Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense
Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.
Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.
orinocowomble 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 ages 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.
Red-125 "Sense & Sensibility" (2008) directed by John Alexander, is an excellent BBC version of a great novel. I have just watched--and reviewed for IMDb--the 1971 version, also done by BBC. Each version has it's strong and weak points, but I slightly prefer this version to the earlier one.Production values were excellent, as they were in the earlier version. The BBC actors lived up to their reputations, and, of course, the story is fascinating. However, I think the casting was better in the recent version. Both Hattie Morahan as Elinor Dashwood, and Charity Wakefield as Marianne Dashwood, looked like my concept of the characters described by Austen. David Morrissey as Colonel Brandon, and Dominic Cooper as Willoughby were equally well cast. However, Dan Stevens was too worldly and sophisticated for the role of Edward Ferrars. I'm not convinced that he would have truly preferred a small country parish to life in London. Claire Skinner was excellent as the ever-so-polite and ever-so-evil Fanny Dashwood.Watching two movie versions of the same novel back-to-back is like reading two versions of a French or Russian novel in translation. You get a very different work of art depending on the choices made by the director of the film or the translator of the book. If the movies were allowed to follow the book chapter by chapter, they would be eight or ten hours long. So, some scenes must be abandoned or at least compressed. That's where the writer and director have to make decisions about what stays in and what goes out. Those decisions, in turn, determine the sense and the feel of the product that we see. It's a long time since I've read the novel, so I can't be sure which version is truer to Austen's work. However, both films both fascinating, and worth seeking out. Because this film was conceived as a TV miniseries, it's structured to work well on a small screen. Nonetheless, if you can see it in a theater, it will probably look even better. Buy it or rent it. You won't be disappointed.
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 ionate 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.
stormygail50 this 2008 movie of sense and sensibility is a very pleasing one. i really enjoyed the characters, especially Elinor's. Hattie morahan is a more believable Elinor in manner and age. it seems as if she had taken on the mother role of her family and was the voice of reason leaving the other characters to dwell in their fanasties, with Marianne's romantic ideals and the mother's inability to accept their position upon the father's death. i loved this portrayal of Edward Farris much better altrhough i could still see a lot of Hugh grant's mannerisms in Dan Stevens version of Edward. Dan Stevens does an excellent job of making you believe his character and liking him and ire his morals while all the time hoping he unites with Elinor. although i really liked the role of col. Brandon in this version i still like Alan rickman's portrayal..he speaks so beautifully and so much like the men of education of that era. i love the way he speaks.i really liked this movie and after listening to Andrew Davies explanations or comments on this version you come to appreciate even more, such as the comments of the choice of the cottage the dashwoods come to live in.overall i loved the ending to this version much better.it was nice to see that the girls found what they were looking for especially Marianne. the 1995 version left you feeling there was something missing from Edward's declaration of love for Elinor..watching the deleted scenes at least gives you better closure with their romance.i loved this movie version that i ordered it before it was released--well here in Canada anyway. i heartily invite people to watch this movie
