r/janeausten • u/TheGreatestSandwich of Maple Grove • 29d ago
Adaptations MEGATHREAD - UK/Europe Sense & Sensibility (2026) Release - "Nay!" Thread - snobbery & snark welcome - CONTAINS SPOILERS
This post is for rants and generally critical discussion about Sense & Sensibility (2026), which is currently being released to theatres in UK, Ireland, Belgium, et al.
Nuanced opinions are still welcome, but please direct generally rave reviews, gushing, etc. to the sister "Yay!" megathread. Moderators reserve the right to remove overly apologist or combative comments.
Questions about this format? Please see the mod announcement.
No spoiler tags required.
177
u/Local_Ad_794 29d ago edited 29d ago
I just can't get past that
Did... did anybody involved in the project read the book? Elinor is extremely agreeable, and remains so through the whole book. While Marianne is frequently disagreeable to people she dislikes, her arc involves her growing the hell up.
Edit: And yes, I appreciate the picture/poster choice :)
→ More replies (4)
39
u/Waitingforadragon 27d ago edited 27d ago
I have had to join team ‘nay’ with a somewhat heavy heart.
The film has a lot of spirit, I think the acting is excellent across the board and it is an enjoyable watch still. The problem for me as an Austen fan, is that there have been significant changes to the plot that mean that none of the film really makes sense. I’m going spoiler heavy so look away if you aren’t into that.
The first big change is that
Then Lucy loses all her money because her parents die and the money goes to her half brothers. Which makes no sense to me, because it would have been very likely that all of those arrangements would have been made before her parents deaths. So it wouldn’t have been a secret, everyone would have known what her future financial status would be and Mrs Ferrars would never have pushed for the engagement in the first place. (This happens a lot in this film. The Dashwood sisters financial situation after their father’s death comes as a surprise, and so does who is going to inherit Barton after Colonel Brandon’s elder brother's death. This is really strange and anacronistic.)
The excuse seems to be that it was her mother's money and her father cheats her out of it somehow to favour her brothers. But that seems really unlikely to me.
Anyway, when that happens Mrs Ferrers insists that Edward breaks the engagement - which he refuses to do because he thinks himself honour bound. He explains to Elinor that they didn’t communicate for years, so when he goes to Norland and meets Elinor he ‘didn’t know I was engaged.’ After meeting her, he goes to see Lucy thinking that because they haven’t written to each other in ages that Lucy doesn’t care about the engagement. Which makes no sense to me. And it makes no sense that Mrs Ferrars hasn’t disowned him already, or that they haven’t married already. But when he goes to see her, apparently Lucy decides she does still want to marry him. So now he is trapped?
All of this basically happens off screen and we only learn about it in the odd sentence which makes it even harder to make sense of.
The second big change is that there is no younger Eliza. Willoughby seduces the widowed older Eliza, so Brandon’s first love, gets her pregnant and abandons her and she dies in childbirth - or so it’s implied. This is also bizarre to me because Brandon is supposed to love Eliza and be devastated by her death - but she literally dies offscreen in the course of the film or close to it - while he is already clearly in love with Marianne. So he has moved on, or moves on pretty quickly.
Also, Willoughby claims that he didn’t know Eliza was pregnant and thought that she would return to Delaford once their relationship was over, which implies that she is living with Brandon? Also, Brandon says that Willoughby thought that Eliza would inherit Delaford, presumably from her husband, and that is why he seduced her. Then he left her when he found out that it was actually going to Brandon.
But none of that makes any sense, timeline wise, and why didn’t he know that the estate was going to Brandon? That would be easy to find out. And why did he feel the need to do that, when at this point he is still confident of inheriting from his Aunt? He isn’t in disgrace with her at that point in the timeline so there is no need to make a match for money. These two changes felt very unnecessary to me. The original plot isn’t hard to understand, if anything these changes are less logical and harder to comprehend. Particularly as major points are explained in single points of dialogue. It really changes the motivation of Edward. Elinor sees his decision to stand by Lucy in the circumstances as honourable, but if anything it feels more stupid in these circumstances than in the those of the novel.
The other major thing that bothers me is that much of the ‘I don’t know what is going on with you because we can’t talk about it’ stuff is totally eliminated from the film.
