I really like the 1995 version. The acting is great - especially Alan Rickmans performance - and it does an amazing job adapting the book into a movie-length story. I still prefer the 2008 version. The key scene is Eleanors line "You think I did not feel very much?". That hit me to my core, and the whole series will always be in my heart ❤

The only superior aspect of the 2008 version is it has the time to tell the story more throughly. The 1995 version is better in all other ways including soundtrack, acting, directing, writing. I really disagree with you on this one.

I agree, we still have these same social constructs but the situations have just been modernized, example, do you own a mansion. Etc…..

Thank you for appreciating the 2008 version! I like it so much!

Agree!!!!

Hugh Grant did have only one kind of role in the 90s...romantic comedy with awkward love interest... that's my problem with him. He's likeable, but Edward is practically the same as his role in 4 Marriages and a funeral, Notting Hill (was that early 2000s?)... It's all the same to me.

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

Im sorry but its Alan Rickman and he wins in my book

My problem with this adaptation is that they change Anne completly. She is not the same character as the book. Take Clueless, a moderns version of Emma. Cher, in her core, still is Emma. She still thinks and acts the way Emma did even thoug the movie is very different from the book. In this adaptation, Anne Eliot is no longer Anne Eliot. I'm fine with modernizingand changing the story, I liked Mary's character, for exemple, but when they changed the essence of the main character, they ended up loosing what makes Persuasion such a book book. On the other hand, I bet many people that did not read the book or watched other adaptations, probably liked the movie

an interesting review. Enjoyed it. I haven't seen the 2008 version so I cannot comment towards it. I do understand the length issues of the 1995 version. One aspect not mentioned is the possible effect the director made on the actors performances and what was included in the final cuts (which is all we have to go on).

Bird sound...? That's a female fox...being ravished(?) by a male fox 😮

While I agree on all other points concerning the superiority of the 2008 version, I do really disagree that the acting in the 1995 version isn't as good. I actually think the acting in the 1995 version is better than the 2008 version because I think it more correctly captures the tone of the book (with the exception of Marianne's illness - the 2008 one does that better). I can't even rewatch the 2008 one because I find the acting of some of the characters a bit cringe! Even thought the 1995 version is the one more dear to my heart and I have a bias toward it, I definitely agree that the 2008 script is better and more faithful.

Alan Rickman was only 14 years older than the books Colonel Brandon. Only two years more of an age difference between Sean Connery and Harrison Ford, who played father and son!

This sounds a lot like Australia especially the thing about everything closing at 5pm.

😊I love watching your channel, but my very first Austen movie was the 1995 version. And I thought the acting was amazing!!!🥲 Especially when Marianne cries! Though I love 2008 Marianne, I thought she wasn't upset enough about Willoughby in her scene after reading his letter rejecting her. Otherwise, she was amazing!❤But I also love and own both versions. Both are wow!!! ❤Mainly due to the miniseries having more time to show more was their biggest pro for sure. Enjoyed hearing your take and keep it up!😊

You have a good look (face) for the 1920s era.

I’m a genealogist, and I’ve seen a version of this during the Great Depression - elderly men with Civil War pensions would marry younger women (often widows with kids), and when he died, she would get the pension. This is also why the last Civil War pension was still being paid until just a few years ago - one of those marriages produced a child. That daughter was disabled, so she still got her father’s pension as an adult, and she lived until she was about ninety.

I am right with you. I do not and have never liked the 1995 version. The all star cast in 1995 are all much to old in relation to their characters. It just doesn’t work. I have thexsane reaction to Alan Rickman's Brandon - it's just becomes a bit icky and creepy. I'm with you on being an Andrew Davies die hard fan. He's an Austen adapter genius

Colonel Brandon being played by actors who have cemented themselves in modern audiences minds as “villains” doesn’t help either version. Hard not to see Snape the child bully from HP. Hard not to see the Governor from the Walking Dead. Both actors are a barrier for me enjoying his character on screen. 😵‍💫

