"HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I" (2010) Review

"HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I" (2010) Review

I have been a major fan of J.K. Rowling’s ”HARRY POTTER” novels as much as the next person. But I would have never become a fan if it had not been for the movie adaptations of the novels. Mind you, I have not harbored a high opinion of all the movie adaptations. It has been a mixed bag for me over the past nine years. Of the seven movies that were made, I have a high opinion of at least four of them. And the most recent movie - ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” - happened to be one of them.

I never thought I would think highly of ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I”. When I had heard that Warner Brothers planned to split Rowling’s seventh novel into two movies, I did not think it was a good idea. And I felt it was an attempt by the studio to get as much profit from Rowling’s saga as much as possible. Being a steady fan of the franchise, I went ahead and saw . . . and thanked my lucky stars that the movie had not been shot in the 3-D process. Not only did I develop a high opinion of ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I”, I fell in love with it. Considering the number of complaints I have heard about the movie, I suspect that many would be surprised by my opinion. But I did. I fell in love with that movie. And considering the detailed nature of Rowling’s novel, the decision to make two movies from it may have done justice to Steve Kloves’ screenplay.

Directed by David Yates, ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” told the story of Harry Potter and his two close friends – Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger – and their efforts to elude Lord Voldemort and his Deatheasters throughout Britain, after the latter assumed control of the wizarding world following Albus Dumbledore’s death in ”HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”. Not only did Harry, Ron and Hermione do their best to elude Voldemort and the Deatheaters; they had to find and destroy the remaining horcruxes – objects or receptacles in which Voldemort had hidden parts of his soul for the purposes of attaining immortality. Harry had destroyed Voldemort’s school diary in ”CHAMBER OF SECRETS”. And before the start of ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”, Professor Dumbledore had destroyed another - Marvolo Gaunt's ring. There remained five horcruxes for the trio to find and destroy. But as fugitives within Britain’s wizarding world, their task proved to be difficult.

As I had stated earlier, I ended up falling in love with ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I”. But this feeling did not blind me to its flaws. And it had a few. One, what happened to Dean Thomas? For the first time in the saga’s history, he had a bigger role. At least in the novel. He failed to make an appearance in this adaptation. Mind you, his lack of presence did not harm the story. But it would have been nice for Harry, Ron and Hermione to encounter at least one fellow Hogswarts student (other than Luna) during their adventures. And poor Dean Thomas had been sadly underused since the first movie. Two, I wish that director David Yates and editor Mark Day had chopped some of the scenes featuring the Trio’s ”Winter of Discontent”. I could understand that the three friends would endure a great deal of despair over their situation and the state of the wizarding world. However . . . was it really that necessary to endure so many shots of Harry, Ron and Hermione staring into space, looking depressed? These scenes nearly bogged down the movie’s middle section. The Dursleys barely made a presence in this movie. Worse, Kloves had decided to delete Harry and Dudley’s goodwill good-bye. Who became the new owner of Sirius Black’s home, Number 12 Grimmauld Place, following his death? Since ”THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” movie failed to clear the issue, I had hoped this movie would. It never did. I had also hoped that ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” would clear reveal the identities of the two other horcruxes that were revealed in the sixth novel - Helga Hufflepuff's Cup and Rowena Ravenclaw's Diadem. The only thing that Kloves’ script did was mention that the Trio did not know about the cup, the diadem and two other horcruxes.

Despite these annoyances, I still love ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I”. The only HARRY POTTER movie that I love more is 2004’s ”HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN”. There had been complaints of the movie’s dark tone. Personally, this did not bother me one bit. In fact, I reveled in the story’s darkness. Other HARRY POTTER have ended on a dark note. But the story’s dark tone was not only well handled in Rowling’s novel, but also in Kloves’ script. Why? Because it suited the story. Aside from the ”Winter of Discontent” sequence, the rest of the pacing for ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” was well handled by Yates and Kloves. The movie also featured some outstanding sequences. Among my favorite were the following:

*Lord Voldemort’s murder of Charity Burbage at the Malfoy Manor.

*The Order of the Phoenix escort Harry to the Weasleys’ home, the Burrows.

*Harry, Ron and Hermione’s escape from Bill and Fleur’s wedding at the Burrows to London.

*The attack upon the Trio by two Death Eaters at a London café.

