Y’all. Y’ALL. Buckle up.
I just saw the film this afternoon, so I’m going to try to cover everything now before I forget all the little details. I honestly wish I had been taking notes, but a play-by-play breakdown can get tedious. I went into it having read and consumed lots of commentary with spoilers galore, so I was not surprised by most of it, but I did have an idea of what I wanted to be on the lookout for.
Let’s start at the very beginning (a very good place to start). Twenty seconds in, I was already getting a bit impatient with the establishing shots. If it were a miniseries, it would be fine to linger on the waving grasses and caterpillar, but honestly? The clock is ticking and there’s a WHOLE heckin’ lot of story to tell. Of course there’s always some condensing of timelines in any film adaptation of a book - certainly Emma Thompson cut months down to weeks and overlapped a few repetitive dinners and visits to fit everything in - but if you only have about two hours and you spend a hefty percentage of that just focusing on sweeping landscapes and tiny details, at the expense of actual storytelling? Newp.
I have BIG issues with certain character and plot changes, but I’ll get to those later. My major criticism of the film as an adaptation of this specific novel by Jane Austen is the repeated switcheroo of letters to dialogue and dialogue to letters. I understand that it’s just kind of boring to have an actor standing still reading an entire letter on screen, but it’s one of many things that make me less convinced that the entire team making the film really understood the cultural and social zeitgeist of the 1790s. There’s always commentary about the tension between having an immersive cinematic experience and “updating for a modern audience” but…I’m honestly not sure I believe that people in 2026 seeing an Austen adaptation won’t have at least a basic understanding that Things Were Different Back Then. Some sentiments simply wouldn’t have been spoken aloud, but would have been easier to say or at least imply by letter. But what on earth were Edward and Elinor doing writing letters to each other?? The novel makes it so clear that the only way two single people could reasonably carry out a correspondence was if they were engaged - it’s literally Marianne writing to Willoughby that finally convinces Elinor they must have an understanding - and Edward and Elinor would never have broken that rule. I believe there was a single blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment of Marianne writing to Willoughby, but it passed completely without comment by Elinor! It was just bizarre.
Moreover, the revelatory conversations between Edward and Elinor, and Marianne and Colonel Brandon, were mostly just confusing - I felt like I was watching a completely different story. Like, the whole conceit in so much of Jane Austen’s writing is that the characters’ restraint and propriety create tension and misunderstandings, so if they’re just going to come out with their true feelings, what are we even doing?? (Looking at you, “Persuasion” ‘22…) It was also weird that some exchanges got transplanted to other characters and situations. When discussing Willoughby’s gift of the horse Queen Mab (which they managed to keep, despite living in a hovel) Elinor asked Mrs. Dashwood, “How shall we do without her?” Meaning Marianne. When that’s a conversation between Marianne and Mrs. Dashwood in the novel, about Elinor supposedly being engaged to Edward? Like, why?? Overall, it seemed like they set a very low quota for how much of Jane Austen’s actual language they were going to keep in the screenplay, and then just played a game of darts to decide where and when to use it.
Now to address the changes to characters and plot: I fundamentally cannot get behind the softening of Willoughby’s offenses. He’s a Very Bad Guy™ and that’s a really important detail! This is another thing that just makes it feel like we’re at odds with the screenwriter over the story that’s being told. Instead of “seducing” (read: raping) Colonel Brandon’s young and highly vulnerable ward Eliza and abandoning her and the baby, this Willoughby “merely” seduced and impregnated a fully grown widow. Now, that fully grown widow was indeed Colonel Brandon’s sister-in-law, whom Colonel Brandon had been in love with and was prevented from marrying. And yes, this Willoughby still jilted Marianne in favor of an incredibly wealthy woman (though I don’t think the amount is actually mentioned?? As much as I love Fiona Shaw, I couldn’t always understand her, so it’s possible Mrs. Jennings did say what Miss Grey’s fortune was, and I missed it). H.O.W.E.V.E.R. There is a MASSIVE difference between dodging a jilting/widow-seducing bullet and dodging a LITERAL CHILD RAPIST bullet. And Jane Austen didn’t shrink from making that explicit! She could have made him a Less Bad Guy™, but she created Willoughby as a truly depraved person who did abhorrent things. And for a modern screenwriter in the post-#MeToo era to miss the opportunity of demonstrating that Very Bad Guys™ have always existed and are still wreaking havoc with girls’ and women’s health and safety and well-being…why are we giving Willoughby a pass?
On a similar note, I was glad at first that this film included Willoughby’s impromptu visit to Cleveland to force Elinor to reassure him that Marianne was not dying, because the omission of that scene was my main disappointment with Emma Thompson’s screenplay. But since Elinor couldn’t task him with the seduction of a child, there’s just way less urgency and seriousness to the scene, and it gave Willoughby less opportunity to be a smarmy asshole and plead his case by blaming the child for her own seduction. And then, in this version of the story (which felt more and more like fanfic as the film went on…) Brandon did actually arrive in time to find Willoughby still there, haul him outside, and challenge him to a duel! But for what?? For seducing Eliza, or for jilting Marianne? If we can’t actually be sure, that’s just lazy writing - especially since it would have been crystal clear if Willoughby hadn’t gone from villain to vanilla. By extension, the change to Willoughby’s character also diminished Brandon’s motivation - if Brandon was just jealous of Willoughby’s conquests of his two love interests, that makes Brandon a much more superficial person. In general, the viewer just wasn’t given enough time to get to know Brandon and understand all of his good qualities.
