Pride & Prejudice Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
This holiday season, experience the greatest love story of all time.
A romance ahead of its time.
Sometimes the last person on earth you want to be with is the one person you can't be without.
The story is based on Jane Austen's novel about five sisters - Jane, Elizabeth, Mary, Kitty and Lydia Bennet - in Georgian England. Their lives are turned upside down when a wealthy young man (Mr. Bingley) and his best friend (Mr. Darcy) arrive in their neighborhood.
| Keira Knightley | Elizabeth Bennet |
| Talulah Riley | Mary Bennet |
| Rosamund Pike | Jane Bennet |
| Jena Malone | Lydia Bennet |
| Carey Mulligan | Kitty Bennet |
| Donald Sutherland | Mr. Bennet |
| Brenda Blethyn | Mrs. Bennet |
| Claudie Blakley | Charlotte Lucas |
| Sylvester Morand | Sir William Lucas |
| Simon Woods | Mr. Bingley |
| Kelly Reilly | Caroline Bingley |
| Matthew MacFadyen | Mr. Darcy |
| Pip Torrens | Netherfield Butler |
| Janet Whiteside | Mrs. Hill |
| Sinead Matthews | Betsy |
| Joe Wright |
7.80 out of 10 (28744 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Can't Stop Watching It!!!
posted on 31 Aug 2009Let me just start by saying, that I had never seen the 1995 BBC mini series with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, never read the book and had no real desire to see this movie. Caught it on a plane ride home and I have to say that it took my breath away. I loved Matthew and Keira together - there chemistry was unbelievable. Since that plane ride home, I have bought the movie and watch it anytime I can. I have read the book twice which gives a little more background and watched the 1995 mini series. I have to say, and I know people are going to be quite angry, I did not feel any chemistry between Firth and Ehle. I thought the new adaptation of Pride and Prejudice had more emotion and wish that THEY would do the 6 hour mini series because that I would definately buy. I have told everyone I know about this movie and how fantastic Matthew played the part of Mr. Darcy. By far my favorite movie ever and will continue to watch it faithfully any chance I get.
NOT A PERFECT VERSION BUT NOT TOO BAD
posted on 31 Aug 2009Okay, I'm a huge P&P fan but I am not going to write a long analytical review here...there are plenty of them already. I'm also not going to compare this movie to the 1995 version. Comparing a two-hour movie to a six-hour mini-series is "apples and oranges." Here's just a few thoughts that come to mind...
* The Bennet estate - What is with the shabby look and the mud/farm animals everywhere? In the book, the home is not richly decorated but it was certainly a lot more affluent than portrayed.
* The Bennet girls - Keira Knightley did a very good job portraying Lizzie...not perfect but not bad. The actress who played Lydia was a little too over-the-top and was excessively annoying. Rosamund Pike was very good as Jane and the other actresses playing Mary and Kitty were very good.
* Brenda Blethyn was very good as Mrs. Bennet and Donald Sutherland did okay as Mr. Bennet. He did mumble a little too much.
* The Meryton Ball - What the heck was up with the hair...the women and the men? Many of the extras (dancers, etc.) looked disheveled and needed a brush/comb at the very least.
* Characters missing - Where were the Hursts?
* Matthew Macfadyen was good as Darcy and the actor playing Bingley did a decent portrayal as well.
* What was the significance of the pig with the large "assets"?
* The scene at Netherfield discussing "accomplished women" was dull and did not add anything to the character development or the attraction between Darcy and Elizabeth.
* Makeup - Knightley wore a lot of makeup. Did you notice she is the only female who wears makeup? The eye shadow is obvious as well as the blush. The actress playing Caroline Bingley might have some makeup on but Knightley's was obvious, especially the end scene in the meadow. Did they not have enough confidence in her "natural" beauty"? Also, the gown Knightley wore at the Netherfield Ball - a wonder bra or push-up bra might have helped. Also, when the Bennet's left the ball, Lizzie was not in the carriage. How did she get home?
