Caught this on a weekly PBS presentation - was glued to it at once. Had to buy the DVD, and re-watch it a few times over. It's so good, we discovered, by accident, that you could listen to the DVD with no picture, and enjoy it as a radio drama with amazing sound effects (branches waving in the breeze, birds singing). So lifelike were the performances, I started dreaming about the characters.
Being an Austen newbie, I didn't realize how young the S&S characters were supposed to be--so, it came as a revelation to me that Elinor and Marianne were under 20, and that Col. Brandon was only mid-30's! But cut me some slack - I'm reading the novel now. Oh my: was Jane Austen a virtuoso? right up there with Shakespeare. by the way: I thought I would hate the 1995 S&S movie the next time I took it off the shelf, but I'm re-watching it now, and it's 'ok', once you get around the (more) advanced age of the key cast members.
So, here's the rundown, comparing 1995 S&S, and this 2008 version:
*Edward is more lovable and less 'clumsy' than Hugh Grant's portrayal (I always thought that Grant's clothes looked like they were wearing him)
* there's a duel scene between Brandon and Willoughby - it fits perfectly, but wouldn't have worked with the 2 respective cast members of 1995 S&S
* Willoughby is smaller and younger-looking than we saw in 1995.. and although oddly attractive, he has a furtive look about him.. conversely, Brandon is a full-sized handsome fellow with a look of steel under a velvet glove..
* Willoughby's conversation with Elinor near the end of the story is restored - I think this screenplay resolves things very well, maybe better than Austen's novel..
* like the book, it takes a long time before it is revealed how Lucy managed to land a 'Ferrars' fellow.. this happened a bit quicker in 1995..
* look for a delightful scene where Edward, contented with his new, humble situation in life, cheerfully chases chickens..!
Enjoy...!
p.s. wasn't that Lucy Steele street-smart? first question I asked after initial viewing: "does Lucy get to keep the money?" everyone (female) thought I was so mercenary for asking about money..! sorry - but after 2 centuries, lots of readers are still debating it! what a coup!
Being an Austen newbie, I didn't realize how young the S&S characters were supposed to be--so, it came as a revelation to me that Elinor and Marianne were under 20, and that Col. Brandon was only mid-30's! But cut me some slack - I'm reading the novel now. Oh my: was Jane Austen a virtuoso? right up there with Shakespeare. by the way: I thought I would hate the 1995 S&S movie the next time I took it off the shelf, but I'm re-watching it now, and it's 'ok', once you get around the (more) advanced age of the key cast members.
So, here's the rundown, comparing 1995 S&S, and this 2008 version:
*Edward is more lovable and less 'clumsy' than Hugh Grant's portrayal (I always thought that Grant's clothes looked like they were wearing him)
* there's a duel scene between Brandon and Willoughby - it fits perfectly, but wouldn't have worked with the 2 respective cast members of 1995 S&S
* Willoughby is smaller and younger-looking than we saw in 1995.. and although oddly attractive, he has a furtive look about him.. conversely, Brandon is a full-sized handsome fellow with a look of steel under a velvet glove..
* Willoughby's conversation with Elinor near the end of the story is restored - I think this screenplay resolves things very well, maybe better than Austen's novel..
* like the book, it takes a long time before it is revealed how Lucy managed to land a 'Ferrars' fellow.. this happened a bit quicker in 1995..
* look for a delightful scene where Edward, contented with his new, humble situation in life, cheerfully chases chickens..!
Enjoy...!
p.s. wasn't that Lucy Steele street-smart? first question I asked after initial viewing: "does Lucy get to keep the money?" everyone (female) thought I was so mercenary for asking about money..! sorry - but after 2 centuries, lots of readers are still debating it! what a coup!