Was sagen die Leute über Sense and Sensibility (2026)?

Brausten! A crossover between Jane and Emily/Charlotte
What I loved:
- choice of actors and actress (unconventional, “real” faces)
- landscapes
- atmospheric lights (not quite Kubrik, but still effective)
What I disliked:
- at least at the beginning, too slow
- Not enough Lucy Steele (and what about Anna??)
- far too unrealistic depiction of Georgian mores: daughters of the gentry wouldn’t have acted so “bohemian” for other 100 years at least
- Colonel hinting at Marianne that he eloped (and slept with) Eliza… impossible at those time
- jarring attempt at showing “real” girls by having them thrashing their clothes, not caring about possessions… This wouldn’t happen, girls during Jane Austen times were always sewing, mending, etc etc Even LM Alcott describes the independent Jo March busying herself making clothes for all the family
Not liked nor disliked:
- many subplots squeezed for narrative reasons
- Mr Palmer as Nozze di Figaro’s Cherubino

I enjoyed the film as a period piece that highlighted the relationship between two sisters. That focus is true to the book. But apart from Elinor and Marianne’s relationship, key character arcs were altered, and that was disappointing when judging the film as an Austen adaptation.

Marianne begins the book as a committed romantic who values passion above everything, but at then end she regrets “her own folly” and sees value in the more balanced personality of Colonel Brandon. In the movie, she shows no such regret and impulsively transfers her affections to Brandon when he displays passion in dueling Willoughby. Marianne learns nothing. Edward’s character is also altered in the film. In the book, he is constant and sensible like Elinor and remains committed to Lucy because he sees value in keeping his word to her. He says nothing about his feelings for Elinor until he is “released” from his “entanglement” with Lucy and becomes free to open his heart to Elinor. In the movie, Edward offers to throw Lucy over for Elinor but she won’t allow it. Edward isn’t constant at all. He is moved by his passions—more like Marianne than Elinor. The sensibilities of these characters is central to the book. It’s right in the title! If you’re going to change the characters in such key ways, why adapt the novel at all?

Vulgar and insensitive production, totally lacking in presenting a period piece with anything like understanding of its manners and values and social interactions..

Why would anyone think that changing the plot was a good idea? This film makes Lucy an heiress who has lost her money and it makes her engagement to Edward public quite early on. This makes the best scene in the novel impossible: the one where Edward arrives to visit Elinor and finds Lucy there.
And the emphasis on Marianne being “sincere” demolishes the tension between “sense” and “sensibility” and misses another important point.
Elinor yells at both Edward and Willoughby! Maybe this is Gen. Z, but it’s not Austen!
The dancing was all wrong and Marianne’s reading of poetry made me cringe.
I want to forget about this film as soon as possible!

Took some young teens to see it who didn’t know the story, and even they enjoyed it. This deviates in small ways from the novel, but I feel like Austen would have understood; the changes made her work come alive on the screen. Austen always had a cutting sense of humor, and the audience was laughing out loud at the right parts.

So a few scenes were tweaked. If you want the book, read it (it’s also wonderful!). This was a stirring and emotional and beautiful film adaptation.

Took some young teens to see it who didn’t know the story, and even they enjoyed it. This deviates in small ways from the novel, but I feel like Austen would have understood; the changes made her work come alive on the screen. Austen always had a cutting sense of humor, and the audience was laughing out loud at the right parts.

So a few scenes were tweaked. If you want the book, read it (it’s also wonderful!). This was a stirring and emotional and beautiful film adaptation.

