. I love the 1995 Ang Lee/Emma Thompson rendition of Sense & Sensibility, and so was excited for a new version. But this 2008 3-part adaptation was very disappointing.First the pros: A "modern" production style a la 2005's Pride & Prejudice made it seem more real to life. The quiet dignity of Janet McTeer's Mrs. Dashwood was wonderful, if not exactly true to the character. Charity Wakefield's Marianne was vivacious and passionate as she should be. The inclusion of the duel scene between Willoughby and Brandon was a nice addition.Now the cons: Besides the fact that it passes entirely over the seriousness of Marianne's illness and how her renewed outlook on life and romance came about as a result, the whole thing lacks substance. Characters are weak, poor scene transitions, screenplay is too modern and definitely not how they would have spoken in real life (or the novel). Absolutely no reference to Willoughby's eventual regret over Marianne, nor to Edward's explanation to Elinor about his engagement to Lucy.Too much was left unexplained, as if they just assumed everybody already knows the whole story. And it's a real shame because it took away all the subtle poignancy of emotion the characters experience while navigating the delicate social mores of Regency England (e.g. Elinor's having to perform the "necessary social functions" despite her emotional upheaval, Marianne's scandalous correspondence to Willoughby in London). This is particularly true of single women like the Dashwoods who, with no fortune or male protection, hold a very precarious position in society. It's a primary theme throughout Austen's work, and in this novel most especially.Perhaps more likable if you've never read the book, but it could have been so much better if they had stayed faithful to Austen's timeless original story.

marspeach Although S&S 2008 is now my favorite version of Sense and Sensibility, my thoughts were very different upon my first viewing! I saw it as it was airing in the UK on a poor quality streaming video, only able to watch bits at a time between classes. I just couldn't wait for it to air here in the US. I was so disappointed and thought it was too dark and copied too much from the 1995 version, which I liked but was not entirely satisfied with (read my review to see why). It wasn't until I got the DVD this past Christmas that I noticed everything that made me like it. It was dark, yes, but it was only the bad quality of the stream that made it hard to see! I watched a behind-the-scenes video that they hadn't intended to make everything "dark and stormy" but there was bad weather all the time during filming and they decided to go with that look! As for the copying from the 1995 version, yes, there were some parts from it, not in the book, that Andrew Davies also included in this, and while I could definitely do without them, they don't stop me from enjoying the show! On my rewatch I noticed so many other things that made me love it! The main thing that I love about this movie is its wonderful (with a couple exceptions), more age-appropriate cast. This version really excelled in its portrayal of the relationship between Elinor and Marianne, which is really the main focus of the book. In all the previous versions, one of the sisters always left me cold. This is the only one in which I like BOTH actresses! It wasn't perfect. I wasn't a fan of the elements lifted from the 1995 version and all Andrew Davies' usual sexed up scenes, but I still love this version.

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.