What a waste of my time!!!

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The acting was quite good. All the principle characters were well represented. The problem was, Jane Austen's dialogue is perfect, as are all her set pieces. No updates are required, no new wives, older sisters, or children she did not herself see fit to place in her story. Duels, characters showing up where they are not meant to be. And all of it pointless, adding nothing to the story, the plotting or the characters. How is the story improved by Sir John Middleton suddenly having a wife, and Lucy Steele an older sister? Watch the 1995 version.

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.

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.

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!