I absolutely love this movie for many reasons. I always struggled with the Ang Lee version- filled with a stellar cast that was a miscast. I never felt the chemistry between the characters and Emma Thompson was too old for Elinor (and Hugh Grant does what he does so well as bumbling, awkward man but still too old). I felt the fire between the characters in this version and the casting was age appropriate. I loved the desaturated tone of the cinematography- it felt authentic. The previous version always felt cartoonish with the bright colors and everything perfectly in place. The 2026 version was raw in every way. I was completely immersed in the experience and I felt the acting was incredible; especially the final scene between Edward and Elinor. My only real criticism of this current one was the transgender casting. I have nothing against transgender but it felt like a boy was dressed up in men’s clothes trying to be mature- it was bizarre and pulled me out of the movie experience. I also did not care for the initial dance scene where it had this ecstatic dance, Burning Man movement of the bodies and hands. They absolutely did not dance like that back then. I will agree with the other’s that Marianne’s hair was distracting— there’s a fine line between free-spirited and a derelict. Other than those minor issues I felt this movie was far superior to the Ang Lee’s 1995 film and I really enjoyed it.

I loved it. So wild and romantic. The beautiful music carried it. Clothes were natural dyed with elderberries and logwood. Dartmoor and the coastal scene would have been familiar to Jane Austen because she came on holiday to the region. The new Colonel Brandon conveyed huge romantic feeling; it was restrained and therefore powerful. The producer’s handling of timing throughout filming so that the viewer is not just passive but is drawn in was especially potent. Just LOVED it all!

I saw this last night. I feel like it was good in parts but overall missed the mark. They seemed to be trying too hard to create a stereotypical historical epic by exaggerating certain things. The dialogue seemed ingenuine and there were modern elements included which didn’t make sense.

Gorgeous cinematography. Lost a lot in translation. Hard to not compare with 1995 version which had you emotionally invested. The “new” version tried and failed imo.

I thought on the whole it was a vast improvement over the Emma Thompson/Hugh Grant version. At least the cast were finally age appropriate this issue. Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant were way too old in the previous film. The cottage was finally a real cottage with low ceilings and darker interiors. The cinematography was lovely. My only negative was the actress who played Marianne. Her hair was stringy, her face quite plain and she was unkempt through most of the movie. She was supposed to be the “beauty”…?! I thought the new version played closer to the book both in story and in design.

I was hopeful it was going to premiere. In fortunately it was set in a dark area of time. Definitely a period piece. There is no comparison to the other senses and sensibilities. The older was more inspired. I would not recommend the 2026 one.

Thumbs down! Whiny weepy women with wind blown weird hair. I am a Georgian era history buff, and this really misses the mark in so many ways. Even the weather was wrong: Devon is known for mild sunny days. The clothes were period close but definitely not spot on. And what’s with the close ups of the girl with the pitiful freckles.

Saw the movie this weekend. Was sadly disappointed. It just didn’t have that lovely dynamic that pulled me in with Kate Winslet and Emma Thompson. It didn’t measure up in any way. I didn’t feel the love of either couple, nor the pettiness of the sister-in-law. The dialogue was skimpy and the actor’s ability to push emotion into it came up horribly short. The brother and the aunt (or family friend??) I was never sure, did play true and were the only performances I enjoyed. Even the dancing seemed absurd to me. No way, when men and women were not allowed to be alone or touch in any significant way, did they perform dances that we highly suggestive of sex on the dance floor. It just didn’t happen. I almost fell asleep during this lackluster performance of a lovely story.

Enjoyed this movie very much. I felt like you really got to know the individual characters . Was a bit difficult to understand at times due to the accents but thoroughly love this era of time. Beautiful costumes and music, great acting. I wanted the story to continue, didn’t want it to end. 4 stars…….

I loved it. The scenery was spectacular. The ballroom and dancing scenes were majestic and romantic. Of course some freedom was taken from the books, but I liked it better than the Emma Thompson version. Only the BBC versions are true to the books.

Great scenery and acting but slow and nothing riveting in it at all. It was entertaining however!