* Lizzie visits Pemberly - What's with the nude statues? A portrait of Darcy alone would have worked nicely. Also, where did Lizzie's aunt and uncle go? Lizzie walked back to the village. Did they leave her behind? They were all touring the estate together and then the aunt and uncle disappear.
* Judi Dench's (Lady Catherine) hairstyle - Way over the top!!!
* Bingley would never have used the word "ass", especially in the midst of proposing to Jane.
* Lady Catherine would not have visited the Bennets in the middle of the night.
* Darcy's open shirt while crossing the meadow....okay, I have to forgive that one....If Colin Firth can jump into a pond and walk around with a wet open see-through shirt...As a female, I loved both scenes. Please forgive me Jane Austen.
* Knightley and Macfadyen worked well together and I enjoyed their scenes, especially the declaration of love/proposal scenes and the looks Darcy would throw at Lizzie. It's the incurable romantic in me. I also liked the scene at the Meryton Ball where Darcy asks Lizzie the "encouraging affection" question. Lizzie's reply is perfect. At Netherfield when Jane and Lizzie are leaving, Darcy's hand reaction to first touching Lizzie was also a nice touch.
Overall, it was a decent version. After 193 years, a little creative interpretation of the book is refreshing. It is a pity that Hollywood won't spend more $ and make a longer version. Obviously, there was a lot missing from this version due to time constraints. In two hours, you can't develop the characters and attraction between Darcy and Elizabeth properly. If they can make King Kong three plus hours, why can't they make a longer version of P&P...I know...because it won't rake in as much money as the action and special effects movies do but it's a shame.
Ooops...this turned out longer than I thought.
I must differ
posted on 29 Aug 2009I cannot believe anyone rated this movie with more than 2 stars. I also can't believe that anyone other than a marketer of the film would say that it is "easily on a par" with the BBC version.
This version is thin and shallow. No character gets developed. Many that are present are protrayed incorrectly. Mr. Bennet seems to actually respect his wife. That alone is unbelievable. Then the writers can't seem to decide how to play the dialogue. Characters alternately use a more natural style of english and then suddenly lurch back into the more formal language of the book. They would have done my ears a service by choosing one way or the other.
And some of the artistic license is amazing. That Lady Catherine would travel 50 miles in the middle of the night to confront Elizabeth in front of her entire family. Or Mr. Darcy delivering his explanatory letter to Elizabeth also at night by appearing almost as an apparition in her room.
There are more items I could mention but to get to the point, I thought this version was laughable. Anyone who does not know Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and watches this, has not seen Pride and Prejudice. They will have hardly even seen an imitation of the story. Do yourself a favor. Read the book and stay away from this movie.
A refreshing Take on Romance
posted on 29 Aug 2009This charming movie is a refreshing change from modern sarcastic humor and shows us how to be totally romantic without resorting to blantant sensuality. I have seen it many times, and find new little things to like about it every time. I love the casting choice for Mr. Darcy- he is so tender and sweet to Elizabeth, and he is very handsome besides.
A family affair......
posted on 29 Aug 2009I thought that this version/adaptation of Austen's novel was excellent overall and would strongly recommend viewing to anyone (rent or purchase).
I've seen most of the previous versions and agree that the BBC Ehle/Firth outing is indeed still much loved, however, I found this simply more realistic - from the grittier, grubbier lives of our heroines, played more girlish and younger than previously - to a much more 'real' portrayal of Darcy. Shy, vulnerable and as such, aloof.
The real strength for me though was the true family that Sutherland and Blethyn create. The girls feel like real sisters, not literary ones, led by the extraordinary Knightley and Pike. Both quite luminous on screen and both embodying the spirit of the age.
Special kudos must be given to Knightley though, who here just radiates a feisty lovability and who's capture of Darcy seems completely natural, as if any man who met her Lizzie would fall madly in love.
And as such, McFayden embodies a Darcy that I can actually imagine falling in love with a girl, well below what he and his own family expects, and his struggle with his feelings and responsibilities.
All in all, a great film.
