This 3-hr miniseries seems to me much more faithful to the novel than the 1995 film by Ang Lee and Emma Thompson. the characters were as I pictured them while reading the novel. I find Edward a credible character and the love affair between him and Elinor skilfully and sensitively portrayed. (They make a much more convincing couple than stuttering Hugh Grant and Miss Thompson...) Best of all, the relationship between the two sisters : their tenderness and love in spite of their very different temperaments is convincingly depicted. I just felt the 1995 adaptation missed that aspect which made Elinor hysterics at ill Marianne's bedside all the more absurd and ill-timed. In this miniseries, there are no such hysterical scenes during Marianne's illness, Mrs Jennings is there just as in the book. The dialogues are almost word for word from the novel. The slow pace is suitable because so is the novel. Just one flaw : the end which seems a bit abrupt, as if they were running out of time. A really lovely series.
28 Reviews
Good Version
henry-girling9 June 2003
The advantage this television version has over the later 1995 film version directed by Ang Lee is that due to its length it allows more important scenes to be shown. This good BBC version keeps in the visit of Edward Ferrers to Barton Cottage and of Willoughby to see Marianne when she is ill. It also deletes the third sister Margaret, which I think is to the good.
It is important when doing Jane Austen not to over act, as suppression makes for tension, and in this the actors do a fine job. The scenes between Elinor Dashwood and Lucy Steele are excellent, seething and polite at the same time. Julia Chambers as Lucy Steele is excellent and equally as good as Imogen Stubbs in the 1995 film.
The male actors are not all bland, Donald Douglas gives a jolly performance and Peter Gale is perfectly unctuous as John Dashwood, but also sympathetic, caught as he is between a domineering wife and mother in law. Bosco Hogan and Robert Swann are a bit dull however.
This is not a sumptuous Hollywood version but fine on its own terms.
It is important when doing Jane Austen not to over act, as suppression makes for tension, and in this the actors do a fine job. The scenes between Elinor Dashwood and Lucy Steele are excellent, seething and polite at the same time. Julia Chambers as Lucy Steele is excellent and equally as good as Imogen Stubbs in the 1995 film.
The male actors are not all bland, Donald Douglas gives a jolly performance and Peter Gale is perfectly unctuous as John Dashwood, but also sympathetic, caught as he is between a domineering wife and mother in law. Bosco Hogan and Robert Swann are a bit dull however.
This is not a sumptuous Hollywood version but fine on its own terms.
The true Austen psychology
sissoed2 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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.
Fine male performances as well
Caledonia Twin #15 September 2000
I have to disagree that the male performances were bland. Bosco Hogan did a very good job as the self-effacing Edward, and Douglas' portrayal of Sir John Middleton was so lively that as far as the interpretation of this character is concerned, the later S&S actor seems to have borrowed heavily from prior precedent. And Peter Woodward makes a dashing Willoughby, every bit as convincing as the more recent Willoughby. Woodward's voice and elocution are fantastic, and he sings remarkably well. I also enjoyed Marianne's performance in particular. In many ways, this adaptation is more faithful to the novel. The only flaw is that it begins in medias res rather than at the beginning, and it begins with a strangely stilted introduction, but that can be overlooked due to the brilliant performances, which improve with every minute of the film.
Adequate but little charm & spoiled by dull acting
beijingpearl200318 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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!
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!
Great for Die Hard Austen Fans
karalynnn16 January 2006
Well as a lover of Jane Austen one would be hard pressed to do a reproduction of one of her books and disappoint me. S&S was a pretty well done miniseries, most BBC miniseries are well done. There was a much more book and a more through representation of all the minor characters in this movie than in the 1995 Sense and Sensibility directed by Ang Lee and staring Kate Winslet, Emma Thompson. However the 1981 BBC miniseries was seriously lacking in a couple vital points, the omission of the youngest Dashwood daughter, Margaret and this viewer found the leads of Marranne and Elinor to be so abysmally portrayed I really didn't care a bit about what happened to their characters. These women weren't lovable or very likable. Overall, between to two leads, Tracey Childs as Marriann was the better portrayal. Irene Richard's portrayal of Elinor was so dead pan and empty of any emotion, at all, that much of the movie containing her was difficult to sit through. Over all, for the Austen fan this is a must see movie, but only for the more complete story and representations. Especially the devilishly catty Miss Lucy Steele who in the Ang Lee S&S is very under portrayed.