*The Trio steal Salazar Slytherin’s locket from Dolores Umbridge at the Ministry of Magic.

*Ron’s departure from Harry and Hermione, following a vicious quarrel between him and Harry.

*Harry and Hermione’s narrow escape from Godric’s Hollow.

*Ron’s reunion with Harry and Hermione and his destruction of Salazar Slytherin’s locket (a horcrux).

*Xenophilius Lovegood’s (and Hermione’s) narration of Peverell brothers and the Deathly Hallows.

*Dobby’s rescue of the Trio, Luna Lovegood and Mr. Ollivander from the Malfoy Manor.

Of the above scenes, at least three of them stood out for me. One of those scenes was the quarrel that broke out between Harry and Ron during the ”Winter of Discontent”. I found it ugly, brutal and emotional, thanks to the performances of the three leads. They really made this scene worked and for the first time; it occurred to me that Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson had really grown in their skills as actors. Hell, in this scene, they gave the best performances in the movie. Another scene that really stood out was Xenophilius Lovegood’s narration of the bleak tale regarding the Peverell brothers and the three Deathly Hallows (the Elder Wand, the Resurrection Stone and the Cloak of Invisibility). What made this sequence unique was that it was shown via some visually stunning animations designed and directed by Ben Hibon. But the one scene that really impressed me was the Ministry of Magic sequence that featured the Trio’s retrieval of Salazar Slytherin’s locket from the odious Dolores Umbridge (now head of the Muggle-Born Registration Commission). From the moment that Harry, Ron and Hermione used Polyjuice Potion to transform into three workers from the Ministry of Magic (Sophie Thompson, David O’Hara and Steffan Rhodri), until their escape via apparition; the entire scene was a fabulous ride filled with tension, humor, chaos and adventure. I would rate it as one of the best sequences in the entire saga.

I had already commented on the marvel of the three leads’ performances. For once, Radcliffe, Grint and Watson were the ones to give the most outstanding performances; instead of a supporting cast member. But there were other excellent performances. One came from Tom Felton, who continued his ambiguous portrayal of Hogswarts student Draco Malfoy that began in ”THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”. Another came from Ralph Fiennes, who gave a better performance as Lord Voldemort – especially in the opening sequence at Malfoy Manor – than he did in both ”THE GOBLET OF FIRE” and ”THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX”. In fact, I could say the same about Helena Bonham-Carter, who seemed less over-the-top and a lot scarier than she was in her previous appearances. Rhys Ifan was deliciously entertaining as Luna Lovegood’s equally eccentric father, Xenophilius. And I have to give kudos to Sophie Thompson, David O’Hara and Steffan Rhodri did a great job in conveying their adolescent characters (Hermione, Harry and Ron) through body language – especially since the three leads added their voices. And in his few scenes, Alan Rickman was his usual superb self as the enigmatic Severus Snape. A good example of how ambiguous he could be can be seen in the sequence featuring the death of an old friend of Snape’s – Charity Burbage. All you have to do is look at Rickman’s eyes and face.

Considering that this tale has no choice but to end happily in ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part II”, I could assume that ”Part I” might prove to be the darkest movie in the HARRY POTTER. On the other hand, Yates and Kloves might prove me wrong. But despite a few flaws, I believe that ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” is one of the best movies in the franchise. I have not truly enjoyed a HARRY POTTER this much since ”THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN”. And I can thank director David Yates, screenwriter Steve Kloves; and the three leads – Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. Excellent job, guys. Excellent job.

"HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS - Part II" (2011) Review

"HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS - Part II" (2011) Review

When I had first learned that Warner Brothers Studio and the producers of the HARRY POTTER franchise planned to divide the series' last novel into two movies, I had harbored strong doubts against this plan. Then I saw "HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART I" and my doubts were erased. I thought for sure that they would be able to pull this off. And after watching the last movie in the movie . . . I have changed my mind again.