Wretched
posted on 28 Aug 2009No one go see Pride & Prejudice. It is the most wretched, boring, miserable movie I have seen all year. Keira Knightley does not look or act the part (note how she chooses to act with her chin every time she gets emphatic) and I've sold lumber more charismatic and interesting than the man who plays Mr. Darcy. There are so many clichéd shots (if I ever have to see someone stare at a candle in the foreground for an entire shot while having a conversation, and then blow it out for the scene change, or a door slamming shut with a dull, resounding crash directly into the camera, I may scream.)Darcy is boring; Collins is boring; Bingley looks like a woman; Mrs. Bennett is not funny as she is in the BBC version, she is merely irritating. And oh the giggling. The horrid, horrid giggling. I think a good 15 minutes of this movie is comprised of giggling. Another 15 goes to "moving" shots of the beautiful landscape, while Lizzie stares pensively into the distance.I offer this as an especial warning to anyone who has not read the novel, who would be doing themselves a horrible disservice by seeing the movie before reading the book and watching the delightful Colin Firth BBC version - which is in every imaginable way a superior film to this sack of sugary rubbish. Thank you. It felt good to get that out of my system. Please take my advice. For your sakes.
Strengths and Weaknesses
posted on 28 Aug 2009By and large I found this a very enjoyable film. It is visually stunning, has some very touching moments and features a truly bewitching hero. I like the scenery, the music, the buildings and the way they are filmed. It is a charming film all over, beautiful, atmospheric and emotional.One might wonder though, how much it actually has to do with Jane Austen's novel. I am not a purist and have no problem with a film making considerable changes to the plot, settings or characters of a novel. But I believe there should be a noticeable effort to capture the general spirit of a book. Watching this film and listening to the director's comments, I wondered if he had read the book at all. Where, for example, did he get the idea that the Bennet's are such a wonderful warm and loving family? In Jane Austen's novel, the Bennets are a particularly dysfunct family and the only relationship in it that is not fraught with problems is that between Elizabeth and Jane.Furthermore, Austenian language is largely missing from the film, and the whole pace, attitude and feel of it is a far cry from the subtle and witty elegance of Austen's prose. The film is dramatic and romantic, rather than enlightened and ironic.The style of it would be more suitable for an adaption of Wuthering Heights! I also have great difficulty with Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennett. Visually, Jane Austen describes Elizabeth as light and lithe, and pretty in an unspectacular way. Knightley's figure is too awkward and angular to fit that idea, and her scowls and black eye makeup make her look too dramatic. Elizabeth's personality is very complex and multi-layered, but Knightley seems to just alternately frown, stare and giggle. I find her convincing in the scene when she explains her love for Darcy to her father, but that is only at the very end of the film. Compared to the vast variety of gestures and facial expressions that Jennifer Ehle gave to the character, Knightley does a poor job.Matthew Macfadyen, on the other hand, presents a touchingly vulnerable Darcy that is bound to charm the socks off anyone who hasn't got a heart of stone. By far the best performance in the whole film. I also liked Claudie Blakley as Charlotte Lucas and Rosamund Pike as Jane. Donald Sutherland makes a very nice father - though he certainly isn't Jane Austen's Mr Bennett! Some of the other characters remain underdeveloped, largely due to lack of time on screen. I understand the need for cuts, but I cannot help to regret the loss of so much of the roles of Caroline Bingley, Colonel Fitzwilliam, Mr Collins, Mrs Gardiner and Lady Catherine. I would have loved to see more of Anne de Burgh! Lastly, the film didn't make me laugh or even smile. While that is okay in general, it's a strange feature for a Jane Austen adaption!
I Started Out Prejudiced...
posted on 27 Aug 2009I was wary of watching this edition of "Pride and Prejudice" because I was absolutely convinced that it was going to be horrible, either because of the acting, or because it wouldn't stay true to the story as it is presented in the novel. But I definitely ate some humble pie after watching this film because it turned out to be absolutely wonderful, and did Jane Austen's novel adequate justice.
While the movie is not as detailed as the novel - or the original BBC series - due to time constraints, the creators of the movie did a good job of choosing the important points of the story to focus on. While you don't want the movie to end when it does, you can at least feel like you've been given a complete and well rounded story before placing the DVD back in its case.
