Sense and Sensibility

This is a remarkable film that does a very good job of depicting a rigid and quite hidebound society that often made India's caste system look reasonable and moderate by comparison. One of the more enjoyable points for me was the fact that the "sense and sensibility" of the title had a most definite 19th Century feel and yet still remains very timeless and does not attempt to force Twentieth Century mores (probably by use of a crowbar) into a script where they do not belong. Modern day viewpoints do not belong here. If you want a modern day version, fine. But it would be, at best, only a glancing and quite loose adaptation of the novel, so why do an adaptation at all, then? Not all films have to reflect present day sensibilities. This is a very human and compelling story with a fine cast and wonderfully witty script. Look for a very dry and understated performance by Hugh Laurie as Mr. Palmer, the long-suffering husband of the daughter of Mrs. Jennings. Were I Mr. Palmer, I'd have long since invested in earplugs or opened a vein. Very fine film and most highly recommended.

After seeing Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth I wouldn't expect myself to like another JA adaptation so much, but I confess I did. P&P stays my favourite but S&S is very close. I can't agree with some of the comments that Hugh Grant wasn't proper for Edward Ferrars. Yes, maybe his age didn't match Emma Thompson's exactly but I think he acted wonderfully. His speech especially and stiff walk. I loved the scenes at the beginning where he made friends with Margaret Dashwood and played with her. It was so sweet. My favourite, however, was definitely Colonel Brandon! I think Alan Rickman was just perfect for that role. I've seen him only as professor Snape in the first Harry Potter film, so I can't compare very much but I would say he is a great actor. I love his voice (especially when he says "What can I do? Give me some occupation, Miss Dashwood, or I shall run mad.), love his intonation and how he cares for Marianne so tenderly and patiently even though she turns her back on him. You can see the suffering in his eyes! I first read the book and didn't like it much but after seeing the film I'll reread it. I highly recommend JAusten's books to anyone who hasn't read them yet and likes JA's adaptations.

I find this adaptation of Jane Austen's novel disappointing. It isn't at all as faithful as the BBC Miniseries Pride and Prejudice. Elinor is only a 19-yr old girl in the novel, so Emily Thompson is far too old to portray her and Hugh Grant makes a really silly Edward (and what silly 20th century jokes are added that weren't in the book at all). Elinor's mother in the book is as romantic and emotional as Marianne whereas the film portrays her as much stricter. I find only Marianne, Sir John and his mother in law well portrayed. Besides, though the Dashwoods were in reduced circumstances, Jane Austen never portrayed them as poor as the film makes them. It's downright silly to have them say they won't buy sugar or beef, whereas the novel shows them entertaining Sir John Dashwood and his family on a regular basis or being so called in their cottage (that doesn't look at all like a cottage) when they invited Edward or Willoughby to stay with them. The only good points are straight from the novel (the witty dialogues), but all that's been added (and subtracted) is of poor quality. Edward and Elinor's romance is not credible, and (but I did not find it credible in the novel either), the male characters don't seem real and the love affairs, except for Marianne and Willoughby's, appear contrived.