Directed by David Yates, "HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART II" picked up where "PART I" left off - with the trio seeking refuge at Shells Cottage, the home of the recently married Bill and Fleur Weasley. Despite this, Harry Potter, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger continue their search of horcruxes, a group of objects that Lord Voldemort used to store his soul in order to ensure his immortality. After conversations with wand maker Mr. Ollivander and a goblin and Gringotts bank employee named Griphook, the three friends travel to the bank in London to get their hands on another horcrux, stored there by Deatheater Bellatrix Lestrange. After destroying the horcrux - Helga Hufflepuff's cup - the trio is betrayed by Griphook, before they make their escape from Gringotts and London via a dragon imprisoned in one of the bank's vaults. Harry, Ron and Hermione eventually make to Hogsmeade. They are briefly offered refuge by Albus Dumbledore's brother, Aberforth, at the latter's tavern. Neville Longbottom arrive and lead the trio to Hogswarts Castle. Before long, the school's inhabitants are engaged in a major battle against Voldemort and his Deatheaters.

As much as I had enjoyed "DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART I", I now realize that it had ended too soon. By ending the 2010 movie with Dobby the House Elf's death (along with Voldemort's discovery of the Elder Wand), screenwriter Steve Kloves was left with the Gringotts Bank sequence before allowing the Battle of Hogswarts to take over the rest of the movie. And if I must be honest, I found this heavy emphasis on the battle very disappointing. The film's title should have been "HARRY POTTER AND THE BATTLE OF HOGSWARTS", instead of the "DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART II".

There were scenes in "DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART II" that I enjoyed very much. Severus Snape's death and memories of his past proved to be just as poignant as portrayed in the novel. Alan Rickman probably gave his best performances in the entire franchise. And he was ably supported by the likes of Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon and Daniel Radcliffe. Another sequence that I enjoyed featured Harry's discussion with Albus Dumbledore in the afterlife, following his "death" at the hands of Voldemort. It was another poignant scene made enjoyable by performances from Radcliffe and Gambon. The kiss exchanged between Ron and Hermione was very memorable - especially in comparison to the slightly disappointing kiss shared between Harry and Ginny. I also enjoyed the sequence featuring the Malfoys' (Jason Isaacs, Helen McCrory and Tom Felton) ultimate rejection of Voldemort in order to preserve their hides.

However, I have two favorite sequences from the movie. One featured the trio's confrontation with Draco Malfoy and his two friends - Gregory Goyle and Blaise Zabini. Thanks to Yates' direction, Mark Day's editing and the visual and special effects teams, this was an exciting sequence. But my favorite is the Gringotts Bank sequence in which the trio attempts to find the horcrux stored in Bellatrix Lestrange's personal vault. Again, the crew did wonders with this sequence, which was capped by an exciting escape on the back of an imprisoned dragon. This last scene really blew my mind and I believe that Yates and the crew really outdid themselves. The sequence also featured a first-rate performance by Helena Bonham-Carter, who had to portray Hermione . . . impersonating Bellatrix. The actress deserves a Saturn Award nomination for that scene alone.

But as much as I had enjoyed the above mentioned sequences, "HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART II" proved to be a disappointment for me. My main problem with the film is that it fulfilled my worst fears about the movie - it nearly became all about the Battle of Hogswarts. The movie brought back bad memories of the Battle of Helms Deep in "LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS" and the two major battles featured in "LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING". The photography shot by cinematographer Eduardo Serra not only reignited bad memories of the second and third "LORD OF THE RINGS" movies, but also "HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE". The movie's photography possessed that grayish tinge that I found very unappealing. I also recall one scene in which Neville Longbottom found himself facing a large number of Voldemort's combatants at the end of the castle's bridge. I never realized there were that many Death Eaters in the Harry Potter universe. It looked . . . exaggerated. As much as I like Neville, I found the entire sequence featuring the hunt for Voldemort's pet snake and horcrux, Nagini and Neville's killing of it very contrived. Yes, I am aware that Neville did kill Nagini in the novel. But I do not recall Rowling resorting to contrived delay tactics featuring the attempts to kill the snake. By the time Neville killed Nagini - seconds before Voldemort again used the Elder Wand on Harry with fatal results - I realized that I no longer cared. While everyone else cheered, I rolled my eyes in disgust.

