I read Jane Austen’s “Sense and Sensibility” last week, and so I thought I’d watch the 1995 film adaption of it again, as I hadnt’ seen it in three years or so, and was curious about how it was in relation to the book.

It was good. Not exceptional, or anything, but good. Amongst other things, they had done a good job of changing the book’s rather lengthy narration into dialogue and visuals. Seen by itself, this was pretty splendidly done, but seen in comparison to the book it was less splendid, seeing as Austen wrote some of the best narration I have read. For example, to read Austen’s sarky (sometimes bordering on evil) descriptions of her characters’ vanity, arrongance and/or stupidity is an entirely different and way better experience than watching these same characters displaying how silly they are. Sometimes, telling is better than showing, particularly if the storyteller is as skilled as Jane Austen.

Additionally, there were several dull part, but these were just as dull in the book, so I won’t hold them against it. Besides, the cast did such a grand job of it all — especially Alan Rickman and Hugh Laurie impressed me, but then again, they always do — that even when things were bordering on dull, there was something to be fascinated by. I have but one objection to the cast, and that is the casting of Emma Thompson as the 19-year-old Elinor Dashwood, as she was 36 at the time when the film was made. However, this objection is lessened by the fact that Thompson did a great job, and that she wrote an excellent screenplay from Austen’s book.

Summing things up, I think I’ll give this one a 7.0/10. A good film, but probably nothing for people without a special interests for these kinds of things. (You’ll have to figure out which kinds that is for yourselves.)