Lucia Ayala
It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.
Brooklynn
There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.
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.
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.
orinocowomble
While this film was shot in stunning locations making it a visual feast, that's not enough to carry a three-hour miniseries. Particularly when Mr Davies has cannibalised whole passages from the 1995 script by Emma Thompson. I hope he had her permission to "quote" at least, since he lifts exact lines from her work again and again--not to mention incidents, and even camera shots that were repeated from the earlier film, almost frame for frame. It is interesting that even the voice and intonations of the actress playing Elinor resonate heavily with Thompson's own performance. There are a few parts of the original novel that are given more play, such as the hair-ring, etc. but all in all I felt I was watching a wannabe remake of Ang Lee's film. They say that "imitation is the most sincere form of flattery" but in my opinion this is a most unflattering, barefaced copy bordering on plagiarism.
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.