For me, the worst aspect of "DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART II" was that it failed to continue the strong narrative that began in "PART I". I got the feeling that screenwriter Steve Kloves, along with Yates, decided to dump the story's narrative by the wayside and focus at least 85-90% of the film on that damn battle. "DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART I" introduced a hint of some kind of scandal in Albus Dumbledore's past. This was apparent in Harry's conversation with Elphias Doge and Molly Weasley's Aunt Muriel at Bill and Fleur's wedding. In "PART II", the trio met Dumbledore's brother, Aberforth Dumbledore, who made ominous hints about the late headmaster's dark past. But this storyline, which had a lot do with how Dumbledore came into possession of the Elder Wand (one of the Deathly Hallows), was dropped the moment Neville made his first appearance. The jettison of this storyline also robbed moviegoers and Harry on the lessons of desire for power . . . and the fact that respected idols and authority figures also have feet of clay. And it seemed to make Ciarán Hinds' appearance in the movie a complete waste of time.

Speaking of wastes of time, if you blink, you might come across some of the franchise's past supporting characters who barely uttered a sound or two in this film. The movie featured appearances by Emma Thompson (Sybil Trelawney), Jim Broadbent (Horace Slughorn), Gemma Jones (Madam Pomfrey), Mark Williams (Arthur Weasley) and Miriam Margolyes (Professor Sprout). At least Julie Walters had her moment in the sun, when she killed Bellatrix Lestrange. Gary Oldman and David Thewlis (Sirius Black and Remus Lupin), along with Geraldine Sommerville and Adrian Rawlins (Lily and James Potter) had a line or two to spout, when Harry used the Resurrection Stone. Audiences also learned that Lupin had become a father . . . as an afterthought. In the novel, the Slytherin students had refused to defend the castle. I had hoped that Kloves would reverse Rowling's narrative and have them take part in the school's defense. Instead, Kloves' script had Minerva McGonagall order all of the Slytherins to be locked in the dungeon before the battle. How disappointing, considering Snape and Slughorn's willing participation in the war against Voldemort. By the way, I saw that Dean Thomas made it to Hogswarts before the trio. In "PART I", he was reported on the radio to be on the run from Snatchers. Why did he decided to return to the dangers of Hogswarts . . . before the battle?


I have another question . . . when did Harry realize that he had become the Master of the Elder Wand? Following Voldemort's death, he told Ron and Hermione that Draco Malfoy became Master of the Elder Wand, when he disarmed Dumbledore in the Astronomy Tower in "THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE". Harry became the master when he disarmed Draco at the Malfoy Manor in "PART I". How did he find out? He had overheard Voldemort's conversation with Snape in which he learned that one has kill the current Elder Wand master in order to become one. How did Harry find out that one can also become master by the disarming of a wand?

Earlier, I had stated that "DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART I" should have ended a little sooner - with the Snatchers' capture of Harry, Ron and Hermione. I usually dismiss other people's attempts to rewrite movies already filmed and released. But now, I find myself doing the same. After watching "PART II", I realized that if "PART I" had ended with the trio being captured by the Snatchers, "PART II" could have featured the Malfoy Manor sequence, Dobby's death and the Gringotts Bank sequence before the film moved on to the Hogswarts battle. I would have also preferred if Kloves had allowed Mr. Ollivander to reveal more about the Elder Wand; and Aberforth Dumbledore to reveal more about his older brother's past.

I wish I could say that I enjoyed "HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART II". I really do. I enjoyed "PART I" a lot. And there were scenes in this last film that really impressed me. But as a whole, this last movie in the franchise proved to be one of my biggest disappointments this summer. Pity.

"HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS - Part II" (2011) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the last HARRY POTTER movie directed by David Yates called "HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS - Part II". The movie stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson:


"HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS - Part II" (2011) Photo Gallery

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (2008) Review

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (2008) Review

The year 2008 marked the fourth adaptation of Jane Austen's 1811 novel, "Sense and Sensibility". First aired on the BBC, this three-part miniseries had been adapted by Andrew Davies and directed by John Alexander.

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" told the story of the two older of three sisters and their financial and romantic travails in early 19th century England. Elinor and Marianne Dashwood, along with their mother and young sister, Margaret; found themselves homeless and in financial straits following the death of their father. Their elder half-brother, John Dashwood, had promised their father he would financially compensate them, since the Norland Park estate was entailed to the male heir. Unfortunately, John possessed the backbone of jelly and allowed his venal wife Fanny to convince him into withholding any financial assistance from the Dashwood women. Fanny received a shock when her younger brother, Edward Ferrars, paid a visit and ended up becoming romantically involved with Elinor. Before their romance could flourish; Elinor, her sisters and her mother were forced to leave Norland Park. They settled at a cottage in Devon, owned by Mrs. Dashwood’s cousin, Sir John Middleton.

