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to include the youngest Dashwood sister had a very negative impact on the family dynamic - she seems to have instead been replaced by a couple of servants named Tom and Susan who sometimes have some very long appearances that don't have any relevance to the plot whatsoever.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.

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 don't think this is the worst movie ever made by any means but I did not like it at all. Sure, it tells the story well enough, but the acting really is atrocious.The Dashwood Ladies (the mom and Mrs. John Dashwood included) all did a decent job, as well as Edward, Willowby, and Colonel Brandon. Nothing extraordinary, but they get the job done. My issue was with the supporting players. All of them sounded like they were reading from scripts, esp. Lucy, Miss Steele, Charlotte, and Mrs. Jennings. I had the biggest issues with Charlotte and Miss Steele. Charlotte's laugh even sounded scripted (ha ha ha ha) with no authenticity whatsoever. **SPOILER ALERT** When Miss Steele drops the bomb and Fanny Dashwood flips out, Miss Steele's cowering looks somewhere between hypothermia and seizures. Also, none of the actors had the emotional depth needed for this story. Whenever one of the actresses was trying to hold back tears, there is no look of restraint before they burst into tears, so it looks very odd and bi-polar. Also, when Brandon is taking Marianne out of the party, there is no sense of urgency. Elinor just strolls out after them. I would think, if your sister has fainted, you would feel like maybe you should move a little quicker. Mrs. Jennings had good moments but I was totally thrown off by her closeup after Elinor tells her off; and she never came back from that for me.Basically, I would say go with the 1995 version, there is excellent acting, better looking people, better cinematography (it isn't really the movie's fault that it's so bad in that department since it was in 1981), the stuff that needs to be in there is, and they don't add anything too Hollywood to it. This version added nothing to the story for me, and I found it very unromantic (probably the best description as to why this movie is lacking for me in comparison to the 1995 version). The novel has very romantic moments but no part of this movie gave me that "Aw" heartwarming moment.

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.