Worth a viewing
keith-moyes21 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
A Wonderful Adaption That Is Ill-Cast
Markcip115 February 2010
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.
An enjoyable faithful version that most Austen Fans would savor.
cynthia_h_495097 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I watched the DVD of this TV mini-series in one sitting. It was divided into seven 20-30 minute episodes which interrupted the flow a bit,but they were edited well enough to still create a story arc in each episode. The exclusion of the youngest sister only bothered me for a bit and then I forgot about it.At one point Tracey Childs, as Marianne was supposed to be ill and characters kept commenting on her thinness. Ms.Childs was not at all thin and the comments being so inappropriate drew one out of the story. I would have thought the screenwriter Alexander Baron could have changed those comments to fit the actress. Also I was often distracted by Irene Richard's (Elinor)makeup.She often looked like she was wearing a milk mustache and I kept wanting to fix her lipstick!! Peter Woodward was a particularly attractive Willoghby and it was very believable that he would appeal to Marianne.However,Robert Swann as Colonel Brandon was also very attractive,more so than the book indicated. Bosco Hogan as Edward Ferrars was exactly as attractive as he needed to be. I would recommend this to anyone who will watch anything Austen and those who enjoy older BBC productions.
The BBC took everything that was under par from the 1971 version and improved it to make this excellent version. Ang Lee's 1995 film feels like a movie remake of this version.
mickman91-14 January 2022
I am very surprised about some of the reviews for this. Fans are spoiled with Sense and Sensibility because it is one of the few period novels that has had an excellent big budget Hollywood production (the 1995 Ang Lee film). So anyone who has seen the film and then has come across this 1981 BBC TV adaptation will in comparison find this much less exciting I am sure. However, I watch many many older TV adaptations, I have watched much of the Dickens, Hardy, Bronte, Austen etc from 1970 onwards. And I can say with certainty that this is a really good version for its time. Sense and Sensibility was adapted 10 years earlier (1971) and that version is very low in budget and quality. I gave that one a 6/10. It is unusual for the BBC to remake it so relatively soon after but you can totally see why they wanted to do so. You can tell that they took everything that didn't work in the 1971 version and improved it to create a much better version. In this version the pacing is excellent, there is no filler and each scene logically and with explanation moves on to the next. The short 25 minute episodes also assist in keeping the momentum flowing. The casting is much better in this one, each of the characters are unique and identifiable and similar in age to the characters in the novel (unlike the 1995 film for instance). All of the characters connections to each other and motivations in any given scene are clear well presented. There are no hugely enduring actors in this one which is perhaps unusual but everyone does their job well. There is no doubt in my mind that Ang Lee saw this version and held it in high regard because the 1995 film feels like a movie remake of this version in many ways.
I really tried
kayper542 December 2010
Initially, I found myself wishing I hadn't seen Emma Thompson's version before seeing this one. But about the time I started the 4th half-hour installment I realized that it didn't matter. Even without the 1995 film version to compare it to, this version just falls flat. I've been able to watch and enjoy the smaller, TV-mini-series versions of Austen's novels as much (or even more) than their big, film-versions, but this just didn't work. They were slightly more faithful to the novel, but only slightly, and it didn't work in their favor. The acting is just bad. The actors all seemed as if they were reciting from a teleprompter. I liked very much the production of "Mansfield Park" that came out just a couple of years after this, so I know they were capable of doing so much better. At the very least, the actress playing Marianne should have at least pretended to have as much passion as Marianne was supposed to have, but she didn't even try. I couldn't tell one difference between Marianne's character and Elinor's character. But maybe it was the script. The script didn't seem to give her all that much passion to act out. There are other versions out there that I haven't seen, and I hope they do better.