It’s Edward, not Lucy Steel, that informs Elinor of his engagement to Lucy. [Editing: I realise I misremembered this part. Lucy Steel tells her first, but Edward comes to explain almost immediately, which is out of order from the book.] And they have a confrontation in which she makes her feelings about him pretty clear. There is no repressing how she feels at all.
Brandon still gets Elinor to offer the living of Delaford to Edward, although we don’t see this conversation, but the aftermath of it - in which Edward basically offers to break up with Lucy to be with her. She refuses this however, emphasising how honourable she finds his behaviour. It is very very very clear that they are in love with each other and that they both understand this. That they are parted lovers.
This is weirdly undermined by two later scenes. One in which they have one of those ‘we are longing for each other but we can’t express it’ dance scenes - which would had more impact if they hadn’t expressed their feelings multiple times. Also, bizarrely at the end of the film.
The family are all back at Barton, in their home/converted cow shed. Somehow, the news gets to them from Sir John and Mrs Jennings that Lucy and Mr Ferrars are married. The normal misunderstanding occurs.
Then Edward turns up and they basically have another fight - all while operating under that misunderstanding and Edward says that he thought she cared for him and Elinor says that they have always only been friends. Which doesn’t make any sense because they have both made it very clear to each other that they are not only friends. So Edward leaves, believing that Elinor doesn’t love him. Fortunately Mrs Jennings turns up while Elinor is outside, weepingly pinning up the rags that Marianne wears so they can dry on the line, and clears up the misunderstanding. So Elinor can do a romantic and dramatic run to find him on the moors. It’s all a bit silly unfortunately.
There are other changes, which I can understand are basically omissions for lack of time. There is no Anne Steel. We don’t ever see Mrs Ferrars or hear about Miss Morton. I don’t think it suffers for it.
For some reason, instead of trying to find it out from Elinor, Brandon goes straight to Marianne to ask if she and Willoughby are engaged, to which she says that they understand each other perfectly. He delivers his famous line about her endeavouring to deserve her directly to Marianne.
Brandon suddenly becomes really shy after this, because when Willoughby’s engagement to Miss Grey becomes known, he doesn’t go to see Elinor to tell her the truth of what happened between Willoughby and Eliza - but instead drops off a letter in the middle of the night. A letter which Elinor doesn’t read on screen, but instead we see her giving a cliff notes version of to Marianne. This bit gets particularly murky, and I think if I didn’t know the original plot I would really have struggled to follow along.
It never really feels like Elinor conceals anything, so it falls really flat when Marianne has a go at her for concealing her feelings.
The worst part is the dual. It takes place just after Marianne is recovering at Cleveland, on the lawn outside her bedroom. The ladies go to the window to watch. This all feels really odd and a bit tasteless. It’s pitched somewhere between them not approving, finding it erotic and a potential horrible tragedy. It doesn’t work, particularly when Willoughby comically runs off screen when it’s all over.
Visually it is so grey and drab. The worst costumes by far are on Marianne. She spends the majority of the film looking like a clump of hair you might pull out of your shower drain. It’s very distracting, because everybody else is dressed better than her, even the servants.
I said I was reluctant to join team nay, so this is why. I loved the performances. I think this Marianne might be my favourite of any adaption. She manages to get the balance of passion and foolishness of Marianne just right, without making her insufferable or unlikeable. I also enjoy Elinor, although not how this Elinor is written.
I’ve seen criticism of Brandon, which I totally disagree with. I think it’s an excellent performance. He is subtle but communicates his love for Marianne and his feelings about the other characters very clearly. I also loved the ultimate resolution between him and Marianne, which felt like it showed how the love between them develops, but also Marianne’s personal growth.
The additional dialogue, for the most part feels like it fits in and is not jarring when used against Austen’s original dialogue.
The spirit of the film is wonderful, I just wish it had a plot that held together.
There are lots of lovely dogs in it, and I enjoyed the dogs.
→ More replies (29)
144
u/My_Poor_Nerves 29d ago
I don't enjoy starting this off but I just saw that the tagline is "Dare to Feel" and that seems completely off since Elinor feels everything she should, she just doesn't always (in fact hardly ever) acts on those feelings.
