Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

beijingpearl2003 I was looking forward to seeing another version of this, having just read the book again. Yes, it is pretty close, though I think the decision to leave out Margaret was unwise and spoiled the family dynamics. Overall, the acting seemed to me to be pale and rather lifeless, as though many characters simply read their lines with little true feeling at all. The addition of Lucy Steele's older sister and Lady Middleton added nothing--in the book they were amusing in their way, but here, no; Miss Steele's goofiness was not really shown, which would be the only reason to include her. Also, Fanny was annoyingly low key & snotty, but didn't really come off as the haughty bitch she does in the book. I think part of the problem is that the actors, to be honest, were simply not skilled enough to give the roles the subtle interplay and depth they should have: I found their faces to be stiff, the gestures muted, just NO liveliness, and very little humor. The costumes were very disappointing: I'm sorry but if you have the money and prestige to have lived at Norland, your clothes are going to reflect that somewhat--maybe not fancy but of better quality! Half the time Eleanor was dressed in the dull colors of a nun, and even many of Mary Ann's dresses looked ill-fitted and sloppily made, like something in a high school play! The older ladies clothes had not the least bit of charm, even though they had money, they dressed in simply hideous dresses with a bit of trim down the center. I know the clothes of that era, and these were NOT well done, were badly made and designed and looked cheap.John Middleton was nicely humorous and red-cheeked, though he reminded me constantly of a leprechaun!His mother-in-law came off far too low-key for what she should have been. Though Lucy was catty in her way, she lacked the force of character of the conniving bitch she was in the book--she was MUCH more interestingly played in Ang Lee's film! The relationship between the sisters seemed pallid until right at the last. Willoughby...eh, not impressed--pretty boy blonde with not much more to recommend him. Brandon was so colorless and dull, racing through speeches that SHOULD have had more depth of feeling and subtle play of emotion. Alan Rickman was warm, subtle, likable- -his face was mobile, yet delicately conveying the depth of his feelings, and his voice! OH so much more convincing than anything in this film's version of Brandon!As for the general direction, it was rather dull--at least in Ang Lee's film they did something besides sit around and sew! He actually showed the relationship between MaryAnn an Willoughby developing, gave time to that beginning of intimacy, so that when she loses it in London, you have good idea WHY. The director lost many chances for dramatic play, and ended up with a so-so production. See it if you're a fan of Austen, if nothing else, just for comparison. Ang Lee's version, for all it's faults, has far better acting, a more lively cast, more interesting interplay between the characters, far better costumes, and honestly....I may have to watch it yet again, just to get the bland taste of this one out of my mind!

sissoed While I greatly love the 1995 film, this BBC production, like the other BBC Jane Austen productions, does a better job of conveying more of Austen's insights into human nature and the tension between the duty to protect the emotional and psychological state of others and the drive to pursue satisfaction of one's own emotional desires. The exploration of this tension is the great theme of Austen. The major strength of this production as compared to the 1995 version is the character of Marianne, which in turn changes and deepens the relationship of the two sisters, Marianne and Elinor. In the 1995 version Marianne is more indiscreet with Willoughby and more scornful to Elinor, rejecting all of Elinor's counsel to be more restrained. As a result, it is hard to see that the two women have any relationship at all, other than the happenstance they are sisters and live in the same house. Here, Marianne declines an improper gift from Willoughby (a horse) after Elinor explains its impropriety (this incident is not in the 1995 version), and overall, she does not let the fact that she is more passionate than Elinor lead her to be dismissive of Elinor. Thus it is possible to see why these two might be close, even before Marianne discovers how much emotion Elinor has in fact been feeling since learning of Edward Ferrars' secret engagement. And later, when their greedy brother asks them to cut-off all relations with Edward Ferrars (a scene not in the 1995 version), and Elinor springs up and refuses, Marianne also springs up and says "bravo" and then the two sisters walk out arm-in-arm. Thus we see a real bond between these sisters that we never see in the 1995 version. I liked the portrayal of the Marianne character better in this version than in the 1995. As to all the rest of the characters, the actors portray them as basically the same people as in the 1995 version, but uniformly the acting in the 1995 version is more evocative and powerful. However, I have a particular fondness for the actress here who plays Elinor, Irene Richard, because she also plays Charlotte Lucas in the 1985 BBC Pride and Prejudice, one of my great favorite productions that I have seen many times. While good sense is a hallmark of both characters, she portrays them differently; it is impossible to imagine her Elinor Dashwood marrying a buffoon as did her Charlotte Lucas marry Mr. Collins in P&P, or defer to such a one as Lady Catherine de Bourgh. I particularly liked her in a scene not in the 1995 version, where Willoughby comes to the Palmer's house in the night, drunk and wanting to see Marianne (not knowing she is very ill) and Elinor treats him with the blunt coldness he so richly deserves. I also appreciated the way this version handles the climactic ending scenes; while the 1995 is emotionally more powerful, this version has power enough.

johnbol I really like Jane Austen and normally i like TV-series of her work more then a movie ( i think the 1971 TV-series of Emma is great). But this series just does not sparkle. The acting is too restrained. Therefore the whole production becomes rather dull. There is hardly any humor in it. Also there is no chemistry between Elinor and Edward.Irene Richards ( Elinor ) has not done much TV / film work after this series and that should come as no surprise. Most of the actors in this TV-series are no match to the actors in the 1995 movie. I would like to see a new TV series of this novel. As for now... i'll watch the Emma Thompson movie.

avanti Emma Thompson(Elinor) in the 1995 version scripts herself more time on screen compared to Kate Winslet(Marianne).This version focuses on BOTH of the sisters equally. This version is far more faithful to the novel than the movie made in 1995. The only flaw in this version is the mysterious disappearance (non-inclusion) of the youngest sister, Margaret.