Not the best version for me, but I still liked it very much
TheLittleSongbird30 May 2012
I love the book, and as much as I do love the 1995 Ang Lee film my favourite version to date is the 2008 version. This 1981 series is very good though, only let down in my opinion by an abrupt ending and Robert Swann's dull Colonel Brandon. However, it is handsomely photographed, and the scenery and costumes look absolutely gorgeous. The music is also effective in its simplicity. The script while not as witty as the Ang Lee film is still literate and true in spirit to Jane Austen's language, and the story while not quite exploring a couple of scenes as well as the 2008 series is still moving and not too rushed or leisurely, in fact it adopts a slow(but never laborious) pace that was perfect considering how the story of the book unfolds. Apart from Swann, I thought the acting was fine. Of the two sisters Mariann and Elinor the Mariann of Tracey Childs I found better. Winslet in the 1995 film is more subtle, but Childs is still quite affecting. Irene Richard is excellent in her scenes between Julia Chambers' Lucy Steele, and is closer than age than Emma Thompson as well as spikier and more confrontational, an approach I liked. Julia Chambers' Lucy is wonderfully catty, Donald Douglas gives a performance of jollity as Sir John, Peter Gale is a sympathetic John Dashwood and Bosco Hogan and Peter Woodward are a dashing Edward and Willoughby respectively. All in all, I liked it very much, though of the three Sense and Sensibility adaptations I've seen thus far it is my least favourite. 8/10 Bethany Cox
Good elements but not great
marspeach2 May 2011
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!
Not very good
johnbol8 June 2005
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.
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.
The worst piece of cinema EVER!
dannerlc22 October 2003
This film is a crime! This bbc production is probably the worst thing ever created by the BBC. Forget about wooden, these actors are set in cement! Although it does follow austen's novel, the camera work is lousey, its as if you are watching a play, close ups are rare and when done, you find yourself half way up the actor's nose. Marianne is far to irritating, she rivals the character of lydia from Pride and Prejudice in the biggest pain in the butt factor. the character of Margaret is completely cut out of the film, which one would think would not be a huge deal, since she's not that important of a character. However, the family dynamic just seems wrong without a little sister to liven things up now and then. Edward is scary! In fact looks wise (which ordinarly i would never mention), all of the characters are a bit freakish. And the worst part is that Willoughby is dressed like a demented evil lephercan (sp?) the majority of the movie. He's nothing to pine over, that's for sure. All in all, this movie is terrible and if you're trying to get a friend to fall in love with Austen DO NOT SHOW THEM THIS! This movie will make even a hardcore lover of Austen to think twice about her work. It's slow, and boring. Her spirit is NOT with this film. I give it a -5. and a big "UCK!"
takes a while to find its feet, but not a total disaster
didi-52 August 2007
This version of Austen's novel of love, romance, greed, and jealousy, stars Irene Richard as Elinor and Tracey Childs as Marianne. It omits completely the youngest sister (which is a shame) but manages to make more of the characters of Edward Ferrars, Willoughby, and Lucy Steele than the more modern feel version written and featuring Emma Thompson a decade later.
However, the first two or three episodes are dull rather than diverting, and only when Marianne needs help and a suitor most do things get interesting. It may not have the high-profile romantic leads that the 1990s version did, but it manages to be touching and effective in the end episode.
The episodic nature of this adaptation (7 parts of around 45 minutes each) doesn't really help and it leaves you thinking whether there is really enough to this tale to stretch through many episodes that don't say very much.
However, the first two or three episodes are dull rather than diverting, and only when Marianne needs help and a suitor most do things get interesting. It may not have the high-profile romantic leads that the 1990s version did, but it manages to be touching and effective in the end episode.
The episodic nature of this adaptation (7 parts of around 45 minutes each) doesn't really help and it leaves you thinking whether there is really enough to this tale to stretch through many episodes that don't say very much.
