Learn more Download now Browse your favorite restaurants Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Learn more



on 15 February 2006
I think this film is too modern. I didnt like many historic mistakes in this film. For instance : Lizzy's hairdress (her untressed hair, nobody wears the bonnet), authers of the film dont know the main rules of english old decorum ,though in the book these details are described propely - how they must walk on the street, how to communicate with unknown persons, how to eat..., figures of girls are awful (they are too thin for that time), I didnt like playing, I think in this version there are too much love and attractive (sometimes heros were almost kissing!)and none pride and prejudice.
Though I liked nature in the film, the work with the cam was increadible. I think the film is very beautiful but not close to the book alas. I advise to buy the virsion with Colin Firth.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
TOP 500 REVIEWERon 26 March 2008
I was disappointed by this production. The characters don't come to life and Jane Austen's wonderfully acerbic and witty dialogue has been re-written and spoiled. There's too much rushing around and noisy music so that one has difficulty making out what is said. There's a coarseness about the film that is at variance with Jane Austen's finesse in depicting social interactions and distinctions.

For me the best production is still the 1990 one by the BBC: the one dramatized by Fay Weldon starring David Rintoul as Darcy, Elizabeth Garvie as Elizabeth.
0Comment| 10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 3 May 2006
Watch this movie not as an adaptation of the Jane Austen novel, but as something that stands on its own. There are a lot of period mistakes (such as the butler calling all the girls "Miss Bennet"), and it's too "popularised" for the masses to be a faithful adaptation, but it is enjoyable nonetheless. It has some lovely heart-felt moments in it, and plenty of funny ones too, and the actors are excellent. The soundtrack is wonderful, and the scenery is breathtaking. Just don't go comparing the film to the book, because you'll feel cheated. Watch the BBC series instead.
0Comment| 9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 4 October 2009
Looked forward to seeing this film - loved the BBC version but am always ready for another adaption and when i saw the cast was very excited. To be fair some of it was charming - the Bennet girls felt like a family and it was shot beautifully but who could fail with such fabulous locations - BUT Matthew McFayden was SO GLUM throughout the whole film - it just was n't the way i imagine Mr Darcy would be - lets face it he's young handsome and fabulously wealthy why would he be so miserable - perhaps after he was rejected by Lizzie but not before - really spoilt it for me sadly - also let down by some real lapses in the script - did you have a pleasant trip.... are you laughing at me....yes - Miss Austen would be!! And dont get me started on the US ending - how could anyone end such a fabulous love story between two passionate articulate people with such drivel - and oh by the way how likely wasit that they would be walking across a field in their night clothes !! could go on about on screen chemistry etc but i think you will probably have got the idea that this film fails on a number of levels.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 12 February 2006
Anyone who has watched Andrew Davies' adaptation shown on the BBC would know that this film version has completely 'murdered' the story. Knightley passes as an average Elizabeth Bennett however McFayden is completely wooden and sounds like he was reading from the script all the way through the film! Sorry Matthew you should have stuck to Spooks. There certainly wasn't any passion between them like there was with Firth and Ehle in the BBC version.
Donald Sutherland tried his hardest to 'speak proper English' but failed miserably with the occassional American twang finding its way into his accent. There were also dialect errors....at one point McFayden said 'Im' instead of I am!!!
The story has some fundamental pieces missing and the whole thing felt rushed from start to finish. The only positive thing to note is Dame Judy's performance....but then you wouldnt expect anything other than perfect where she is concerned.
If you are going to buy Pride and Prejudice then please please please do yourself a favour and save some money by buying the BBC version. Value for money, much much longer and 100% better than the 2005 film version I promise you.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 19 March 2008
As an avid P&P fan.
After 5 minutes of the film I was VERY disappointed. I just couldn't get into the film at all. When it got the end I thought it was rubbish.

BUT...... even though it's mostly English actors and actresses it is a Hollywood take on it in the space of a couple of hours.
I saw the advert for it at the cinema and I knew then I didn't want to see it at all because it would ruin Pride and Prejudice for me.