I'm sorry, but as a neurodivergent person, with a special interest in autism, and a degree in literature (but rather new to Jane Austen) the autism representation is PLENTIFUL in P&P and from the get go, Emma's father..?! The autism is staggering with this one. The annoying and obsequious, ridiculously formal and completely out of touch Mr. Collins?! Even if we agree that Darcy initially comes across as a rude arrogant jerk, who actually treats his servants fairly, because he has a solid sense of justice, it turns out... that DOES NOT preclude the interpretation of him being autistic. In fact, the fact that everybody hates him for bluntly commenting on Lizzy's appearance and not smiling enough or not saying the right things, rather CONFIRMS it. He openly admits to sucking at small talk many times. And his friendship with Bingley strikes me as the classic ADHD + Autism pairing. Bingley is charming and chatty but also impulsive and he's PROCRASTINATING on settling down...😅 And as for Lizzy... well she likes to overthink things, she's sharp when it comes to analysing other people's motives and behaviour, like any high-masking, smart autistic woman who has had to study human interactions to perfect her mask, as long as she doesn't let her emotions cloud her judgement and she likes to walk. A lot. Maybe too much. For self-regulation purposes. She's just HIGHLY relatable. Writers write about what they know, and writing is the ideal work-from-home job. She wouldn't be the only critical, snarky, funny neurodivergent writer in classic literature, by far. But I get it, people just don't know much about autism and just find it easier to get offended.

Oh thank goodness!bI thought it was just me… I loved almost everyone in 95 but was very disappointed when it came out and confused by the accolades. And I adored 2008

Alan Rickman and Eleanor were two things that carried movie Imho. A lot was cut off, I really hated Maryann and Edvard was stiff as a log.

There are supermarkets here that are open way past 5pm. There are some 24-hour shops, some that are just open to around 8-9pm etc. Also when it comes to Scottish accents, what you were hearing was probably Scottish dialect instead. The key difference being that an accent is pronunciation while a dialect includes its own words. The Scottish have a dialect (some argue it's its own language) of English called Scots which derives from Northumbrian Old English (which has a lot of Norse influence from the Viking invasions and colonisation of the East of England) with Scottish Gaelic influence (Scottish Gaelic being a completely distinct language from English. Not even part of the same language family so there's very little similarity between them, it's a Goidelic Celtic language that derives from Irish Gaelic. This affects much of how Scottish people pronounce words) and as such it has a lot of words which don't exist in standard English so an American would either be completely unaware of their existence or would know of ones that have become famous (like "wee" for small). Also, since Scots derives from Northumbrian Old English, we actually use many of those words (including "wee" for small) in the North East of England quite frequently (to the point where South Easterners used to call me Scottish even though I'm very much not, besides the ancestry). Also, to explain how crossing roads works here: roads here are generally narrow enough to where you can safely cross when you spot a gap in traffic. Often it's actually a bad idea to use crossings because they're placed in areas with wide roads and junctions so cars are constantly coming at speed and you need to check more than two directions, and it takes longer to cross so you either wait forever to cross or people might actively threaten you by revving their engines. Usually the road will narrow just a little bit before or after the crossing where there's no major junctions so you only need to check right and left and go when there's an opportunity which is honestly much easier and much quicker. This coupled with the aforementioned narrowness of English roads compared to American ones means that we're not reliant on signals or signs telling us when to cross; we just use our own judgement. The signals are treated more like guidelines and a guarantee that traffic will at some point stop, but if you can go before it then go. As for food, our food uses a lot less pointless ingredients than American food does (even less in continental Europe), however it suffers from the factory produced aspect of it. During the Industrial Revolution, Britain moved towards more factory-produced food as opposed to food sourced from farms, especially since the populations moved more towards living in cities rather than the countryside. This might have corrected itself had we not two massive global wars and rationing (where we ate factory produced food because it was all that was available for most people), which became very much ingrained in English culture since the generation that went through rationing then made those same foods for their children, and then they passed it to their grandchildren. Also, the citizenship thing... yeah, I don't really have any intention of moving to America (If I met an American woman that made me want to throw everything away for her and ignore all the cultural issues I would have there then maybe, but it's highly unlikely). The city design doesn't appeal to me, the general culture doesn't really appeal to me (outside of a few areas, maybe because they seem closer to being English than the rest of the country), the food doesn't appeal to me, the humour (or lack thereof...) doesn't really appeal to me either. I know of only one guy that wants to move there. I also think a lot of Western continental Europeans generally don't want to move to America either specifically because of American culture being very alien to them (like it is to me). This is why by the way, people in England instantly detected that you were American - Americans are culturally very different and it's immediately apparent. I was able to detect Americans at work immediately without even hearing them speak; I just looked at them and instantly guessed they were American (then I heard their accents and they were definitely American). As for the stereotype about English guys "not being cute", I think this one is because of media. American acting culture seems to cast much more heavily off of appearance and there's much more make-up involved (we make jokes about it here). British acting culture casts (or used to cast...) much more off of acting ability so you see less pretty people in British media than in American media (but better acting) which then leads to the strereotype. I've heard foreigners say there's no or very few attractive people in Britain because of "inbreeding" but we literally have Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and several different Celtic ethnicities here so no, that's incorrect. There's some areas with very few attractive people but it's mainly because the attractive people leave those areas ASAP (because they're dead-ends and have no opportunities, being attractive is often a ticket out of them).

