Wonderful Movie

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

"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?

To begin with, it took us several attempts to watch past the first 2 hours because it is so utterly boring. The acting is very dull, Marianne is a complete idiot and is very annoying, and Edward Ferrars is almost too awkward to watch. The decision not to include the youngest Dashwood sister had a very negative impact on the family dynamic - she seems to have instead been replaced by a couple of servants named Tom and Susan who sometimes have some very long appearances that don't have any relevance to the plot whatsoever. However, following the piercing, hysterical shrieks of Fanny Dashwood after she is told of Lucy Steele's engagement - which seem to last for several minutes and was very effective in rousing our attention - the story suddenly becomes far more chaotic, but certainly not dull. One memorable scene was Marianne's illness, during which she inexplicably calls for her mother to "teach me my ABC's" in her delirium. The ending seems to have been cut slightly short - perhaps BBC ran out of funding - with Mrs. Dashwood just muttering "My children"; and that's the end. In short, this is a terrible adaptation but if you can get past the first couple of hours it becomes so terrible and bizarre, it's good.

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.

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.