User Reviews

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.

I have read the book, seen the 1995 movie adaptation, but this series was so beautifully played, the emotion conveyed was so impressive. Don't get me wrong the book is Fantastic, the movie adaptation was lovely! But this series moved me much more in the feelings conveyed by mere expression that made it phenomenal, I loved it!

Praising the BBC for the quality of their costume dramas may be the equivalent of taking coals to Newcastle but in some respects it's what they do best and "Sense and Sensibility" is no exception. Of course, comparisons with Ang Lee's splendid film version are inevitable yet somehow the intimacy of television and the somewhat greater length that a serialized adaptation can afford gives this a deeper dimension that the albeit very entertaining film version.

The writer is Andrew Davies who is a dab hand at this sort of thing and the casting is, as ever, impeccable. Perhaps the best actors working anywhere in the world today are on British television, (note the recent adaptation of "Cranford"). The performances here are superb. Both Hattie Morahan and Charity Wakefield succeed in banishing all thoughts of Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet, (no mean feat), while David Morrissey as Colonel Brandon and Dan Stevens as Edward Ferrars are outstanding, acting rings round Alan Rickman and Hugh Grant who played the same roles in the movie. Morrissey, in particular, is one of the best actors on television, perhaps anywhere, and it is always a pleasure to see him. But then the whole cast are terrific as is the assured direction of John Alexander. Just perfect for a Sunday night in front of the fire.

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...

I totally disagree with all the negative comments about this film. I mean, it was a little rushed at times, especially at the end. However, all in all it was a great film to watch and you did not feel in any way that Elinor and Marrianne married the wrong men! In the Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant version, I think you get the impression that Elinor should marry Col. Brandon!

The acting was of the high quality you expect from any BBC production and the music was absolutely fantastic. The editing was a little patchy at times, but otherwise sound.

I would absolutely recommend this version to any true Jane Austen fan, it does not disappoint, in fact it leaves you with that same warm fuzzy feeling that each novel and most of the film adaptations always do!

Happy Watching!

This is a good new version. I'm surprised it was made, since the one with Emma Thompson is still quite fresh in people's minds.

However, I think that this one has some better characterisations. Both versions had good Mariannes, but this one is hard to beat. Hatty M. plays Elinor with all the right emotions, but I'm not always sure she is quite in period.

This could partly be Andrew Davies' fault, as he is responsible for some dialogue that surely would never have come from the pen of Jane Austen.

David Morrissey is excellent as usual, as is Dan Stevens (who has the great advantage, in my book, that he is not Hugh Grant. I think he would have been good as Willoughby, who should surely be more handsome than Edward). Dominic Cooper is not good as Willoughby. His looks are wrong, his speech tends towards Estuary English in places and in others he does not speak clearly. I could go on.

Lucy Steele's sister does something close to an impression of Alice in The Vicar of Dibley. Why does she have a non-standard accent, whereas her genteel sister does not?

I should also mention that the settings and overall look of the production were first rate.

Perhaps we are getting used to Andrew Davies's adaptations but I think he was below par here, perhaps because of the short duration. This version had what are known as "high production values", ie it looked good and was well-acted. However Jane Austen's dialogue and characterisation really lost out when compressed into three episodes. Andrew Davies would rightly say that 21st century television is a very different medium from an early nineteenth century novel. In its own terms, therefore, as a TV drama it was quite good, as bonnet-fests go. However if you had never read the book, you would have probably thought that much fuss has been made over a fairly uninteresting story. I guess you could compress Sense & Sensibility still further until people would believe that Jane Austen was first published by Mills and Boon.

On the plus side at least they got the characters' ages right. In the 1995 version Emma Thompson was 36 but playing a nineteen year old. However good she was, she was far too old for the part.

This is an amazing series: the perfect casting, the acting,the music, the script! I love it all

I loved the look of this adaptation of the novel and thought almost all the characters were ideally cast. In fact, I can't imagine a better Elinor, and the rest of the Dashwood family was close to ideal. As usual the BBC found lovely settings, though the cottage is too basic to be believable and too close to the sea (!): Austen's concept of a cottage was a great deal more than this (four reception rooms downstairs, I believe). The problem is the screenplay, which trivialises so much of the novel, fails to understand some of its basic premises, and relies on visual titillation at the expense of the dialogue that was much more in evidence in the BBC's generally superior previous attempt. The moral of the story, both implied in this adaptation and explicit in the book, is to do with the dangers of excessive sensibility and not editing your feelings in order to conform to social conditions. It is not to do with what you do being more important than what you feel, as Marianne puts it during her sudden, Stepford-wife transformation to rationality. Her illness is not physical, and certainly has nothing to do with the ridiculous scene in the rain Davies has devised: it is in her mind. The whole point of the story is to show the danger of over-indulging one's feelings and disengaging from society. Davies: read the book again, and even if the book is to be changed, at least be consistent. The end product here was, I believe, a dumbing down of one of the most miraculous stories of the very early nineteenth century.

