Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Liza-19 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.

dannerlc 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!"

henry-girling 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.

avanti 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.