The actors selected to portray such timeless literary characters were also well chosen; while I doubted Keira Knightley's ability to pull off the role of Elizabeth, I came away with a new respect for her acting ability after watching this film. The choice of Matthew MacFadyen as Mr. Darcy was also a good one; he played the brooding, but genuinely kind-hearted Mr. Darcy very convincingly. The online chemistry between Knightley and MacFadyen was also evident, enhancing the believability of Elizabeth and Darcy's romance when it was portrayed onscreen.
While the cinematography in this movie varied greatly from the original BBC series, it was for the better. Some of the most crucial moments in the book - when Darcy professes his feelings for Elizabeth, and the ending where they meet in the early morning - were beautifully filmed. For those who are not interested in romantic movies, but appreciate good cinematography, watch this movie for that reason alone; you will not be disappointed.
Though this film was wonderful, if you are comparing it to the book, or are a diehard fan of the original BBC series, you might come away disappointed. But for those who have never read the book, or ever seen the original BBC series, this is definitely a film that you need to add to your must-watch list.
Rent - do NOT buy - this rendition
posted on 25 Aug 2009If you must have a video version of Jane Austen's classic work, then the 95 BBC adaptation is for you. It is truer than any other adaptation (and I've seen them all) to the spirit, wit, and characters Miss Austen created centuries ago.
This version, on the other hand, while it has some redeeming qualities making it worthy of a rental viewing - the scenery, cinematography, and score are uniformly excellent - it is a very poor rendition of P&P. Although I agree that the youthful energy shown by all 5 Bennet girls is an interesting take on the story, there are so many flaws and wasted opportunities in this work that I cannot in good conscience recommend a purchase. A short list of the flaws in the script includes:
1. Judi Densch has been deprived of an opportunity to truly shine - I was so looking forward to her rendition of Lady Catherine, which I have no doubt could have been exceptional. The script eliminated Lady C's best line (" I am most seriously displeased"), and pretty well hacked out the entire character. This was a HUGE disappointment.
2. Mr. Bennet, as written, is more of a soft, whipped character, instead of the sharp, although disappointed in marriage, character that Jane created. Why change the brilliant line in response to Mrs. Bennet's news about netherfield - "You wish to tell me, and I have no objection to hearing it", to "You wish to tell me, so I suppose I have no choice". Seems subtle, but this changes the flavor of the character. And the tears at the end when Lizzie accepts Mr. Darcy seemed completely foreign to the character I knew from the book.
3. Wasted opportunities for character development. I know that when trying to make a 2hour movie from a novel, that certain subplots must be sacrificed, so I was able to live with the elimination of Mr & Mrs Hurst from the story. However, when every minute is a premium, why, after Elizabeth hears about Charlotte's engagement, are we subjected to a large chunk of time watching Elizabeth swinging? That time could have been far better spent. Also there was a wasted scene at the Netherfield ball showing Mr. Bennet consoling Mary after having asked her to stop playing. Hello - you're trying to CUT story, not ADD to it.
4. Mr Bingley, in this rendition, is not someone you can see Jane Bennet really falling in love with - the character is rather soft-brained, instead of good-natured. Again, the scene at the end that is ADDED from the story, showing Darcy helping Bingley to prepare to propose to Jane, very much diminishes his character. Wasted film time that could have been employed far more profitably.
5. The whole handling of Charlotte's engagement was ham-handed. Why cut a classic line, when Jane says to Elizabeth, "Lizzie, you are not accounting for differences in situation and temperament", as Elizabeth tries to reconcile herself to the news. Instead, we are treated to an out-of-character tirade by Charlotte, with the breathtakingly inappropriate climax of "Don't you dare judge me, Lizzie". *sigh*
I don't think of myself as a purist who objects to any changes in the story in order to adapt it. It's just that with very little effort, this film could have been far superior, and that is what I find the most disappointing.
Spectacular version
posted on 23 Aug 2009I found this the best Jane Austen movie I've ever seen. How Keira Knightley didn't win the best actress for her peformance is incomprehensible. The music is wonderful throughout. Naturally, liberties have to be taken in shortening a book of that length to a two-hour movie, but suffice it to say it's absolutely delightful!