Feels incomplete
nmv339 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
This was a good mini series until episode 7. Was there an episode 8 that they forgot to air? This needed one more episode to round up the end. 7 is rushed after Marianne gets better. Where's the scenes of her falling in love with Brandon? Where is Elinor's hysterical happy tears after finding out Edward wasn't married? It was a very disappointing end to this otherwise good production. Yes, there were some bland and theatre like scenography, a little overacting and or coldness, ect. But it was entertaining. The 3 episode miniseries was short but it was better in terms of finishing the story like it was intended. This ending was very anticlimactic.
Enjoyably authentic version
chrisludlam5 January 2007
Having watched the 1995 movie for the first time a few days ago,I decided to watch this fine BBC production again,and found it the more satisfying of the two.
The acting was of a good standard;Tracey Childs splendid as Marianne,and Bosco Hogan's interpretation of Edward Ferrers far exceeded Hugh Grant's peculiar effort in the Ang Lee film.The direction and location filming in Dorset/Somerset and the authentic early 1800's feel more than compensated for the budget constraints.
Also,Willoughby's telling confession to Eleanor as Marianne lay seriously ill upstairs was,thankfully,retained,unlike the 1995 version.
A good miniseries,more Jane Austen than it's "grander" successor!Nine out of ten!
The acting was of a good standard;Tracey Childs splendid as Marianne,and Bosco Hogan's interpretation of Edward Ferrers far exceeded Hugh Grant's peculiar effort in the Ang Lee film.The direction and location filming in Dorset/Somerset and the authentic early 1800's feel more than compensated for the budget constraints.
Also,Willoughby's telling confession to Eleanor as Marianne lay seriously ill upstairs was,thankfully,retained,unlike the 1995 version.
A good miniseries,more Jane Austen than it's "grander" successor!Nine out of ten!
Skip it. See the 1995 version.
Liza-1925 July 2006
Luckily we have the beautiful 1995 version to remind us that this is actually a wonderful story. You wouldn't know it from this. The actors are wooden, the costumes are lacking and the locations are dreary. The opening sequence with Elinor and Marianne sitting on some sort of demented cousin of a see-saw is just out and out creepy. None of the actors seem to have any interest and definitely no excitement with their roles. They're practically sleepwalking! The first problem with this is really in the script. The writers did not seem to find any of the humor in the book, and seemed to focus on all the wrong things. As has already been mentioned, the character of Margaret is completely left out. This isn't really a big deal, she is hardly in the book at all (kind of like Kitty in Pride & Prejudice - she's just there). But in her version, Emma Thompson really saw potential in the character of Margaret to add some cute one-liners and bring some comic relief. She expanded the character rather than deleting it, and it's easy to see which way worked better.
There's no comic relief in this version at all. No one's funny. No one's even interesting. This focuses too much on the Elinor/Edward factor and doesn't put any real energy in the Marianne/Willoughby/Brandon triangle - a real misfortune because I always found the latter plot line far more interesting.
Irene Richard does turn in an acceptable performance as Elinor. Tracey Childs is an okay Marianne, but definitely nothing exceptional. She loses major points when you compare her portrayal with Kate Winslet's Oscar-nominated one. Where Childs was quiet and accepting Winslet was all over the place with passion. To Childs's defense, let's note that she had the most wooden and irritating actors playing her suitors, while Winslet had the incredibly handsome Alan Rickman and Greg Wise.
All in all, this version just falls short in too many ways. See the remake, it's a shining example of how Austen *should* be done.
There's no comic relief in this version at all. No one's funny. No one's even interesting. This focuses too much on the Elinor/Edward factor and doesn't put any real energy in the Marianne/Willoughby/Brandon triangle - a real misfortune because I always found the latter plot line far more interesting.