Now for the Edward-Lucy backstory, which was another fanfic moment (I think I'm going to start calling this adaptation "Austen with a capital AU"). Lucy showed up with the Palmers to tell Elinor that she had been long engaged to Edward and that it was a great secret. This Lucy had been an heiress, who was somehow known to Mrs. Ferrars, and she and Edward had been intended for each other since childhood. Lucy lost her fortune to her brothers, hadn’t contacted Edward for several years, was then found out to be penniless, but came back into his life acting like they were still engaged. Mrs. Ferrars insisted that he end the engagement because Lucy had no fortune, Edward stood by her, and Mrs. Ferrars disinherited him in favor of Robert. Edward explained all of this to Elinor, in London?? And then later, also in London, told Elinor that he would break it off with Lucy if Elinor told him to. I beg your finest pardon?!?! Lucy is a sneaky manipulative little snipe in the novel, but this change makes her almost completely toothless - and weirdly makes Edward the manipulative one!!
Now, here are my thoughts on the costumes and the hair, which have both been under considerable debate across the Interwebs. The hair overall was better than I expected, especially because several screenshots and stills from the film were taken out of context prior to the film’s release. For example, I had seen the image below, which was sniffily identified by some online commentator as “can you believe this is Marianne at a formal dinner with the Middletons??”
I know from a bunch of behind-the-scenes content online that a lot of effort and consideration went into the costumes to give a 1790s feel, but the whole movie was just so damn dark you’d never know it! They even took inspiration from the same black taffeta V&A gown I recreated a few years ago for Mrs. Dashwood - complete with the teeny tiny back pleats AND shawl collar AND wrap front - but all of those wonderful details were completely invisible. Which is such a shame! I was totally baffled by a couple of strange jackets and vests, such as this one on Elinor (who naturally had to go run a marathon to catch up with her man at the end, like Sally Hawkins in the '07 "Persuasion"):
Not to mention walking around with their gowns half-fastened:
But I guess I could see what they were going for, with the drawstring closures and drapey materials.
The headgear was universally terrible, especially Elinor's detached hood and Marianne’s Gargantuan Squash Helmet:
And Margaret’s...crownless...straw...brim?? (yes, this is a behind-the-scenes picture, but it's what she was wearing for the "beach accident" scene):
Not a 1790s bonnet:
Not a 1790s cap:
Also not a 1790s cap:
Sure, they were supposed to be in mourning, but people who were in mourning still cared about not looking shabby. Up until the ball, everything just looked drab and uninteresting.
Speaking of the ball…
The…“dancing?” Are we actually going to dignify it by calling it that?? was truly bizarre. At one point during the London ball I yelled out “THE FUCK????” Yes, in the movie theater. There weren’t very many people at the showing I went to, but I was utterly unable to restrain myself. I'm struggling to find the words to describe just how bad it was. The music was perfectly period appropriate, too, so it was frankly infuriating that the dancing was so obviously wrong. There are literally hundreds of extant dance manuals in which every single figure is described in excruciating detail, and guess what, they’re in the public domain!! If the production team is going to try to convince their audience of how much research they did to create a historical atmosphere, they shouldn’t be insulting us with this completely batshit, made-up nonsense. Is it a hoedown? A hand jive? A goddamn game of Twister?? WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK ARE YOU DOING.
Briefly, because I'm tired and I need to wrap this up, here are some final thoughts:
George MacKay (pronounced McKigh, by the way) was quite good as Edward Ferrars. He was charming and sweet without being conventionally handsome. I didn't like how Edward was written, but I liked how he played him, if that makes any sense.
Frank Dillane was sufficiently rakish and handsome as Willoughby, but only after he took off the ridiculous floppy hat. What was that about?? I liked the spangles on his waistcoat for the ball. Flashy and superficial, just like Willoughby.
I liked the *idea* of Fiona Shaw as Mrs. Jennings, but unfortunately it just didn't land for me. She did get the chance to show Mrs. Jennings's concern for Marianne during the illness at Cleveland, but the camera wasn't even on her when she delivered the line about supplying the care of the mother she had taken her from! And I feel like that could be such a pivotal moment, when Elinor comes to respect and love Mrs. Jennings rather than to just think of her as a silly old woman, but it was almost a throwaway line.
I enjoyed Sir John Middleton the most out of the minor characters, and he definitely chewed the small amount of scenery he was granted. The actor seemed awfully familiar, so I looked him up and indeed, he played Arthur Parker, the hypochondriac brother, in “Sanditon.” Lady Middleton, who could actually be a very funny character if given enough time, was reduced to an expressionless barometer. On some level, if you can’t do Jane Austen’s humor justice with a certain character, it’s best just to leave that character out - like Emma Thompson did! Margaret was very sweet, but didn’t have much to do. John and Fanny Dashwood were both great, but again, the material for them was very minimal.
And now I do think I've covered everything. If I think of anything else that made my blood boil or just left me going “Huh??” I’ll come back and edit this post.
