On Sense and Sensibility (2026)

I suppose I’m part of the problem.  

“Why do they keep adapting Jane Austen a zillion times instead of Frances Burney?”, I asked. And yet I went to see the new Sense and Sensibility (and might even see the new Pride and Prejudice). It is—I’m going to be frank—an unnecessary and mediocre film.    

But let’s start with the positives. I like Daisy Edgar-Jones as Elinor. Everyone agrees that the 1995 film by Ang Lee is (more or less) perfect, but most people would agree that the 36-year-old Emma Thompson, though wonderful, is a bit too old for the role, yes? Daisy Edgar-Jones is 28 and can get away with playing the 19-year-old Elinor, and I think she conveys well the restraint and reticence and pain of the character. Fiona Shaw is brilliant as Mrs Jennings, often a scene-stealer, and I have no complaints about George MacKay as Edward Ferrars. The young audiences (that the film targets) would probably love that couple. 

The film however has two major problems. One is Esmé Creed-Miles, who is dreadful as Marianne. The new Sense and Sensibility fails to capture the bond between the Dashwood sisters, and fails to convince the audience (I mean me) that in the end Marianne is developing her feelings for Colonel Brandon, both of which I think are because of the actress. 

The other flaw is in the writing (Diana Reid) and directing (Georgia Oakley). When the trailer came out, lots of people commented on the historically inaccurate hair and costumes—where are the bonnets, why do they wear their hair down, why does everything look so drab and miserable in films these days, and so on. But the film is even more erroneous and George Oakley doesn’t seem to understand—or doesn’t care—that Jane Austen’s world is governed by strict rules for social conduct and this is a fundamental part of the novels. Oakley’s characters do many things that would never have been considered acceptable in Regency England. Why does Willoughby lift up Marianne during a dance, and later carry her in front of everyone at the ball? Why does Elinor run through people at the party, drawing people’s attention to herself and her sister? Why does Marianne shout “Willoughby!” and question him and make a scene in front of Miss Grey and in front of everyone at the party? Why do Colonel Brandon and Willoughby have a duel right in front of the house, where they can be—and are—seen by the Dashwoods? Why does Edward Ferrars discuss with Elinor his engagement to Lucy Steele? (The circumstances of the engagement are also changed). Why does Elinor speak of her feelings first, in the end? Some people may not care (like those numerous film reviewers I read who did not mention these changes), but I do. One critic even complained that the new adaptation fell flat as Oakley didn’t drag Austen’s novel into the present (why should filmmakers?), but this is not the Regency: the dialogue may not be modern but the behaviour is—all these things I mentioned are not the way Austen’s characters behave.  

There are other things. I don’t like Colonel Brandon in the film, though it’s mainly because of the writing rather than the actor Herbert Nordrum. Some of you won’t like that Mr Palmer is for some reason played by Eliot Sumner, who is female, which takes one out of the story or is at least distracting (especially if you go see the film with someone who doesn’t know the story). 

(Incidentally there are a few nepo babies in the film: Eliot Sumner is the daughter of Sting and Trudie Styler; Esmé Creed-Miles is the daughter of Charlie Creed-Miles and Samantha Norton, who’s in Nolan’s Odyssey; Frank Dillane, who plays Willoughby, is the son of Stephen Dillane and Naomi Wirthner. Whom did I miss?)  

As for cinematography and production design, you can tell from the trailer: there are some nice shots but the film looks dull and drab. 

Overall, it’s not a disastrous adaptation like the 2022 Persuasion or ridiculous like the 2026 Wuthering Heights, but it’s not good. 

I should watch Ang Lee’s film again.