Irene Richard does turn in an acceptable performance as Elinor. Tracey Childs is an okay Marianne, but definitely nothing exceptional. She loses major points when you compare her portrayal with Kate Winslet's Oscar-nominated one. Where Childs was quiet and accepting Winslet was all over the place with passion. To Childs's defense, let's note that she had the most wooden and irritating actors playing her suitors, while Winslet had the incredibly handsome Alan Rickman and Greg Wise.
All in all, this version just falls short in too many ways. See the remake, it's a shining example of how Austen *should* be done.
Excellent Austen adaptation
jlweb13 September 1998
Faithful to the novel but poor on acting
MyrPraune12 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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.
Excellent version of a great novel
Red-12527 June 2016
"Sense and Sensibility" (1981) is a BBC mini-series directed by Rodney Bennett. The basic plot of Jane Austen's novel is familiar. The Dashwood sisters are forced to leave their home because their elder half-brother inherits the estate after their father dies.
Elinor Dashwood (played by Irene Richard) represents "sense." She is practical and pragmatic. Marianne Dashwood (Tracey Childs) represents "sensibility." The meaning of this word has drifted over the years. In Austen's time its meaning was closer to "sensitivity." Marianne is the romantic sister. She loves music and she awaits the man who can sweep her off her feet. Each sister finds a true love, and in both cases their love is thwarted. How they respond to their situation is what makes this a great novel.
How directors respond to this great novel is also interesting. Starting in 1971, four versions of Sense and Sensibility have been brought to the screen. Three were made for television by the BBC, and the fourth was a theatrical film from 1995 directed by Ang Lee, and starring Emma Thompson as Elinor and Kate Winslet as Marianne.
We have recently watched all four versions. Although this 1981 version carries a dismal IMDb rating of 6.8, we liked it the best of the four.
All of the versions have high production values, and all are worth seeing. Although all the movies are based on the same novel, they are all quite different. If you had the time and inclination you could compare the four versions on many variables. For example, there are three critical male characters in the films, and at least a dozen other important supporting roles. What the directors emphasize, and how the actors respond,gives each version different strengths and weaknesses.
In my opinion, Irene Richard and Tracey Childs embody the characters that Austen created better than in any other version. Peter Woodward makes the perfect John Willoughby, the romantic hero with whom Marianne is in love. It's an important supporting role, and Woodward portrays it extremely well. To me, this version looked and felt closer to Austen than any of the others.
It's not clear to me why other IMDb members didn't appreciate this movie. I loved it, and I recommend it as the Sense and Sensibility to watch if you're only going to watch one version. However, all of the versions are available on DVD. Why not watch all four and decide for yourself which is the best?
Elinor Dashwood (played by Irene Richard) represents "sense." She is practical and pragmatic. Marianne Dashwood (Tracey Childs) represents "sensibility." The meaning of this word has drifted over the years. In Austen's time its meaning was closer to "sensitivity." Marianne is the romantic sister. She loves music and she awaits the man who can sweep her off her feet. Each sister finds a true love, and in both cases their love is thwarted. How they respond to their situation is what makes this a great novel.
How directors respond to this great novel is also interesting. Starting in 1971, four versions of Sense and Sensibility have been brought to the screen. Three were made for television by the BBC, and the fourth was a theatrical film from 1995 directed by Ang Lee, and starring Emma Thompson as Elinor and Kate Winslet as Marianne.
We have recently watched all four versions. Although this 1981 version carries a dismal IMDb rating of 6.8, we liked it the best of the four.
All of the versions have high production values, and all are worth seeing. Although all the movies are based on the same novel, they are all quite different. If you had the time and inclination you could compare the four versions on many variables. For example, there are three critical male characters in the films, and at least a dozen other important supporting roles. What the directors emphasize, and how the actors respond,gives each version different strengths and weaknesses.
In my opinion, Irene Richard and Tracey Childs embody the characters that Austen created better than in any other version. Peter Woodward makes the perfect John Willoughby, the romantic hero with whom Marianne is in love. It's an important supporting role, and Woodward portrays it extremely well. To me, this version looked and felt closer to Austen than any of the others.