Upon settling in Devon, the Dashwoods became acquainted with the gregarious Sir John, his chilly wife and his equally extroverted mother-in-law, Mrs. Jennings. Marianne attracted the attention of two potential suitors – Sir John’s neighbor and former Army comrade, Colonel Christopher Brandon; and a handsome young blade named John Willoughby. Being seventeen and emotionally volatile, Marianne preferred the handsome Willoughby over the more stoic Colonel Brandon. And Elinor began to wonder if she would ever lay eyes upon Edward Ferrars again.

Unlike Ang Lee and Emma Thompson’s 1995 adaptation of Austen’s novel, John Alexander and Andrew Davies had decided to be a little more faithful to Austen’s novel. They included Lady Middleton, the autocratic Mrs. Ferrars and both Steele sisters – Lucy and Anne – to the story. They also included Edward Ferrars’ brief visit to the Dashwoods’ cottage, the dinner party at Mrs. Ferrars’ London house and a contrite Willoughby’s conversation with Elinor. But for me, being faithful to a literary source does not guarantee a superior production. If Alexander and Davies called themselves creating a production more faithful and superior to the 1995 movie, I do not believe they had succeeded. I am not saying that this ”SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” was a terrible production. On the contrary, I believe it was first-rate. I simply believe that the 1995 movie was a better adaptation.

This three-part miniseries had a lot going for it. Both Davies and Alexander beautifully captured most of the heart of soul of Austen’s tale. And aside from a few scenes, it was wonderfully paced. ”SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” captured the financial and social dilemma faced by the Dashwood females, upon the family patriarch’s death. The miniseries’ style permeated with warmth, solidity and color. The production designs created by James Merifield did an excellent job in sending viewers back to early 19th century England. But I must give kudos to cinematographer Sean Bobbitt, who received a well deserved Emmy nomination for his beautiful photography. The Devon, Hertfordshire and Surrey countryside looked rich and lush in color. I also enjoyed Michele Clapton’s colorful costumes, which earned a BAFTA nomination. Were they historically accurate? I do not know. I am not an expert in early 19th century fashion. However, I do have a question. Was ”SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” set during the decade of 1800-1809? Or was it set between 1810 and 1819? According to the family tree briefly shown in the following photo, the movie was set around 1800-1801:




There were some aspects of ”SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” that did not appeal to me. As much as I had enjoyed Merifield’s production designs, I found it disappointing that the majority of the London sequences featured interior shots. Which meant that viewers failed to get a truly rich view of early 19th century London. But most of my quibbles were about a few scenes that struck me as unnecessary. The miniseries opened with a young couple making love in the candlelight. Viewers easily surmised the identities of the pair – John Willoughby and Colonel Brandon’s young ward, Eliza. Perhaps this was Davies’ way of foreshadowing Willoughby’s character and his near seduction of Marianne. This was the first scene I found unnecessary and heavy-handed. There are some stories in which the use of foreshadowing as a literary device work very well. This particular scene failed to work for me. Another scene that struck me as unnecessary was Edward Ferrars’ brief visit to Barton Cottage. This scene was lifted from the novel and was used to foreshadow Elinor’s discovery of his engagement to Lucy Steele. Again, the use of foreshadow failed to work for me. I would have preferred that the audience’s knowledge of the Edward-Lucy engagement had been revealed as a complete surprise to them, as well as to Elinor.

Two more scenes also failed to impress me. Austen’s novel had hinted a duel between Willoughby and Brandon over the former’s seduction of young Eliza. Davies’ screenplay included the duel, after Willoughby’s rejection of Marianne and the birth of his and Eliza’s child. This duel would have served better following Willoughby’s seduction. In fact, I wish that Davies had not included it at all. For a brief moment, I found myself confused on whether the duel was fought over Eliza or Marianne. The scene also seemed to be an indication of Davies and Alexander’s attempt to inject some overt masculinity into Austen’s tale. The last scene that Davies carried over from the novel featured Willoughby’s expression of remorse to Elinor, over his treatment of Marianne. I must admit that I found that scene a little contrived and unnecessary. Willoughby’s reasons behind his abandonment of Marianne and his embarrassment at the assembly ball seemed pretty obvious to me. And in the 1995 version, the expression on Greg Wise’s face fully expressed Willoughby’s remorse more effectively than any of Austen’s (or Davies’) words.