I absolutely agree with you, Sense and Sensibility 2008 is so much better than the 1995 version. I enjoy the costumes, the cottage, the acting and the characters so much in this version.

Kate Winslet portrayed Marianne’s self irony to perfection. Also she was 20 at the time this movie came out!

Patrick Doyle's music for the 1995 version was fantastic!

Alan Rickman was about 49 when he played CB, and he looked it. Kate Winslet was about 19/20. I was in my mid-20s when this movie came out, had never heard of Alan Rickman, and didn't find him appealing at all as CB. I definitely thought this Marianne made a purposeful decision at the end of the movie to be practical and to "learn to love" him. And the 1995 version of Willoughby was smoking hot. And Emma Thompson was too old for this role, but she does play dutiful, "silent waters that run deep", mature sisters well and has made a career of it. Like in Howards End and Love Actually.

I like both versions, but I lean towards 2008. I think for me one of the hard things to get over in the 95 version is that I saw the first few Harry Potter films first. So the first time I saw the 95 S&S, I remember thinking 'oh, it's Professor Snape playing Col. Brandon'. It tainted Col. Brandon for me even though I do think Alan Rickman is a fantastic actor. It's just his voice = Snape in my head. I got used to it eventually upon rewatching, but it was really jarring the first few times 😅. I also have a soft spot in my heart for Dan Stevens, he is 100% my type and Hugh Grant just isn't. However, Hugh Grant definitely pulled off awkward way better. I actually do like both versions of Marianne, but I like Elinor and Mrs. Dashwood better in the 2008 version. Mrs. Dashwood is only 40, and they make her look old and tired on the 95 version. 40 isn't old! (well maybe it is to a teenager, but I digress) And she just looks more what I picture a 40 year old to look like in the 2008 version. What ends up tipping it over the edge for me is I like its aesthetics better, and I also prefer mini series adaptations over movie ones when it comes to Austin

I must be the only woman who doesn't find Alan Rickman attractive. His voice gives me the ick

I really wish they would change the ages to make it more palatable and realistic to us now. I know it's not accurate, but I would totally be in board with that; Marianne can be 23 and still be young and naive and innocent and flighty x I'd also make Elizabeth at least 25.

