It was okay. I'm a huge fan of the 1995 version, so that will bias my view of this one. I felt Col. Brandon came off a bit pervy for me in this one. I think this is partly due to the young appearance of Marianne, but also his looks towards her made me uncomfortable. I didn't love it. And the scene where he's going to "strip" her to get her out of her wet clothes when her sister's right there beside him. Ugh. Dude, get out of there and let the ladies do their work getting her warm. Creepy. I also thought the older brother was a tad creepy (no one needs a half brother giving advice about his sisters' bloom) and Sir John as well. I never thought the men in the 1995 version were creepy. Alan Rickman was noticeably older as Col. Brandon--as was intended, but his character showed more hesitation and always respected Marianne and never crossed any line. I would have preferred if the BBC version of Col. Brandon had looked a bit more tortured as the 1995 one did.
The older Dashwood sister (Elinor) in this version was played very well I thought. Movie quality, no, but good tv quality. I thought Marianne was played reasonably well. There were a couple times when I thought the scene could have been better handled by the actress. I'm aware that this sister annoys me though, so I will leave my review of the character at that except to say she must have been doing her job as the character once again annoyed me. The youngest Dashwood girl was played well also. I liked the dialogue of the 1995 version's Margaret better as well as that Margaret's tom boyishness. I feel that young actress played her perfectly. To me she IS Margaret Dashwood. This actress may have overplayed a few parts. I wasn't crazy about some of the dialogue they gave her, which may have been the cause of some of the overacting. I like this actress a good deal in the movie Miss Potter. It was good to see her in another role. The Dashwood mother does a fine job. I like the other one better, but this one is mostly motherly...although she almost has a certain sex kitten quality to her that the other one didn't have. It makes for a very different character to the 1995 one.
[In fact, this mini series in general with the pervy male characters and the sex kitten mom might be a sign of the male writer. I could have done without it. It wasn't very Jane Austen-like.]
I love both Edwards. Hugh is one of the greatest actors ever at pulling off awkward moments and witty banter, I feel. The 1995 version seemed written for him. When I first learned he'd played the part I never thought he would have pull it off, despite my liking him as an actor. He proved me very wrong. I'm glad for it. He was excellent. Meanwhile Dan Stevens is the exact kind of actor I'd expect to play Edward. He was an excellent fit for the role as it was written in the BBC mini series.
I ADORE the 1995 Sir John and Mrs. Jennings. They played off each other so well. Honestly, I think their work was/is genius. I will watch only their scenes sometimes. To keep up the laughter and jokes...priceless. They amaze me. This version's same characters were okay. I like the actors; I'm just not sure this mini series was the best role for either of them. (No one could have outdone him at playing Mr. Weasley in Harry Potter, and she is fantastic in Call the Midwife.)
Both Willoughby characters are despicable. And both Fanny characters are really well played. I thought they were both really well cast. I hardly noticed the BBC Mr. Palmer while Hugh Laurie is wonderful in the 1995 version. Contrast Hugh's character with Imelda Staunton's-- who plays his wife (and seems to always shine as a character actress) and you have a lot of humor added to a movie. I love them. The same characters seemed mostly superfluous in the BBC version.
Edwards' mother was an interesting touch in this version but mostly insignificant, while his younger brother Robert (played by an actor who was also in Becoming Jane, if I'm not mistaken) did a decent job. Robert was played a tad creepier and slimier and more pompous in the 1995 version, but overall I liked both of them. The 1995 version of Robert was perhaps a tad more believable though.
The Lucy Steeles are both very good. Anna Madeley is an excellent actress. I love her work in an episode of Agatha Christie's Poirot when David Suchet was playing Poirot. I think it was the last season and maybe even the last episode. And I think she's even better in All Creatures Great and Small. Meanwhile the 1995 Lucy Steele is excellent as well. It is so easy to dislike her. Imogen Stubbs, who I know from nowhere else, plays a thoroughly self-serving Lucy. She's so good that she reminds me of someone who I know from real life who was equally manipulative and two-faced and skilled at climbing the social ladder.
Little Harry was a cute addition in the BBC version. There were other characters as well, but I think I covered most of the important ones. Both Elinors had scenes they should be proud of when their respective Edwards inform them of not being married. Hattie Morahan's crying and attempt to keep herself busy with her face turned away from Edward suits that stoic personality type well. It is only outdone by Emma Thompson's interpretation of the character who cries like a teapot finally allowed to let out the strain of the trapped steam and grief inside itself. Emma's sobbing performance is the other genius performance, in my opinion. It's this performance by Thompson and the jovial natures of Sir John (Robert Hardy) and Mrs. Jennings (Elizabeth Spriggs) that first made me love the 1995 version. Add the excellent performances of Kate Winslet, Miriam François, Gemma Jones, Hugh Laurie, Imelda Staunton, Greg Wise, James Fleet, Harriet Walker, Oliver Ford Davies, and of course Hugh Grant and Alan Rickman, as well as Imogen Stubbs, Richard Lumsden, and Tom Wilkinson, and you have an award-winning classic.
(I'd like to add that there were also very believable Miss Grey's in both shows as well as house help. 1995: Thomas & Betsy and Pigeon (excellent expressions). BBC: Pigeon was very likeable and believable. )
But as you can see, I don't rate the BBC version as high. Despite some nice performances, I think the writer lost site of what makes Jane Austen's work special: her own unique perspective as a woman. There were a lot of men in this version who were written and who acted like men I would not have wanted to know. And much of this version's dialogue and scenes are quite forgettable for me. Another reviewer said it lacked 1995's charm. I would agree.
Similar items that may ship from close to you
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Reviews with images
Submit a report
A few common reasons customers report reviews:
- Harassment, profanity
- Spam, advertisement, promotions
- Given in exchange for cash, discounts
When we get your report, we'll check if the review meets our Community guidelines. If it doesn't, we'll remove it.
Sorry, there was an error
Please try again later.Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on October 17, 2023
Reviewed in the United States on October 2, 2023
Reviewed in the United States on September 29, 2022
Reviewed in the United States on September 27, 2015
Top reviews from other countries
Me_Mo
Like a theatre play, but lovely all the same
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on July 4, 2006Janet Austen
A bit wooden and dated, but saved by Tracey Childs
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on February 15, 2014
