It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

I was not very fond of it originally but I found I actually liked it a lot more seeing it again so soon after the 1971 version. The two share the same screenwriter, who seems to have lifted a lot from the 1971 to use again in this version. Many scenes are virtually identical, or very close. Margaret was cut yet again but other than that it followed the book more closely than 1971. It lacked all the wacky 70s costumes and hairstyles that made the earlier one so crazy and seemed much more understated to me. Part of this also has to do with the acting, much of which was more low-key. Some of the casting was better, some was worse…It's up to you to decide which you prefer!

I have reviewed every adaptation of Sense and Sensibility and find that they are all good in their own way. Many have commented about each version, but I believe the 2008 version is the best version. It had the cast skills of the Emma Thompson 1995 Screenplay and the accuracy of the 1981 adaptation. Many find the 1981 version boring, but I disagree. It is ill-cast. But the screenplay is very good. (I even read that people were angry that Margaret was absent in this version. Actually, she is absent in the book as well. Why Austen even included her in name I cannot understand.) Anyway, if you take the cast of 1995 and put them into the 1981 screenplay, you come out with the 2008 adaption. Hope this is not too confusing.

I enjoyed the fact that many good moments of the novel are presented in this TV version that you cannot see in the movie, for lack of time. For example, the scene at Mrs Ferrars' little party, which shows the Steeles trying to make themselves liked by the lady, or when Willoughby comes back for an explanation. However, I thought the acting was just horrendous. Whereas I can truly believe in Elinor's love for Edward in the 1995 movie version with Emma Thompson, while believing at the same time in the utmost importance of her attempts at keeping her true feelings secret, in this case, I thought Irene Richard was absolutely not able to convey neither one of these feelings. She is just wooden. On top of that, I was constantly distracted by her prominent front teeth... I'm fully aware this is not a very good reason to dislike an actor, but this is just the truth, I could not stop looking at her mouth all the time! It just ruined it even more. Tracey Child in the role of Marianne has moments that are OK, but she overplays terribly most of the time, especially during her illness. Man! I wanted to slap her. And what about Fanny Dashwood's nervous breakdown!!! I think she ought to go in history for most unbelievable reaction to bad news. One of the actors I enjoyed more was Colonel Brandon, who was not hamming it up, and would let his love for Marianne shine through his facial expressions, his tone of voice. I liked him a lot. The best scene with him is when he starts talking about poetry with Marianne, and she starts seeing him in a new light; you don't see this change of heart as much in the 1995 movie version. Anyway, for a true Jane Austen lover, this version of Sense and Sensibility might be interesting for curiosity value and for the fact that it portrays a few scenes that you don't see elsewhere, but other than that, it's really not great at all.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the BBC dramatised all Austen's six completed novels. They reached a high note with Fay Weldon's definitive Pride and Prejudice, which is still the benchmark for screen adaptations of Austen (and far superior to the syrupy 1995 version). This Sense and Sensibility followed two years later and is inevitably something of a let down. In recent years it has also suffered by comparison with Emma Thompson's masterly movie adaptation.This version has the advantage of an extra hour in which to tell the story. It can include characters that Thompson had to omit, such as Lucy's silly elder sister and Lady Middleton and her spoilt children and can include scenes that she had to cut (in particular the confrontations between Elinore and Lady Ferrars and Elinore and Willoughby). It also helps that key characters are closer to their right ages. In the movie, Robert Hardy is not only 30 years too old to be Sir John Middleton, but is actually two years older than the actress playing his mother-in-law. Similarly, Thompson's Elinore and Rickman's Colonel Brandon are a dozen years older than Austen's characters. Overall, it feels like a more faithful adaptation of the book.However, this is not necessarily important. Because Emma Thompson knew she was going to have to condense the story she had to think much more carefully about what she wanted to get from the book. Her free adaptation actually improves on Austen in certain respects. She dramatises the process of Elinore and Edward falling in love (Austen simply tells us this has happened in the prologue). This soon pays dividends, because in the book, apart from one visit to Barton Cottage and a couple of short stilted meetings in London, Edward disappears until the closing chapter. In the book, Marianne and Willoughby fare better, but her eventual husband, Colonel Brandon, also disappears for long stretches and there is relatively little interplay between the two rivals. Emma Thompson realised that the key relationship is actually that between the sisters and that is what she puts at the heart of the story. Their lovers are almost incidental.The failure of this TV version is that although it can be more expansive and include more characters and more incidents, it doesn't have the same sense of purpose. In particular, it never really establishes the relationship between the sisters. Irene Richards (who was a superb Charlotte Lucas in P & P) plays Elinore as somewhat more spiky and confrontational than did Emma Thompson. She is much more openly critical of Marianne and less indulgent with her and for much of the time they seem to actively dislike each other (she is also too nakedly hostile to Lucy Steel). Tracy Childs is a good Marianne, but perhaps too much of a spoilt brat at times. The relationship between the two never quite works and with that failure the production is doomed.Nonetheless, there are incidental benefits. Many of the performances are good. I have a lot of time for Bosco Hogan's Edward and Peter Woodward's Willoughby. I also liked this Mrs Palmer (although the underwritten Mr Palmer suffers in comparison with Hugh Laurie's character). What is ultimately disappointing is the vagueness of the writing and direction. Too often this production simply misses the point of a scene. For example, it is not sufficiently clear that Mrs Ferrars gives precedence to Lucy as a snub to Elinore. Or again, that Fanny invited the Steels to stay with her in order to prevent her husband from inviting Elinore and Marianne. This is a question of fudging simple plot points, but far more inexplicable is the fact that when Willoughby turns up in the middle of the night to see Marianne he is apparently unaware that she is ill - that was the reason he came!Although I think this is probably the most disappointing of the six BBC Austens (Northanger Abbey is less satisfactory but more inventive), it is still a decent enough production and I am glad to have it in my collection. I would recommend it to anyone that wants a more complete version of the book than Thompson and Ang Lee were able to give us. It is not as good as their movie, but is worth a viewing for all that.