I have to vehemently defend Winslet's Marianne - I completely disagree, she gets me sobbing every time I watch it. Love her, love them all and the script x

It's funny how whenever you're pointing to any aspect either good or bad, I just think yeah they did that cuz theyre just so british. Thompson's Eleanor having sense due to repression is such a british trope. The Jennings being a caricature of themselves is another british thing to do. Willoughby's charm and shakespearean performance style is so,, british. But obviously 2008 is just as british in different ways. And of course Austen is a british author, why shouldn't it be british. But I think the influence of MODERN britain on 1995 was not to my taste, although it obviously speaks to modern audiences. The notorious stiff upper lip wasn't a part of Austen's time. Similarly the over use of Shakespeare in 1995 was ill-placed when Austen's commentary on sensibility was directly on her contemporaries like Scott and Cowper. Davies' use of Wordsworth and Byron was much more true to the story and the society Austen was riffing on. Also, I agree the dismissive tone of 1995 wrt sensibility was sour. Austen herself loved Scott and Cowper. She's laughing but not with disdain.

I still think single women shouldn’t vote

Austen can never be fully captured in a movie. There are too many details and caracter development. She demands a mini-series. That being said: I still like a lot of things in the '95.

I disagree.

Finally, love for the 2008 version ! (The 1995 is obviously great)

I think Sense and Sensibility has a lot of little examples of 'calling'. Willoughby leaves his card, Mr Dashwood visits his sisters and then asks to be introduced to Lord and Lady Middleton. Fanny calls for 15 min (and sits 7.5 min in silence), Lady Middleton decides to leave her card with Mrs Willoughby, when Elinor goes to visit Fanny "Mrs Dashwood was denied", etc. Because a lot of the action takes place in London, there's more than kind of thing than in other novels. Although in P&P we have the examples of Mr Bennett calling on Mr Bingley, Mrs Bennett considering which neighbours they should have over soon and when Mr Darcy visits Mr Gardiner the first time, it is pointed out that he doesn't leave his card.

Love both adaptations, but 2008 is my favourite of the 2, because of the acting and the take on the characters. For a future video, have you considered Mansfield Park? There was a BBC adaptation in 1983 (series) that, to some extents, is even better than the 1999 and 2007 films.

Ellie (not afraid to speak her truth) Dashwood.

I'll take the 2008 version since it's a miniseries and there's more room to flesh out the characters.

You look gorgeous! Great book match too ❤

Oh man, so much to say about this most people won't want to read but it's historically important to understand the story. "Sense" and "Sensibility" almost have opposite meanings with sensibility meaning unrational or fanciful emotions. The archetypes in Sense and Sensibility, especially of the two older sisters, were well understood when the novel came out, but we no longer have those archetypes so there isn't a context we understand. That's why the acting often falls flat and frankly confusing for modern audiences and actors. It's very hard for modern audiences to pick up what Austin was doing because we aren't a part of that culture. Alan Rickman, classically trained, did get it, which is why he shines in the earlier version. The wonderful historian Lucy Worsley has a documentary on what Austin was saying, and can say it way better than I can. We don't have the same cultural ideals, and giving that context in a movie or miniseries is difficult and time consuming. It's along the lines of world building because their culture is so different from ours In the beginning, Marianne has all of the romantic emotions (sensibility) but only sees sense when she marries her true equal in romantic notions, Colonel Brandon. Elinor is all sense and accepting of rational necessities until she breaks down into an emotional crevasse and accepts herself as a lady who can also embody unrational romance (sensibility.) The sisters, in the end, are about finding balance within yourself and seeing that genuinely reflected in others to find true love and compatibly.

I agree with the 1995 sense and sensibility. They were not true to character at all. Except Brandon.

Emma Thompson is the most miscast of the 95. I adore her in many things, but not this movie.

I ❤ how you do such in-depth comparisons of book/ film adaptations, Ellie - I know it's not Jane Austen, but I would love if you were to do 'Wives & Daughters'

I like both versions but overall I like the 2008 version better. Alan Rickman made me fall in love with Marian and Colonel Brandon's story, and I really like Hugh Laurie in this movie, but I love Elinor in the 2008 version.

2008 my favorite. I agree with your opinion about the characters and their emotions

I loved this video! That hat!! 😂 I love the 2008 version, it felt more "real", I felt it was closer to the book and we got to see the emotions of the characters truer than the 1995 version, it was very cinematic and the music was beautifully emotional. Could you please give your opinions and review of North and South the Richard Armitage version?