A fascinating story, retold as good as it can be.
posted on 22 Aug 2009I preferred this version more than previous versions. Any of them have handled the story beautifully, but this latest version has several things going for it. First, Keira Knightley is somewhat better as Elizabeth Bennet and Matthew Macfadyen is a wonderful, brooding Darcy. Donald Sutherland gives a solid performance, but not quite as sarcastic as Benjamin Whitrow in the previous version as Mr. Bennet. I found Alison Steadman's Mrs. Bennet (previous version) too annoying, but Brenda Blethyn in this version is just right. The other sisters are a toss-up; the pluses and minuses average out. This new version has beautiful scenery. I thought some of the directorial decisions in presenting the thoughts of the characters was extremely well done. During the dance scene with Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, for example, they begin in the crowded ballroom (the place is really jammed!) and as they dance the camera comes to take in only Elizabeth and Darcy. If you weren't alert you might think they had slipped away, outside perhaps, and were dancing alone. Then we see the end of the dance and there they are, in the crowd. It startled me at the time, but it quickly penetrated what was being "told" in the story. Touches like this were scattered throughout the film, and I liked it. Joe Wright gets the credit for directing this beautiful film. If you loved the book or have seen any other screen version of it, be sure to see this one. It will stand out among all the others.
better than I expected!
posted on 22 Aug 2009I thought it might be a little cheesy at first, but as soon as I started watching it, I was instantly enthralled. The filming alone almost made me cry - it was beautifully done. The cameraman was absolutely phenomenal.I thought the actors fit their parts perfectly - a rare thing for me, since I am usually very finicky with certain actors after reading the book. They were wonderful.And of course, being a music student, I found particularly interesting how authentic the piano sounded. It had the slightly muted aspect that pianos of that time frame had, and that really excited me! This was a gorgeous movie and immediately made it to my top 10 list. I have always loved the book, and this version of the movie is perfect.I strongly recommend it!
Another Favorite!
posted on 21 Aug 2009As a firm fan of the 5 hour BBC 1995 P&P miniseries, I went to this movie version with some skepticism, but found that it was much better than I expected even while it seemed to lack somewhat for me in some respects. THE P&P is hard to live up to! All in all though, I enjoyed this movie version immensely and went back to see it again right away. In and of itself, it is a delightful version of the story and even compared, it stands up on its own as another interpretation and look at the characters and events of this prima Austen work. The more I watch this movie (as a pick me up at home alone or with family or friends, with my feet up and a favorite something to nibble or sip on), the more I adore it. Let's face it; we can get our P&P fix faster/easier: in 2 hours instead of 5! (I still MUST watch the 5 hour version regularly as well.) This film version has a grittier, lowlier feel (perhaps a more realistic one) at the Bennet's and beyond, plus a more opulent contrast at Pemberly and related. One key detail that impressed me greatly was how I did not like Darcy nor see any attraction to the man at the beginning (how could HE be Darcy?!), but over time, he became more and more sympathetic (even appearing a pathetic figure at times: pitifully sunk in unrequited love - which pulled fully at my feelings to cheer him on in Elizabeth's direction) and attractive as the character - and this was as it should be. The performance of this actor made me want to see more of his work (and I have since seen him do extremely well in another role as a spoiled drunken dandy in `The Way We Live Now'.) The world needs more of this type of `old fashioned' movie.
Kerri Bennett Williamson, Author
A wonderfully accurate portrayal of Jane Austen's story
posted on 20 Aug 2009As an avid Jane Austen fan, I was both excited and apprehensive at the thought of seeing this most recent film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. I was pleasantly surprised, however, at the accuracy with which much of the story was presented. The costumes, scenery and story were very well done and kept as close to the original as is possible in a film adaptation. My only disappointment was the way the ball at Netherfield was conducted. It seemed too loud and boisterous for such a civilized age and the dancing seemed far too simplistic. The intricacies of dance in that time period served to separate the aristocracy from the rest of society because they were the only ones able to spend time learning intricate dances. I believe that the dances shown were simple enough for anyone to learn, therefore I must question historical accuracy in this case. Overall the movie was a good representation of Jane Austen's work and was very enjoyable.
