Console best movie i've ever seen.

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

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

JaneFrosty The actress who played Elinor gasps throughout. In this period in history, it would have been perceived as rude to have an open mouth. At times she looks like a landed fish and at the end the shoulder shaking is hilariously bad acting. So her portrayal lets this version down. Left me wondering why she was chosen for this role.The rest of the cast are quite good.

deirdrechalmers 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.

Anastasia Kharlamova Though the 1995 adaptation still remains my favorite, this one does have some advantages over it. First, of course, there are the younger actors cast as Elinor and Brandon; as much as I admire Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman, it's a fact that they were about 15 years older than their characters. Second, the miniseries format which allowed more scenes to fit in. Third, the addition of Elinor's drawing hobby - after all, she's a living and breathing 19-year-old, not Rational Sense personalized.The costumes and sets are all splendid. Almost no complaints here, though the poverty of Barton Cottage was, I believe, a bit exaggerated – with rooms so tiny there is barely enough space for the family, let alone their guests.But the main flaw of this adaptation, in my opinion, is that it gives too much away too early. We see Willoughby seducing and leaving Eliza Jr. in the first scene, and his sly smile, shifting eyes and plainly arrogant remarks later makes one wonder just how he completely bewitches everybody. On the other hand, Marianne is shown much more sympathetic with Colonel Brandon from the start, and after the duel scene no one can doubt which of the men will end up with her.Edward is shown much less shy than in the 1995 film. It allows him to converse with Elinor more freely, but then he (all of a sudden!) begins to mumble and stammer during the famous "talk about his education". Why the change?Finally, the scene with Marianne's sickness is much less dramatic. It seemed that the director wished to get her quickly to her happy ending, so, although she's raving in fever, there is always a feeling that there is no real danger. I think that this miniseries is a wonderful adaptation for those who are already familiar with the plot. Somehow it's like a big fanfiction in the "missing scenes" genre. It's for people who want to see Elinor not so rational and Edward not so shy; Colonel Brandon and Marianne's romance developing earlier and, well, less subtly; Willoughby the Villain from the beginning etc.But I wouldn't recommend it to these who don't know the novel or other movies based on it. Spoils all the intrigue, especially in the case of Marianne and her suitors.

maryplayspiano 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.