VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

julia2702 I got the Austen virus after watching the famous 1995 adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice", which brought me to the original, wonderful book. But the disease hasn't really progressed. Other Austen works haven't impressed me half as much, and Sense & Sensibility – both the book and Emma Thompson movie – left a strange aftertaste, not at all sweet and exhilarating, as it was with P&P. So I was happy to learn that Andrew Davies, who became my idol after giving us such a perfect Darcy, created an adaptation of S&S. I eagerly watched it, hoping that his spin on the story will make it livelier and more likable for me. And I wasn't mistaken, although I cannot say that this is a great series.I really like the casting. Perhaps I would make Willoughby a little more attractive, but the whole Dashwood family and Colonel Brandon were so good, that I can forgive the choice of Dominic Cooper. Can't remember the book well, but I sense intuitively that quite a few liberties have been taken. Still, as a person who doesn't care so much for this novel, I like the story told by Andrew Davies, and except for a few things (like Marianne's visit of Willoughby mansion all by herself) I find the final product satisfying. I love to see an appealing and passionate Colonel Brandon, this adds romance and chemistry – such a gift for a romantic female viewer like me : )To be entirely honest, I expected more from Mr Davies. This is not "P&P" or "Wives and Daughters". But, after all, scriptwriter is not the only one in charge of our impressions from the film. A lot of people work on the project, and such was their view.Some places feel rushed, even when compared to Emma Thompson movie (and this series has 3 episodes!) The scenery is not light & bright & vivid green, but rainy, rugged and more gritty instead. The rhythmic pattern of the story is more choppy and impulsive than slow-boiling. If you want to relax your nerves while a beautiful story quietly unfolds, it is not the right kind of BBC adaptation. However, I still would like to say a big thank-you for this series. I enjoyed the characters, the story, the romance, and I am immensely grateful that someone keeps adapting English literature - which is a gift to humankind - in such a quality fashion.

Dionysiavb If this is the first film adaption of one of Jane Austin's books that you have watched you will find it really enjoyable. As someone who has seen Tom Wright's 'Pride and Prejudice' and Ang Lee's 'Sense and Sensibility', I was really disappointed to see that this version had blatantly and lazily ripped off cinematography from both. To make it worse, they did a far worse job of it. It was like eating off-brand Doritos; you really want to enjoy it but it's just reminding you of something that's far better.If this is the first film adaption of one of Jane Austin's books that you have watched you will find it really enjoyable. As someone who has seen Tom Wright's 'Pride and Prejudice' and Ang Lee's 'Sense and Sensibility', I was really disappointed to see that this version had blatantly and lazily ripped off cinematography from both. To make it worse, they did a far worse job of it. It was like eating off-brand Doritos; you really want to enjoy it but it's just reminding you of something that's far better.

maryplayspiano 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.

didi-5 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.