StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

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

JaneFrosty The actress who played Elinor gasps throughout. In this period in history, it would have been perceived as rude to have an open mouth. At times she looks like a landed fish and at the end the shoulder shaking is hilariously bad acting. So her portrayal lets this version down. Left me wondering why she was chosen for this role.The rest of the cast are quite good.

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.

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.

dukegleeson First of all Andrew Davies is great script writer and has proved many times. He made a great job out adaptations Emma (2009), of course Pride and prejudice (1995), Bleak House (2005). The BBC has a very high standard for their dramas. The director made a good job of what he was given. The locations that were used in sense and sensibility are perfect not only showing off the beauty of English country side but found the houses to suit the description from the book. The characters were brought to live life by their actors. Elinor and Marieanne were casted perfectly in roles. Willoughby and Colonel Brandon was played very well. Overall the actors made the best job they could. But the problems started for me in the writing stage. It was only written in three parts. This just made whole three part series feel like one big summary and very rushed. I think it would have been better to have 4 or 5 episodes. This in turn would allow the characters to develop more and show more of the book. Overall I prefer this Sense and Sensibility to Emma Thompson one. On the other hand after watching this for the first time made me interested to read the book so I did. I would still recommend this series but if you read the book it will leave you wanting more.