Could have been so much better
posted on 20 Aug 2009Well I guess in the UK we all know Colin Firth as Darcy and unfortunately Macfadyen is simply not good enough - I guess that's the theme of this movie - simply not good enough. There were a few things that really annoyed me, including the 21st century look to the Bennet sisters and the fact that Keira Knightley, looked to me as if she had the benefit of a professional make-up artist, which I don't believe ladies of the 19th century would have had. Having said this there were some nice scenes, I liked the dance scene and the wild scene on the edge of the peak district outcrop, but having been spoilt by such masters of the art as Peter Greenaway and Roman Polanski I became frustrated by the poor use of lighting, especially indoors and the failure to capture the real feeling of 19th century England that comes from Austen's book.I guess the reality is that I was expecting a lavish cinematic experience, and what I got was nothing more than a classy "chick-flik"
Save yourself the money and buy the BBC series
posted on 18 Aug 2009There is much to enjoy in this adaptation of Austen but Keira Knightley is not one of them. A fine production with great colour, great music and some outstanding actors the heart of the story is let down by the lead performance and the MTV camera-work.While Macfadyen gives a performance as Darcy which is within a shout as good as Colin Firth Keira is an over-hyped lightweight with so little gravitas that she just can't carry the film. It feels like Frank Lampard has been replaced in Chelsea's midfield by a youth trainee.Save yourself the bother and buy the BBC series of the 1990s on DVD instead.
Masterful Cinema
posted on 18 Aug 2009Jane Austen's classic novel about a young poor woman who falls in love with a rich man is masterfully crafted as one of the best love stories to hit cinema in a very long time. The story crosses the boundaries of Victorian England to be ever pertinent in today's society as it portrays relationships among different classes. Keira Knightly gives the finest performance of her career portraying the strong willed Elizabeth Bennet. Outstanding performances resonate throughout this film, most notably by Matthew Macfadyen, Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn. But it is more than a beautiful and honest love story—it is film-making at its most breathtaking. The cinematography by Roman Oshin is lavish throughout with its continuous shots that had to be meticulously choreographed. The dialogue of the screenplay is taken almost directly from Austen's book and is a fine representation of the era. Even the musical score by Dario Marianelli adds to the greatness of this moving and comical love story that was so finely directed by Joe Wright. It is the year's most delightful film.
This is a wretched adaptation of a wonderful book.
posted on 18 Aug 2009One evening I met up with a few people to see the new Pride and PrejudiceI am glad I went with good company because the movie was awful. While the scenery was nice the costumes were, for the most part, atrocious. Since when would Caroline Bingley wear a completely sleeveless, 1990's Jessica McClintock dress to host a ball? And speaking of the Bingleys, the fact that both sisters are not included in the film makes it less funny. Charles Bingley, while played by an adorable actor, is portrayed as downright stupid. I adore Donald Sutherland, and i dare say would have loved him in the film, but his Mr Bennet is reduced to a simpering, weepy man who does things a farm hand would have done, not a gentleman. And speaking of farms, since when are the Bennets so destitute as to have no maids to bring in the laundry when it begins to rain? Mrs Bennet may be silly and stupid ( and in this film she is barely funny) but she would never let her house become such a wreck. Charlotte Lucas lost every bit of sense she had and was turned into a desperate, skittish creatures that screams for Lizzy not to judge her. There is no explanation as to why she marries Mr Collins. Mr Collins is the best part of the movie, a fine performance. He made me laugh several times. Kiera Knighley as Lizzie was abominable. She was weepy, showed very little spirit and generally looked like a wishy washy girl who had no idea what she wanted or stood for. She also couldn't seem to keep her nightgown on. Mr Darcy was portrayed as nothing more than shy, not at all the proud and judgmental man he starts out to be. You do not see a change in him, at all. No lessons learned on his part. It appears that Lizzie is just a whiny girl who is judging him for being so rich. Jane Bennet was lovely and I quite liked this portrayal, but still, you didn't get the true sense of the character, due to a time constraint, i am sure. Now, let's get to the major etiquette flaws that bothered me. First off, when Darcy delivers his letter to Lizzie, it is around 3 am at the Collins home and she is in her nightgown! ????? He would have been shot on sight or forced to marry her. Secondly, Lady Catherine would never ever show up at 2am to bless out Lizzie for thinking she was going to marry her nephew... Never. Full stop. And if she did Mr Bennet would never offer her tea, he would have made her leave after making great sport of her bad manners and folly. It was just a massive jumble of horrible mistakes and cheesy clichés... I, in short, hated it....
