Don't listen to the negative reviews

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

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

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.

While I greatly love the 1995 film, this BBC production, like the other BBC Jane Austen productions, does a better job of conveying more of Austen's insights into human nature and the tension between the duty to protect the emotional and psychological state of others and the drive to pursue satisfaction of one's own emotional desires. The exploration of this tension is the great theme of Austen. The major strength of this production as compared to the 1995 version is the character of Marianne, which in turn changes and deepens the relationship of the two sisters, Marianne and Elinor. In the 1995 version Marianne is more indiscreet with Willoughby and more scornful to Elinor, rejecting all of Elinor's counsel to be more restrained. As a result, it is hard to see that the two women have any relationship at all, other than the happenstance they are sisters and live in the same house. Here, Marianne declines an improper gift from Willoughby (a horse) after Elinor explains its impropriety (this incident is not in the 1995 version), and overall, she does not let the fact that she is more passionate than Elinor lead her to be dismissive of Elinor. Thus it is possible to see why these two might be close, even before Marianne discovers how much emotion Elinor has in fact been feeling since learning of Edward Ferrars' secret engagement. And later, when their greedy brother asks them to cut-off all relations with Edward Ferrars (a scene not in the 1995 version), and Elinor springs up and refuses, Marianne also springs up and says "bravo" and then the two sisters walk out arm-in-arm. Thus we see a real bond between these sisters that we never see in the 1995 version. I liked the portrayal of the Marianne character better in this version than in the 1995. As to all the rest of the characters, the actors portray them as basically the same people as in the 1995 version, but uniformly the acting in the 1995 version is more evocative and powerful. However, I have a particular fondness for the actress here who plays Elinor, Irene Richard, because she also plays Charlotte Lucas in the 1985 BBC Pride and Prejudice, one of my great favorite productions that I have seen many times. While good sense is a hallmark of both characters, she portrays them differently; it is impossible to imagine her Elinor Dashwood marrying a buffoon as did her Charlotte Lucas marry Mr. Collins in P&P, or defer to such a one as Lady Catherine de Bourgh. I particularly liked her in a scene not in the 1995 version, where Willoughby comes to the Palmer's house in the night, drunk and wanting to see Marianne (not knowing she is very ill) and Elinor treats him with the blunt coldness he so richly deserves. I also appreciated the way this version handles the climactic ending scenes; while the 1995 is emotionally more powerful, this version has power enough.

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.