Despite my misgivings, I must admit that ”SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” possessed a first-rate cast. Both Hattie Morahan and Charity Wakefield gave solid performances as the story’s two heroines – Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. Morahan nicely portrayed the sober and level-headed aspects of Elinor’s personality. Yet at the same time, she conveyed subtle hints of the character’s emotions behind the mask. I found it difficult to believe that Morahan’s Elinor was 19 to 20 years-old in this story. She looked and behaved like a person who was at least 5 to 10 years older. Morahan had a tendency to utilize this ”deer-in-the-headlights” expression, whenever Elinor was surprised. Wakefield gave a decent performance as the volatile Marianne. She portrayed the character as written by Austen – an emotional and thoughtless adolescent with a kind heart. Were young females in their late teens really expected to behave in a mature manner, consistently? My only problem with Wakefield was there were a few moments when her performance seemed mechanical with hardly any style or true skill.

The miniseries received fine support from the likes of Janet Teer as the emotional Mrs. Dashwood, Mark Williams as the jovial Sir John Middleton, Jean Marsh as Mrs. Ferrars, Mark Gatiss as the vacuous John Dashwood and young Lucy Boynton as Margaret Dashwood. In his first scene, Dan Stevens seemed to hint that his interpretation of Edward Ferrars might prove to be a little livelier than past interpretations. It was a hint that failed to flourish. His Edward proved to be just as mild. At least his performance was adequate. When the miniseries first aired in Britain nearly three years ago, the media had declared Dominic Cooper as the new sex symbol of British costume drama. After seeing his performance as John Willoughby, I find this hard to swallow. But he did give a decent performance. There were performances that failed to impress me. One, I had a problem with the Steele sisters. Anna Madeley’s performance as the subtle, yet catty Lucy Steele seemed perfectly fine with me. But I found Daisy Haggard’s broadly comic take on Anne Steele ridiculously overdone. And I never could understand why one Steele sister spoke with a well-bred accent (Lucy) and the other with a regional accent that strongly hinted of the lower classes. Very inconsistent. I also had a problem with Rosanna Lavelle as Sir John’s cold wife, Lady Middleton. She barely seemed to exist. In fact, I never understood why Davies did not follow Emma Thompson’s example by deleting the character altogether. Linda Bassett gave a friendly performance as Mrs. Jennings, Lady Middleton’s mother. But her portrayal lacked that deliciously meddlesome trait that prevailed in Austen’s novel and the 1995 movie. And I also found Bassett’s accent questionable. I could not tell whether her character was from amongst the upper or middle class.

At least two performances in ”SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” managed to impress me. One of those performances belonged to Claire Skinner, who portrayed the Dashwood sisters’ bitchy sister-in-law, Fanny Ferrars Dashwood. Skinner was truly superb as the venal and manipulative Fanny, who seemed more than determined to not only rule her husband, but also make her sisters-in-law miserable for the sake of her ego. My favorite Fanny scene featured that delicious montage in which she wore down John’s determination to help his sisters and stepmother financially. The other outstanding performance came from David Morrissey’s portrayal of the stoic Colonel Brandon. As much as I admire Morrissey’s skills as an actor, I have found some of his performances a little too theatrical at times. I certainly cannot say the same about his performance in ”SENSE AND SENSIBILITY”. He perfectly captured the quiet nuance of his character; and at the same time, expressed Brandon’s passion for Marianne through facial expressions and body language.

”SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” may have been marred by scenes that I found unnecessary, and lacked a witty sense of humor and something of an edge; but it still turned out to be an intelligent and solid adaptation of Austen’s novel. And fans of Austen’s novel can thank Andrew Davies’ script, John Alexander’s direction, Sean Bobbitt’s photography and a solid cast lead by Hattie Morahan and Charity Wakefield.

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (2008) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY", the 2008 adaptation of Jane Austen's 1811 novel. Adapted by Andrew Davies and directed by John Alexander, the miniseries starred Hattie Morahan and Charity Wakefield:


"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (2008) Photo Gallery

"HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS - Part I" Photo Gallery

Below are images from the latest HARRY POTTER movie directed by David Yates called "HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS - Part I". The movie stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson:


"HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS - Part I" Photo Gallery