User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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!"

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.

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!

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.

An excellent adaptation of the Austen novel, though the production values can`t compare with the later film. The script is faithful to the original. The performances by the male leads are a bit bland.

"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?

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.

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.

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