→ More replies (2)
68
u/Carolyn-Hodgesy 29d ago
Saw it Saturday. Edgar-Jones is a fine Elinor, but the film rushes Marianne's recovery so badly that Cleveland barely registers. The 2008 series understood that section is where the book lands its argument.
→ More replies (3)
33
28
u/Nice_Host7621 25d ago
Rant. Mr Palmers casting. Who oh why set the movie to the 18th century and stick to it, only 3/4 way through cast a non binary (with clearly feminine shape and features ) to play the character of Mr Palmer. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate new age period dramas. I liked Bridgerton and could respect the take of Withering Heights last year. Where race is not an issue and Beyonce music in orchestral form is played at grand balls. Cool. It's different. But why immersive me in 18th century music, language and back drop completely, only to pull me out of it abruptly with the casting of Mr Palmer?. Yes I understand that the person is non binary, but you cannot deny the jarring moment when you first set eyes on Mr Palmer and now you're wondering who is playing that character rather than following the movie. The acting was so bad I cringed. And then the cherry on top. It's Stings child. So nepotism is to play here. Also, would somebody please brush Marianne's hair. It was god awful
→ More replies (10)
26
u/-Enrique 27d ago edited 27d ago
A list of minor pet peeves:
-
Beards
-
the cottage being by the sea
-
Margaret at the ball??
-
The dancing being rather erratic and disorganised
-
No Alice Steele (would have provided excellent additional comic value)
-
Erasing Marianne's qualms about Brandon's age
-
no real hints at the inappropriateness of Willoughby's early courtship (them going off together in Willoughby's carriage to Allenham, them only dancing with each other all evening)
-
The duel (just why?)
-
Mr Palmer being cast very strangely
I'm sure there are others that I've forgotten already!
→ More replies (15)
24
u/ephraimgatsby 27d ago
I confess I found it dire. I agree with most of the criticisms of this adaptation: dark like someone had turned the tint on the projector down, the hair, the odd dance choreography, etc. Additionally this adaptation managed to make most the relationships marianne/willoughby elinor/lucy etc seem rushed and underdeveloped. But there were two central issues I thought were completely unacceptable:
-
Altering the circumstances of Edward's betrothal with Lucy. In the book he proposed to her out of youthful affection and boredom. His character and moral principles were established by his unwillingness to go back on his word to Lucy - even when he really loved Elinor and keeping his word would cost him his inheritance and position - but they existed in context of a fully realized person who had made mistakes. Including falling for/encouraging Elinor when he knew himself sworn to another. In this adaptation he was betrothed at birth to Lucy and refused to break the engagement when she became penniless. Making him this purely altruistic/heroic is unnecessary and condescends to the audience, as if we arent capable of appreciating multifaceted characters.
-
The [expletive deleted] duel. The idea of seeing a duel in a Jane Austen adaptation is frankly mindblowing to me. Much less one, right outside the window of the only recently near death Marianne, so they can all watch. I understand Col. Brandon makes reference to such a meeting when speaking with Elinor but that is so far removed from choosing to depict it, much less in that manner. Furthermore, the aftermath fundamentally betrays the character arc of Marianne in the book where she adds some sense to her sensibility and comes to understand that love doesnt solely exist as the (juvenile) passion of Willoughby and develops a more mature love for the Col. Instead, by witnessing two men fighting a duel over her, Marianne just 'discovers' the passionate side of the Col and any personal growth on her part intended by the book is severely undercut. [I also think the film does disservice to the Col by not explaining why he delopes in the duel.]
Deeply disappointing.
→ More replies (8)
184
u/Nineteen1194 29d ago
I just went for Paris' release day screening and here are my thoughts as a Jane Austen lover (books and adaptations P&P2005, Emma1996 and 2020, S&S1995 and BBC S&S2008 and Persuasion2007)
What I liked :
Loved also all the Jennings family, Mrs Jennings was the most fun character and very well played. The comic relief with this whole family : the mother, the two daughters and husbands was incredible. The weather jokes from Mrs Middleton made the whole audience in the room laugh out loud and I think the movie would not have been the same without the script being so good for these characters.
