summeriris I watched this three times because I wanted to be sure I could make my points. For this I deserve a medal. The first time I watched it I thought it pretty good, the second time things started to bother me, the third time I felt like throwing something at the TV screen.What we have here is a very bad adaptation, very bad direction and pretty poor camera work. We have a Margaret who spouts rhetoric from 'The Female Eunuch'. A Marianne who changes her emotions on a dime while being trained to be the perfect wife for Col Brandon, who is all Regency Action Man alpha male. An Edward who really could use some lessons in handling an axe, an Elinor who also needs some lessons in beating carpets and a scriptwriter who'es earlier successes has given him the inflated opinion that he is a better writer than Jane Austen. He isn't and this pretty poor adaptation proves it.It had some good points, Anne Steele was funny even if she did have a completely different accent from Lucy.

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.

peterquennell 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...

galensaysyes 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.