Okay, so who actually liked it?

I liked it - I have seen the Merchant'Ivory version, which was wonderful, but I still liked this one. Someone mentioned about Andrew Davies making a bit fast and loose with the actual story in his screen plays. He does you know, because I'm pretty certain I never saw anything about the Great War in the earlier screen version.

Plus which he managed to insinuate into one of the Jane Austen's - Persuasion, I think, a quite superfluous scene with a slave ship, from which awful cries, etc, could be heard. I'm quite sure that was a nod to PC - and it gets in the way at times.

Speaking as someone who has not yet read the book or seen the Merchant Ivory version (even though I have it sitting at home. I will see it soon!), I liked this film. Though it's flawed, there were some good moments that made up for it. I'm not sure if I liked Laurence Fox's performance, but Timothy Spall and Mark Williams and Elaine Cassidy were great. The ending felt completely out of place though. The movie was alright, until the ending came along. I don't know, it just seemed like something they stuck into the movie for the sake of having it in there; the transition towards the ending wasn't well done at all. So overall, a bit messy at parts but a decent movie on its own.

*Official Member of the APEA (adam pascal eyelashaholics anonymous)

I HAVENT READ THE BOOK BUT I AM GOING TO WHEN I CATCH UP WITH THE JANE AUSTENS. i enjoyed the film not having anything to compare it to. It was on again last night (Tuesday) and I looked at it again. I really want to see the Daniel Day Lewis and Maggie Smith version. I have so much reading to do I am really getting into the classics and enjoying them so much. Thanks everyone

I loved the book, and I saw the Merchant-Ivory adaptation only once quite a few years ago but found it delightful; as for this one, I thought it was pretty good overall -- well worth the wait. :)

Loved the Emersons (and I really hope to see the Spalls act together again); and I like how the actors who played Lucy and Cecil sort of made their characters their own rather than try to re-create what Helena Bonham Carter and Daniel Day-Lewis did. The melancholy, bittersweet framing device seemed to be trying too hard -- to add dramatic weight to the story, to differentiate it from the earlier adaptation -- but was otherwise nicely done.



"I know I'm not normal -- but I'm trying to change!" ~ Muriel's Wedding

The "flashback" framing device was out of place--though I can certainly understand wanting to add the weight of what was about to happen. It doesn't fit with what is a basically light romantic comedy.

The characters of George and Cecil are very different in this version. George is played a less of an idealistic iconoclast and more of a "regular guy," which turns the question of his attraction to Lucy into a more traditional question of class conflict. Cecil is much more interesting in the new version. His aestheticism remains, but he is a much more tolerable person--it's much easier to see why Lucy would love (or think she loves, anyway) this Cecil than the insufferable priss Daniel Day-Lewis played.

This version was watchable, but never had a chance against Merchant-Ivory.

First: I have to admit that someone called me while I was watching this, so I saw the ending with the sound down and haven't had the time to see it again yet. Therefore, I missed any voiced explanations that there might have been.
Second: I actually liked AD's Pride and Prejudice very much, though not as much as the 05 version.
Third: I'm a frequenter of the Pride and Prejudice board (2005) where people LOVE to destroy everyone's fun by not just putting the movie down, but urinating on it and kicking it while it's down. I hate that. But I also feel pretty strongly about one particular issue, so I'm going to risk being a hypocrite. Nonetheless, I am not someone who calls anyone an idiot because they liked something that I didn't. I may be perplexed by their thinking, but an opinion is not going to cause me harm.
Fourth: The book is in a tie with P&P for my favorite of all time, and I love the Merchant/Ivory movie.
***SPOILERS***:
It was okay, though it seemed rushed through (probably due to adding all the flash-forward scenes) and the characters didn't feel very developed to me (yes, this opinion comes from a comparison). Also, I need to see the whole thing to analyze this aspect fully, but I was annoyed by Sophie Thompson's Charlotte, because this is actually a book about Charlotte. She has an event in her past that made her the overproper, irritating spinster she is and Lucy is her proxy to undo that event. ST had all the comedic aspects, but none of the secret story. Also: George is a radical. He would not go to war! I'm absolutely sure that he would rather do hard labor as a concientious objector than to kill anyone. This is one of the most brilliant, beautiful books ever and to add an ending that is TOTALLY TOTALLY TOTALLY out of character, AND turns it from a really radiant ending to a depressing ending is just sacrilege!

Also: George was too boisterous here.
-----------
To be driven by lovers- A king might envy us...

I liked it passingly well. I'm weak for Elaine Cassidy, of course; and anything with Timothy Spall that's not Harry Potter is also tops in my book. Rafe Spall was a little too boisterous. I rather liked the Cecil Vyse fella -- Day Lewis's mannered performance is extraordinary, of course, but whoever played Vyse here played him virilely and splendidly. I liked Elizabeth McGovern, I liked how toned down and dour the teleseries was in comparison to the rapturous Merchant-Ivory movie. Maggie Smith, though, will always be Cousin Charlotte to me. And framing the whole in flashback was moody and dire, culminating in the ridiculous shot of George Emerson in the trenches (why? why?), though I did like the last scene of Lucy Emerson and the driver revisiting the meadow of her ravishment, and agreeing that George was a good man.

I just saw an interview with Andrew Davies, where he says the inspiration for the last scene came from a postscript that Forster wrote in 1962, where George Emerson, a widower, goes back to Florence and reminisces about his youth. He decided that, since it was, after all, Lucy's story, the postscript would work better from her point of view; and if George had to die, he may as well die in the Great War. All good points, from a revisionist's point of view. Still, I liked the Merchant-Ivory ending better. The one I did like about the teleseries is one thing it kept from the novel that the film did not: Lucy and George's sudden realization that Charlotte was on their side all along.

----
I should warn you -- he's a Fourierist.

Really Liked it. After seeing this, got the DVD of the 1985 the Merchant Ivory version, which was good, but by comparison was an unexpected disappointment. Went back & retrieved the TV version from TiVo deleted bucket; and loved it again.

Elaine Cassidy has so much more energy and sparkle (for lack of a better term) than Helena B-C. What a smile! Why haven't we sen more of her? The M-I characters were great, but almost too "perfect". Danial Day Lewis - of whom we are big fans - was almost too prissy. The Cecil in this TV special was more believable - we believed he really hurt when dumped. Maggie Smith was a great Charlotte & Judy Dench was also a treat in the M-I version.

In this latest TV version, the epilogue back in Italy was a satisfying way to briefly revisit and enjoy the flowering of their love. It was over so quickly, was nice to not have to let go too abruptly.