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.

Over a decade after Emma Thompson's Oscar winning adaption of Jane Austen's most popular novel, Sense & Sensibility; screen-writer Andrew Davies brought the story to television released as a mini-series through the BBC. Given the critical acclaim Thompson's adaption received, one can't help but make comparisons. However, just as with Shakespeare, the fascination and enjoyment often comes in the choices of how and which pieces of the story will be developed and in the skill of the acting.The choices made in this adaptation bring more detail to the genesis of the Dashwood's circumstances, and the past dubious indiscretions of the cad Willoughby. To hardcore aficionados of Jane Austin, the opening scene between the unidentified lovers may feel out of place, even awkward especially since Austin didn't pen such a scene, nor is it even close to 19th century sensibilities. However, if you forgive this odd beginning, what follows is a much more illustrative and informative picture of life for the Ladies Dashwood as it was prior to Mr. Dashwood's death, than previous adaptations have afforded. They lived in splendor, yet due to the inheritance laws of the time, they also lived in a precarious state of anxiety not knowing if or how their father's first born son would honor Mr. Dashwood's request to take care of his 2nd wife and daughters. The mini-series format was much better able to take the time to fully develop this part of the story, which really provides the dramatic grounding to Austin's emotional tale. For instance, the scenes in which John Dashwood and his conniving wife Fanny discuss what his promise to his late father really meant, was excellent in it's distastefulness. Just as the stark dichotomy between the majestic Dashwood home is juxtaposed against the bleak and clinging coastal cottage that the Dashwoods are reduced to. These scenes are not only included, but are detailed out beautifully allowing the audience to fully appreciate the change in circumstances of the Dashwoods, and their need not only emotionally, but financially to be married.The casting by Kate Rhodes James is stellar; except perhaps for Dominic Cooper as Willoughby whose slight-of-frame, roguish, modern boy charm doesn't quite transfer to the 18th century. Subtle, yet purposeful directing by John Alexander lends a nuanced portrayal throughout. For example, Dan Stevens does a fine job in depicting the honorable and reserved, yet intelligent Edward Ferrars. This is an Edward who sees through his sister's insincere and mean-spirited discourse, and deflects the barbs thrown at the sisters Dashwood with a slight expression of the face, and perfectly placed word. His performance is more shaded and genuine than Hugh Grant's stammering and visibly conflicted Edward.The BBC has a long history of putting out top-notch period dramas, that along with multi- award winning writer Andrew Davies, and this glorious three-part/three hour format provides an enjoyable and entertaining immersion into Jane Austin's Sense & Sensibility.

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.

(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.