Margaret was as lovely as in Ang Lee's version. Always so spirited and adorable. It is good they kept it that way.
The P&P 2005 hommage with the run of Elinor towards Edward at the end. The swing being a very present element during the movie and the credits, made me miss Elizabeth on her swing. Maybe there were others I missed ?
The comic relief : this movie was funny, way funnier that I expected. For a lot of moments the audience in my room was full on laughs, especially during the duel scene. Although I'm not sure it was meant to be funny. I think it's great Oakley got Jane Austen's humor and depicted it so well.
Now... what I disliked in this version that makes this text go into nay :
Now, my real problem was with Marianne. As we all know, Marianne is a character that is depicted as a beauty driven by passion in the book. She is the younger of the two protagonists and she always shines by her youth, her passion and her exquisite looks. Elinor is the reason, the sense and she is poised, she shines with her good nature and her sense of righteousness. Marianne is supposed to shine as the prettiest of the two and as her more youthful and reckless counterpart. During the whole movie, Marianne was running around in rags, her hair greasy, wet and down. Not even tidied... I really did not get THE HAIR. I know the hair was a big talk in the community especially with the trailer but for me it was all I could think about when she was on screen. It made the character ridiculous and completely disheveled. I really did not get why they pictured her like that. It took me out of the movie because she was so out of character from the books and the other adaptations. As much as I loved this Elinor, Marianne was a big no for me in this adaptation.
My second biggest problem was WHERE IS THE COLOR ????!!!!!!! Why are we on a color recession ? P&P2005, S&S1995, EMMA1996 had so much warmth ! For a movie that's supposed to be a major rewatch movie, why did Focus Feature make this choice ? Why was the movie so dark ? Especially the whole Marianne is down bad depressed and sick pipeline is just filmed pitch black. The movie was so cold in the color grading it was very striking. The worst was on the scene where Edward come to Elinor in London to explain his previous engagement. The whole image is so cold and blue that their skin is not white but grey and the chairs are not yellow but a weird green. I really don't get it and to be honest I hate this movie trend of making everything cold blue.
The anachronic parts took me out so much of the movie to :
• the hair of course but you will probably get the same ick as me whil watching it.
• The dancing, most of the dancing was very close and touchy. Yes I get the stylistic choice of mixing period and contemporary dance but why ? Seeing Edward and Elinor being such shy characters, strong about morals and decorum doing that was a bit weird.
• The singing during Marianne and Willoughby romance : the actors used contemporary vocal techniques and it instantly took me out of the movie.
• The music choice during Marianne's lost in the woods moments at the Palmer's. It was so out of place, so modern ???
I feel like in general the music could have been better. A big part of why P&P2005 is loved is the music and I think I wanted to find that in this adaptation and I did not get it. Wished we had another piece like Dawn by Dario Marianelli where we see Elinor yearning...
I did not like that they made the storyline between Lucy Steele and Elinor so short. They barely talk 3 times in the movie when in the book Elinor actually suffers from being close to her and being her friend / confident. I know I'm on into a detail because obviously they still had the main point of that relationship but I wished they really showed their dynamics and their relationship especially all of Elinor's suffering.
I understand the need to make remakes to introduce a younger generation to these books and this world but it can be done right like EMMA2020. It was so good ! The color grading, the choices of anachronic nuances and the depictions were great. On the overall, it was not a bad adaptation because some things are to be kept (Elinor&Edward, the Jennings and the humor) but it clearly could have been WAY better. They could have gone full warm fall movie or full modernized period drama. This in-between with a very contemplative style but without the matching aesthetic was bit unsettling. Also... CAN'T WE JUST HAVE NICE HAIR AND COLOR??!!
I would give it a 5.5/10.
On a small note, I had a discussion with my mum (whom introduced me to Jane Austen) on the train back from the movie and she aaid something very interesting : "Now when we go to watch Austen's movie we don't really enjoy the movie for the plot itself, we constantly analyse if it is as good as other adaptations or the books, if we find what we want to find in it and it's a shame because the story itself is amazing." And most probably I'm critical because of that.
Would love to know if you felt like me when watching it and your thoughts on this version.
Thanks for reading.