I believe that this adaptation shall be another triumph to add to Andrew Davies already sublime list of adaptations!! The beginning of the first episode left me a bit doubtful but then it really got going. I for one am waiting in anticipation for episode 2 to air!!

In response to the previous comment on the camera work - have you been watching TV and film lately?? Each adaptation offers us something new from the story, a story which has already been exploited many times before and is well known.

A huge well done to all involved - i just know this adaptation will give the 1995 version a run for its money!!

The book "Sense and Sensibility" is a great one. It is beautiful, poised and poignant and just a joy to read. Out of the adaptations of the book I have two favourites. One is the 1995 film with Kate Winslet and Emma Thompson, which was visually stunning and impeccably acted by the whole cast. The other adaptation is this one. I do marginally prefer the film, but this mini-series is mighty fine.

This adaptation of "Sense and Sensibility" isn't without its problems though. There are some scenes that felt rushed, particularly the ending and Colonel Brandon's departure from Delaford. Also, Dominic Cooper's performance as Willoughby was uneven. Cooper is a good actor, and has charming presence, but compared to the Willoughby in the book and the Willoughby in the 1995 film, this Willoughby seemed somewhat unlikeable and arrogant and the complexity of his feelings for Marianne I felt could have been explored more.

However, this is much to love about this mini-series. For one thing, it looks beautiful. The costumes are lavish, the scenery is sumptuous and the photography is crisp. I especially liked the shots of the cottage and the sea. The music is truly pleasant to the ear, romantic, lyrical and whimsical, the sort of effect Patrick Doyle's score in the 1995 film had on me. The script wasn't too bad really, it had a sense of intelligence about it even if it had some questionable modernisations on occasion.

The acting, with the general exception of Cooper's Willoughby, is excellent and ideal for the characters they play. Hattie Morahan is a mature and subtle Elinor, and Charity Wakefield is beautiful, innocent and tragic as Marianne. They are solidly supported by a superb Janet McTeer as the mother, a dashing Dan Stevens as Edward Ferrars and a suitably sincere David Morissey as Colonel Brandon(an improvement over Alan Rickman, Rickman was good but Morissey fitted the character better). Overall, this is a fine mini-series, perfect to go with the 1995 film and it manages to be solid as an adaptation. 9/10 Bethany Cox

I'm not comparing it to Thompson's Oscar-winning adaptation. They are both leading adaptations in their own right.

This is an exquisite TV series that has a quiet, mesmerizing tone to it. It's a joy to watch and I'm always compelled to revisit it.

I was so impressed with its Elinor. Hattie Morahan is an exceptional lead and a criminally overlooked actress I constantly hope will get the recognition she deserves. I am a little annoyed she is not given top-billing on IMDB as the lead - Cooper is - to me that's unfair. Morahan's Elinor is compelling, vulnerable, noble and loving with a great resilience that adds to and justifies her rational, practical nature. Elinor's struggle is captured magnificently in her nuanced performance. I watch it again and again. Her presence is enchanting.

Charity Wakefield was not a name or face I had seen before and I was delighted to discover her career. Marianne has been a character I've always struggled to like from the book and other adaptations. Here, Wakefield came into her own at the end and handled Marianne's change of heart (which is quite demanding on every actress who endeavours to play her) in a credible and satisfying way. Her unique chemistry with Morahan strengthened the dynamic of their shared scenes and added a credible dimension to their relationship which I thoroughly enjoyed.

With the likes of Dan Stevens, Janet McTeer, Claire Skinner, David Morrissey, Dominic Cooper, Mark Williams, Linda Bassett, Lucy Boynton and breakout turns from Anna Madeley and Daisy Haggard - the ensemble was perfectly cast. They created a world I was happy to believe in. Claire Skinner is a fabulous actress and real treat in this film - she was made for the role.

David Morrissey hit it out of the park with a wonderful turn as Colonel Brandon. I love that character so much and he did more than do the character justice. He was a joy to watch.

This series has a lot to offer anyone new to Austen's works and to avid readers wanting to enjoy an enchanting take on Sense and Sensibility.

It is unfair how much this is overlooked. It deserves your time. I hope it is discovered by more people and doesn't become a forgotten gem.

A solid adaptation that didn't quite match up to the Ang Lee and Emma Thompson film. That had more energy, pace, intensity and humor. This is more lyrical and gentle, which works almost as well... for a while.

