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.

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.

Jane Austen sells well these days, which goes a long way towards explaining the appalling number of film adaptations let loose upon us over the past years. This miniseries, part of this and last years' (2007-2008) batch that includes a lousy Mansfield Park, an adequate Northanger Abbey and an uneven Persuasion, dwells in the long shadows of the 1995 adaptation. On the one hand, it goes to considerable lengths in trying to avoid any resemblance: it does this by including scenes that were absent there (most notably the last encounter between Elinor and Willoughby, where he explains his conduct) and excluding, where possible, scenes that were present there; by having the film begin with a steamy sex scene for which there is no reason other than the hope of whetting the appetite of the viewers; by casting as Elinor an actress as unlike the brilliant Emma Thompson as possible (and whose idea of conveying dramatic tension seems to be to open her eyes very wide and sometimes also her mouth, slightly). On the other hand though, the adaptation has been taking over ideas that occur in the 1995 film and not in the book: like turning Margaret into a well rounded and likable character, which in the book she is not (this is understandable; everybody loves cute little girls with lots of curly hair), like Edward's proposal to Elinor being received with a crying fit (which was not a very good idea to begin with). Talented actors, loving attention to period details and National Trust mansions do not by themselves a good film make. This miniseries has chosen to show Marianne falling rather early in love with Colonel Brandon. This is not only not true to the book (where it is at no point implied that Marianne holds feelings for him other than esteem and gratitude), it also waters down and distorts the core message of the story. If Marianne can overcome her feelings for Willoughby so quickly and easily, then they were not the deep love we had been hitherto led to believe, but just the trifling infatuation one (especially parents) would ordinarily expect from most seventeen-year-olds. Then, her deep distress and the illness that almost cost her life are but the tantrum of a spoiled child denied a treat. Accordingly, there is no lesson to be learned of the story, no proper appreciation of Elinor's self-control, no triumph of sense over sensibility. Admittedly, most people these days expect to be entertained, not educated by books and films (unless it were about sex), but Jane Austen deserves better treatment than this. Andrew Davies has certainly come a long way since his celebrated 1995 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, and not all of it seems to have been good to him.

Truth is, my wife is (was) the family's one Jane Austen addict so I had zero inkling up-front of the two truly extraordinary story arcs. To say that this production is one wild, nail-biting roller-coaster ride is putting it pretty mildly.To follow Hattie Morahan's warm, kind, brave and hypnotically beautiful Elinor through to her dismal and heart-breaking dead-end in life, via a seeming never-ending series of emotional whacks... that's story-telling of the most profoundest kind.And then into that truly stunning few moments where eyes are absolutely GLUED to Elinor's quivering back... that's movie-making beyond awesome.I've dutifully watched the movie version too now. These REALLY go well together. The movie is intensely beautiful to look at and has great crowd scenes. Highly worth watching for the alternative take on the Marianne story; I liked it without necessarily preferring it. Each version has some dialog that greatly helps understand points in the other.No review I've read yet has mentioned the great voice-over commentary on the DVD. Director, producer and four leads. Nice happy family that one is. Hattie Morahan is self-effacing almost to the point of invisibility, but she has a truly great laugh we hear often. Remarks by "Edward" and "Marianne" and "Willoughby" are warm, funny and at times really insightful, and leave one liking each of them a lot.Plus we hear just how the director and producer arrived at many of their outcomes, adjusted things post-production, set up the scenes in the many houses and the studios, struggled for continuity, and came up with that proposal scene - told in that self-effacing and often funny British way, but they're true talents.And Janeites, please get this: the team makes it increasingly clear that there are several hours of unused scenes still in the can. They are not offered here on this DVD. So, a 4-or-5-hour director's-cut version? Okay. You know what to do...