BUT...again....I watched it again and realised it is a modern version for modern people. Who wouldn't have read the book or have seen the 1980's or the brilliant 1995 version (which no one can beat!!) . But again then in 1995 Andrew Davies had 6 hours to tell the story whereas this version had 2 hours.

Basically it's a good-ish film if you are new to P7P but I recommend 1995 adaptation anytime.
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 22 October 2005
Although not as good as the 1995 pride and prejudice (no pride and prejudice film will ever be as good)
I thought that the film was quite delightful it was funny and easy to watch. Mr Darcy was good but he cant replace Colin Firth.
But you feel sorry for him
As for Keira Knightley I thought she was alright wasnt as bad as some people say she was.
The ending was cute even if it was VERY different from the book even the most die hard pride and prejudice fans like myself couldnt say it wasnt sweet.
The cast was good but not as good as 95
So be prepared for disappointment if you want it to be as good as the 95 one
So all in all I thought it was good to watch and I am looking forward to it coming out on dvd
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 26 January 2006
Like so many others, I wasn't keen on seeing this film, as the BBC version was so perfect that there seemed no possible way any other adaptation could hope to match it. I was partially correct: this film is not nearly so impressive as the 1995 series, but was still enjoyable in its own right. Kiera Knightly usually irritates me, and I don't rate her acting abilities very highly, but she did quite a good job here, although still looking too young and feeble for the confident, strong-willed Elizabeth Bennett. The rest of the cast all performed admirably, and although the story was necessarily truncated, it worked well enough. There's no doubt the BBC version will continue to be regarded as the definitive adaptation for many years to come, but I must admit this effort was better than I had expected.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
VINE VOICETOP 1000 REVIEWERon 23 March 2008
Like many, I am a fan of the BBC's 1995 adaptation of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, and because of this I found the film adaptation a bit of a let down. The problem is, even before the curtian goes up, there are two great pressures on this film. Firstly the cast from the 1995 version were fantastic - who could forget Colin Firth as Mr Darcy, especially as he emerges from the pool on his estate? Secondly, the film is attempting to dilute its interpretation into a mere two and a hlaf hours, rather than the five or more hours which the BBC were able to make use of. So, bearing these points in mind, this latest version of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE hasn't done such a bad job.

As you could expect, because of time, there are parts missing from the story. Plus, there does not always seem to be such a fluid movement from one part of the story to another. And because the story has been so diluted, the subtle changes in Elizabeth's attitude towards Mr Darcy was not adequately illustrated - in the boook it happens much more slowly and it is irrevocably linked to her own charater; in this adaptation such detail was not allowed to unfold in the way intended by Austen.
However there are some positive points to this adaptation too. For me, the countryside was a great point. The dramatic scenes in the Lake District were fantastic. Also, the character of Mr Bingley in this offering was much better than the 1995 series - there was a charming shyness about him which complimented the character of Jane Bennett very well. Finally, the meeting at the end of Elizabeth and Mr Darcy were he again proposes was one of the most romantic scenes I have seen.

Although it is impossible to watch a film like this without comparing it to the series which went before, if you can do this for a while you may find that there are parts which you learn to enjoy or appreciate. And even though I cannot say that I enjoyed it a smuch as the BBC series, it is not such a bad runner-up to that fantastic production.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 18 February 2006
This review only receives 2 stars from me for the beautifully shot scenery. In my opinion this is the film's only saving grace. I am a great fan of many versions of Pride and Prejudice, but I found this awful, and couldn't wait for it to finish. The actors didn't gel, their interpretations of the roles were often embarrassing and the Bennett's house - pigs and chickens in the living room?? I know to most standards they were poor but!!! I did have the impression that this was aimed at more of a teen audience, and if this encourages more to read Jane Austens' books that I suppose makes it deserve another star in itself. Personally I would tell most viewers to AVOID.
0Comment| 12 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)