I actually loved the first two hours, but the last hour didn't work as well for me, perhaps because of the different overall tone tone. The climax felt more soap opera-ish, and also more uneven, with the slightly jarring attempts at humorous over the top characterizations clashing with the more subtle feel of the piece. The acting is generally excellent, but there were times when performers didn't quite seem to all be in the same film.

Worth seeing if you are an Austen fan, but if you only need one film version to be happy, I'd watch the Lee feature first.

I've only recently been bitten by the Jane Austen bug. Having never been interested in anything historical, I'm suddenly into all of it, Jane Austen in particular. I think Outlander was my gateway book! Anyhoo, I have not yet read this book or have I seen the 1995 film, and this is my only account of the story. So maybe that's why I enjoyed it so much, because I didn't have anything to compare it to. Other than that first weird pseudo sex scene, I thought it was wonderful. Well written, well acted, the whole bit.

In newly 19th century England, a family of three daughters is put into turmoil when the father dies. You see, the young ladies are the offspring of the man's second marriage and the main inheritor of his estate is his son from the first one. This leaves poor Elinor (Hattie Morahan), Marianne (Charity Wakefield) and their much younger sister Margaret, along with their mother, with far less means of existence. They are forced to move out of the family home and seek smaller accommodations in the country. Alas, also, their prospects for a "good" marriage are likewise dimmed, as they have no sizeable dowries. Nevertheless, upon their move to a charming cottage in the countryside, the girls meet two marriageable men. One of them, Colonel Brandon, is a thirty-something, wealthy landowner whose still-single status is the result of a broken engagement long ago. However, he is instantly smitten with the musically gifted, outspoken Marianne. Yet, the age difference may prove to be a barrier. Elinor, too, meets a most eligible man, Edward, the brother of their catty sister-in-law but, here again, something is amiss. He becomes extremely close to the more reserved Elinor, only to remove himself from the situation, for some unknown reason. Enter Willoughby. He is a handsome man who gallops into their lives on the day he rescues Marianne from a sprained ankle. Marianne's heart is lost to this gentleman, but, he may have some big secrets to hide. Will the sisters meet a good fate or a bad one? This is a very nice miniseries, with some attractive stars and some nice settings and costumes. The actor playing Colonel Brandon, especially, bears a striking resemblance to Liam Neeson and will set hearts to flutter. Yet, to anyone who has seen the Ang Lee film, with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet, this one pales in a close comparison of the two. There is no sweeping score, no gorgeous cinematography, no amazing art direction and no Hugh Grant. That is not to say it does not have its moments or that it will not please most fans of Austen, who would be content to see a new version every year for the rest of their lives. In such light, do try to catch this new adaptation, either on Masterpiece Theatre or when it is released on DVD, if you are a devotee of Jane's works. You will hang on every word and feel great contentment as the film fades to black.

Characters, landscapes, music, costumes you name it ... pure beauty

The best thing for me in this version is David Morrissey as Colonel Brandon. So often he plays villains and nasty pieces of work, so it is good to see him in another kind of role.

Other than that, what does this 'Sense and Sensibility' have that the 1981 and 1995 versions don't? Marianne is good in all three - Lucy Steele is appalling in this version (what was going on with the accent?). Willoughby just doesn't look right, somehow, although Edward Ferrars is less silly than Hugh Grant made him in the film version.

Really, this TV version is superfluous, but it is watchable, and perhaps the best of the four adaptations of Austen made in 2007/8. It looks as if it benefits from a reasonable budget and has some locations befitting the period. Ultimately it may just feel a bit too modern to be successful.

I have to say that I'm incredibly surprised that this version has received so many positive reviews here. I find this adaptation far inferior to the Ang Lee directed/Emma Thompson penned version from the 1990s. I am utterly shocked that I find the screenplay almost intolerable - especially as it comes from the master pen of Andrew Davies who I have deeply admired for years. The writing is quite dumbed down, the majority of the characters have not been fully fleshed out and in general the production seems quite rushed. Given that there is a longer running time than the Ang Lee version, I expected MORE development, not less. While the casting of Elinor in this adaptation is more believable than the older Emma Thompson in the Lee version, I believe that is the only improvement to mention. And to be honest, I believe Emma Thompson (while perhaps not quite looking the appropriate age for the part) did a superior acting job. The actor cast as Willoughby is completely wrong in nearly every way. The director has apparently decided to go the "romantic route" as the moronic director of the most recent Pride & Prejudice did in his depiction of Regency England. I regret that I wasted three hours on this as I had been waiting for it to arrive for more than a year.

A very fair adaptation of the source material. The acting, directing, and cinematography is first rate.