Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

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.

canuckteach Caught this on a weekly PBS presentation - was glued to it at once. Had to buy the DVD, and re-watch it a few times over. It's so good, we discovered, by accident, that you could listen to the DVD with no picture, and enjoy it as a radio drama with amazing sound effects (branches waving in the breeze, birds singing). So lifelike were the performances, I started dreaming about the characters.Being an Austen newbie, I didn't realize how young the S&S characters were supposed to be--so, it came as a revelation to me that Elinor and Marianne were under 20, and that Col. Brandon was only mid-30's! But cut me some slack - I'm reading the novel now. Oh my: was Jane Austen a virtuoso? right up there with Shakespeare. by the way: I thought I would hate the 1995 S&S movie the next time I took it off the shelf, but I'm re-watching it now, and it's 'ok', once you get around the (more) advanced age of the key cast members.So, here's the rundown, comparing 1995 S&S, and this 2008 version: *Edward is more lovable and less 'clumsy' than Hugh Grant's portrayal (I always thought that Grant's clothes looked like they were wearing him)* there's a duel scene between Brandon and Willoughby - it fits perfectly, but wouldn't have worked with the 2 respective cast members of 1995 S&S * Willoughby is smaller and younger-looking than we saw in 1995.. and although oddly attractive, he has a furtive look about him.. conversely, Brandon is a full-sized handsome fellow with a look of steel under a velvet glove..* Willoughby's conversation with Elinor near the end of the story is restored - I think this screenplay resolves things very well, maybe better than Austen's novel..* like the book, it takes a long time before it is revealed how Lucy managed to land a 'Ferrars' fellow.. this happened a bit quicker in 1995..* look for a delightful scene where Edward, contented with his new, humble situation in life, cheerfully chases chickens..!Enjoy...! p.s. wasn't that Lucy Steele street-smart? first question I asked after initial viewing: "does Lucy get to keep the money?" everyone (female) thought I was so mercenary for asking about money..! sorry - but after 2 centuries, lots of readers are still debating it! what a coup!

javajk-javajk (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.

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.