It's not clear to me why other IMDb members didn't appreciate this movie. I loved it, and I recommend it as the Sense and Sensibility to watch if you're only going to watch one version. However, all of the versions are available on DVD. Why not watch all four and decide for yourself which is the best?
Compare it to the newer version and you'll see it's charms
avanti7 April 2001
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.
See the 1995 Version Instead
alix2468ks16 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I don't think this is the worst movie ever made by any means but I did not like it at all. Sure, it tells the story well enough, but the acting really is atrocious.
The Dashwood Ladies (the mom and Mrs. John Dashwood included) all did a decent job, as well as Edward, Willowby, and Colonel Brandon. Nothing extraordinary, but they get the job done. My issue was with the supporting players. All of them sounded like they were reading from scripts, esp. Lucy, Miss Steele, Charlotte, and Mrs. Jennings. I had the biggest issues with Charlotte and Miss Steele. Charlotte's laugh even sounded scripted (ha ha ha ha) with no authenticity whatsoever. **SPOILER ALERT** When Miss Steele drops the bomb and Fanny Dashwood flips out, Miss Steele's cowering looks somewhere between hypothermia and seizures. Also, none of the actors had the emotional depth needed for this story. Whenever one of the actresses was trying to hold back tears, there is no look of restraint before they burst into tears, so it looks very odd and bi-polar. Also, when Brandon is taking Marianne out of the party, there is no sense of urgency. Elinor just strolls out after them. I would think, if your sister has fainted, you would feel like maybe you should move a little quicker. Mrs. Jennings had good moments but I was totally thrown off by her closeup after Elinor tells her off; and she never came back from that for me.
Basically, I would say go with the 1995 version, there is excellent acting, better looking people, better cinematography (it isn't really the movie's fault that it's so bad in that department since it was in 1981), the stuff that needs to be in there is, and they don't add anything too Hollywood to it. This version added nothing to the story for me, and I found it very unromantic (probably the best description as to why this movie is lacking for me in comparison to the 1995 version). The novel has very romantic moments but no part of this movie gave me that "Aw" heartwarming moment.
The Dashwood Ladies (the mom and Mrs. John Dashwood included) all did a decent job, as well as Edward, Willowby, and Colonel Brandon. Nothing extraordinary, but they get the job done. My issue was with the supporting players. All of them sounded like they were reading from scripts, esp. Lucy, Miss Steele, Charlotte, and Mrs. Jennings. I had the biggest issues with Charlotte and Miss Steele. Charlotte's laugh even sounded scripted (ha ha ha ha) with no authenticity whatsoever. **SPOILER ALERT** When Miss Steele drops the bomb and Fanny Dashwood flips out, Miss Steele's cowering looks somewhere between hypothermia and seizures. Also, none of the actors had the emotional depth needed for this story. Whenever one of the actresses was trying to hold back tears, there is no look of restraint before they burst into tears, so it looks very odd and bi-polar. Also, when Brandon is taking Marianne out of the party, there is no sense of urgency. Elinor just strolls out after them. I would think, if your sister has fainted, you would feel like maybe you should move a little quicker. Mrs. Jennings had good moments but I was totally thrown off by her closeup after Elinor tells her off; and she never came back from that for me.
Basically, I would say go with the 1995 version, there is excellent acting, better looking people, better cinematography (it isn't really the movie's fault that it's so bad in that department since it was in 1981), the stuff that needs to be in there is, and they don't add anything too Hollywood to it. This version added nothing to the story for me, and I found it very unromantic (probably the best description as to why this movie is lacking for me in comparison to the 1995 version). The novel has very romantic moments but no part of this movie gave me that "Aw" heartwarming moment.
Quite good
AngelofMusic199831 January 2020
Sense and Sensibility is a very good book and this TV series is quite good.Irene Richards and Tracey Childs are good as Elinod and Marianne.Sets and costumes are great(better than the one in the 1970s).The rest of the cast does a good job as well.Nice adaptation.8/10
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