I was very disappointed. It would have been nice to get a new version of this story, but I don’t usually like it when the people making the movie are so outrageous with their changes (with the exception of the 1999 Mansfield Park).
I haven’t read this book in a long time but this adaptation doesn’t seem to care about authenticity. Jane Austin didn’t typically portray her characters as being filthy slobs, but that is exactly how Marianne was portrayed in almost every scene she was in. She’s supposed to be beautiful, but unguarded. I don’t know why that would make her a filthy slob. You can’t even blame how the daughters were portrayed in the movie on their low circumstances because they were generally portrayed as being dirty and unrefined in this movie even before they lost their home.
In addition, why is there a married lesbian couple in this? I know that is not in the book and certainly everyone around them would notice. It doesn’t make sense in that time so it’s weird and distracting, not just because it’s there but because no one reacts to seeing a woman pretending to be a man and the two of them are married.

Definite thumbs down. Dark, overacted, characters made into silly caricatures of the novel, photography and costumes well done but the rest is a mess.

I think the three sisters are all miscast. They certainly do not compare to Emma Thompson or Kate Winslet and all look so ungroomed and what’s up with the screaming? Other cast members were pretty good. Loved the location; the scenery is beautiful.

Very hard to follow and plot was extremely hidden. I can not say it was enjoyable!

Photography and nature beautiful, Dashwood estate appears down @heel, not National Trust perfect, which may explain but not excuse John Dashwood’s meanness. All good.
But Marianne’s constantly tangled, loose hair, roaming about @random, screaaming, doesn’t ring true. Austen from similar milieu, her father had been disinherited, made constant efforts to provide for his family and appear appropriately on social occasions. Barton Cottage was reinterpretated as a hovel. Movie more like Wuthering Heights than Austen.

Photography and nature beautiful, Dashwood estate appears down @heel, not National Trust perfect, which may explain but not excuse John Dashwood’s meanness. All good.
But Marianne’s constantly tangled, loose hair, roaming about @random, screaaming, doesn’t ring true. Austen from similar milieu, her father had been disinherited, made constant efforts to provide for his family and appear appropriately on social occasions. Barton Cottage was reinterpretated as a hovel. Movie more like Wuthering Heights than Austen.

This Sense &Sensibility is beautifully filmed. The main actors are good. However I didn’t like that a lot of Austen’s script and scenes are not used, and the origin of the Lucy Steele-Edward Ferrers engagement is wrong. Most of the dancing is wrong. The hair is all wrong. While I was glad I saw it, it doesn’t hold a candle to the 1995 or 2008 versions.

Probably not see the new version. I would unfairly compare to the Emma Thompson version that made me truly connect with the characters and be immersed in their lives.

Was definatly worth the price of ticket. Loved the real sceanery, Animals superb, actors very good well done, Jane would have been proud i think. However , I fear she would have been deeply distubed by the attention to detail on the coiffure. The wild unkept hair of Marieanne, was in no way in keeping with the book and the period .she was not a peasant who did not own a hair brush, her passionate nature was in no way inhibited but good grooming.

Saw it this evening. Not overly familiar with the story but thought the performances generally good especially the two sister leads. Fiona Shaw was amusing as the aunt and lightened the story somewhat. The male leads were both very shy and awkward but convincingly so given the mores of the time, gentlemen’s honour though the most attractive male lead was the rogue Willoughby. I need to read the story to know how faithfully the directors kept to the story. Generally I enjoyed the film as Jane Austen films generally present as authentic in terms of attention to period detail.

I really loved Sense & Sensibility, the music was very atmospheric . The cinematography was beautiful and I felt like I was there . The actual adaptation was perfect and I loved the ballroom scenes with the lively joyful dances .

5 stars!Beautiful cinematography, direction and acting from all involved.Daisy Edgar -Jones is superb, bringing a fiestier Elinor although still managing to keep herself under control until she sees Willoughby. I loved the little changes ( I don’t understand why we compare versions as they are all unique). I did not expect much from it but was moved, excited and totally absorbed from start to finish. I have been an Austen fan since the age of 14 on first reading Pride and Prejudice at school. Great job….thank you.

If the picture of the sisters outside with their hair blowing about freely is typical of the costuming, I will say thumbs down.

Saw it today. Beautiful photography. Even though various storylines weren’t in the right order and one or two don’t exist in the book, I still enjoyed it as a film in its own right. I loved the Ang Lee version but have to put that feeling to one side.