Read Negative User Reviews for Pride & Prejudice

1

CarissaB.Mar 8, 2008

This movie could have been so much worse, but it could have been so much better (and is in the BBC version). For thos of you (which amazinly is a lot) obviously the storyline is good (right thats why its a classic). I'm grading this This movie could have been so much worse, but it could have been so much better (and is in the BBC version). For thos of you (which amazinly is a lot) obviously the storyline is good (right thats why its a classic). I'm grading this movie based on the acting and casting and scenery and costuming. One aspect of this movie that drove me wild was how fast the charcters talked. For those of you with high rating could you really understand half the stuff Elizabeth said?? Another part that was disapointing was the lack of color in the movie. Granted the Bennets are poor when compared to the extremem wealth of Bingley and Darcy but they aren't street rats they own an estate and therefore are much wealther than they are portrayed. Overall those of you that really liked this movie read the book, and watch the BBC version (which is just like the book almost word for word and so well done), and experience what Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice can be.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

1

JDRallyJan 1, 2006

I have been so excited to see this movie and I was utterly appalled by it. Lizzy is played like schoolyard brat who, judging by wardrobe and stature, looks as though she just escaped from a concentration camp. Darcy has the acting skills of I have been so excited to see this movie and I was utterly appalled by it. Lizzy is played like schoolyard brat who, judging by wardrobe and stature, looks as though she just escaped from a concentration camp. Darcy has the acting skills of a box of hair. Donald Sutherland's portrayal of Mr. Bennett was completely without wit and he sounded, and looked, rather like a wounded hound dog throughout. All of the supporting characters where totally bizarre. And the giggling... at one point I quite wondered if Knightly's choice was to play Lizzy as though she suffered from Tourets Syndrome. If you haven't, see the BBC version as soon as possible.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

DWillyJan 20, 2006

Oh, my God, this is an overrated movie. It's really pretty awful. Like those tone deaf singers on Star Search, it just flails about for effect; and, judging from the critical numbers, this is successful with most critics who likewise Oh, my God, this is an overrated movie. It's really pretty awful. Like those tone deaf singers on Star Search, it just flails about for effect; and, judging from the critical numbers, this is successful with most critics who likewise are out of touch with their humanity; and, for them, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck they can't tell it feels like plastic. It's especially galling in that it comes from that new, British snobbery that thinks it's real earthy, but actually isolates the hip from the hopelessly unhip, as they move among ciphers (i.e. servants) who don't count as people at all. This movie about class has no class.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

0

KharmaJan 30, 2006

Nothing compared to the BBC series, you dont know wether to laugh or cry....do yourself a favor and read the book again... just skip this movie.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

2

IstvanB.Feb 7, 2006

This doesn't even come close to the BBC series' quality. Jane Austen's spirit is not present, the thing is unwitty and illustrative. Ewen worse, it's conceived in an eye-pokingly populist manner. The proper costumes of theThis doesn't even come close to the BBC series' quality. Jane Austen's spirit is not present, the thing is unwitty and illustrative. Ewen worse, it's conceived in an eye-pokingly populist manner. The proper costumes of the period were changed from classisict to romantic for a 'better' look, and the story itself was relieved of Austen's social observations, and warped into something imponderous like a short story in a woman's magazine. Through the film I could only think of the 'creative' team behind, brain-storming about how to make just about every aspect and detail 'consumable'. Too bad that so many reviews proved to be unreliable for me.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

DanCisekApr 17, 2006

Not a bad movie per se, but a truly terrible adaption of Jane Austen's rich and nuanced novel. It pales in comparison not only to the book itself, but to the magnificent 1995 BBC production (rent that instead). Of course, a two-hour filmNot a bad movie per se, but a truly terrible adaption of Jane Austen's rich and nuanced novel. It pales in comparison not only to the book itself, but to the magnificent 1995 BBC production (rent that instead). Of course, a two-hour film cannot accomplish the same thing as a five-hour mini-series. The filmmaker must make difficult choices about what to cut and condense. But in this case, almost all of the choices are bad, occasionally to the point of incoherence (example: Elizabeth to Darcy during the dancing scene: "I am trying to make out your character. I hear such contradictory accounts of you, I cannot make it out at all." Unfortunately, the film does not include the key scene from the novel in which Elizabeth receives that contradictory information! WIthout it, her statement is completely inane.) The role of Darcy is badly cast. The film is forced to move so quickly that there is little sense Elizabeth's growing realization of the change in both Darcy's behavior and his formerly haughty manner. The encounters between Elizabeth and Darcy are all wrong in the second half of the film. Nowhere is the sense of tension and uncertainty that makes the novel so compelling. All in all, I was horribly disappointed by this film. Some who have never read Jane Austen or seen the BBC adaptation may enjoy it, but they are missing out on the real love story between Elizabeth and Darcy, which is one of the greatest romances ever written in the English language.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

SammyP.May 25, 2006

Nothing compared to the book or the mini seies. Keira Knightly is completely out of place in austens world, and the beautiful story is completely lost amongst rushed dialog and poor acting.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

2

EmmyS.Mar 30, 2008

I much preferred the version made in 1995. I understand some prefer a shorter version, but I do not like the way they shortened it. I also think Keira Knightley was a terrible pick for Elizabeth, she totally missed it. She made Elizabeth I much preferred the version made in 1995. I understand some prefer a shorter version, but I do not like the way they shortened it. I also think Keira Knightley was a terrible pick for Elizabeth, she totally missed it. She made Elizabeth much too snobby and irritating. I also thought the way she revealled her letter from Jane about Lydia was so stupid. They also seemed to be running everywhere. I did like some of the cast. But when there has been two very wonderful versiongs to Pride and Prejudice, if you can't make a version that at least competes with the other two than don't make one at all. I think the only reason there was anyone that liked it was because they either had never seen the previous films or they love Keira, although I personnally find her very annoying and the only thing I really liked her in was Pirates. But it is only my opinion.… Expand