Rich truffles for the eye and mind
posted on 17 Aug 2009For those of you who loved the 1995 BBC version with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth (I'm an avid fan myself), please don't shy away from this utterly gorgeous rendition of Jane Austen's classic. It isn't an improvement in any way on the 1995 version; it's simply a different interpretation that demonstrates how much richness Austen's book held, with which future adaptations could work.
Where the 1995 version is, I believe, more faithful to the book's dignified, staid and old-fashioned but universal tone, this version sparkles with the eagerness and blunt sincerity of youth. Miss Elizabeth Bennett still is a mature young lady, but she is much more fun-loving and a little less confident than Jennifer Ehle's portrayal of Elizabeth. But both versions are beautiful. Keira Knieghtly brings a suprising depth of thoughtfulness to her role, whereas Jennifer Ehle brought a maturity that was beyond maternal to hers. Where Jennifer Ehle stressed Elizabeth as the lofty standard of reason, poise and discernment, Keira Knieghtly stresses Elizabeth's honest, refreshing, witty and intelligent manners. Both adaptations are superbly rendered.
The scenery in this version was also stunning - you should see this film for that alone. The scenes are also very cleverly shot, with novel imagery that draws you into this by-gone period. I walked out of the cinema feeling as though I had just landed back into the 21st century; that's how real it was.
I also really appreciated the broodiness underlying this film. There was a moody, cloudier aspect to the scenery that brought a pensive thoughtfulness to the production. I felt as though I were really in England. In the BBC 1995 production, every day was sunny. The play of the natural elements in this version formed an intricate background to the tumult of inner emotions that the film portrayed so finely. This film could be analyzed over and over for the many different threads its makers very skilfully used to weave a rich, gorgeous tapestry of an experince.
You will be transported.
Beautiful picture though
posted on 31 Aug 2009This film is worth watching for its beautiful picture more than for anything else. Each shot looks like it has been taken from a painting of a period. Congratulations to the director and cameraman. The acting was good, the casting was good too, with some minor exceptions.
It was the interpretation of the story which made me cringe from time to time. Was it really necessary to insert quite a lot of the awkward modern dialogue and the ways of expression into the story to show that it's topical? The director could express himself and convey the social message of the story without distorting the ways and customs of the past and adapting the story to modern ways.
For one, could you ever imagine a grand lady of the society bursting into somebody's house in the middle of the night even if the matter was urgent?? Is it really necessary to take such radical measures to emphasize the character's personality? Sometimes I thought there was too much explained and too vividly expressed what could have been left to understand.
On the other hand, the story was not very well developed, concentrating on Lizzy alone and leaving behind some important characters. We do not fully comprehend the drama of Lydia's escape with a man as we do not see in the full the wickedness of Mr. Whickam. Concequently, untouched is the theme of the goodness and just appearance of it as well as some other important messages. The story was quckly flowing from scene to scene without allowing the spectator to be involved.
Moreover, almost all of the book characters appeared in the film; some, for a second only, after disappearing forever. This only crowded the film and left the residue of unsatisfaction, for you expect the story line to develop somehow in connection with the newly introduced character. True, the director didn't have much time at his disposal, well then... I know some big volumes transferred into the film media without losing their impact. If the director wanted to introduce a new, different interpretation of the story, he succeded only in modernizing dialogue and changing visual style, but his message is quite weaker than the original.
On the whole, it is a pleasant production and does deserve an apprisal (for its picture mostly). However, the impeccable version of the book has been already made - 1995 BBC miniseries, and... what's the point in remaking the perfect?!