Pride & Prejudice

Focus Features | Release Date: November 11, 2005

8.6	USER SCORE Universal acclaim based on 605 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

LauraDec 8, 2005

My expectations were probably too high when I went to go see this (after all, the 1995 version was so superbly done). I was pleasantly surprised by Keira Knightly's performance, although she seemed a little rougher than Elizabeth Bennet My expectations were probably too high when I went to go see this (after all, the 1995 version was so superbly done). I was pleasantly surprised by Keira Knightly's performance, although she seemed a little rougher than Elizabeth Bennet should have been. It was unfortunate that so many characters and scenes had to be removed from the book in order to make the movie two hours long. Also, the casting of some roles (Mr. Bingley, Mrs. Bennet, Mr. Collins) could have been better. Overall, the acting was average, the writing was a little weird, and the interpretation from the book wasn't quite true to the story-but I would have to say it's a good "Cliff's Notes" version of the book.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

SteveFeb 4, 2006

The British Heritage industry strikes again. Lovely and insubstantial, just like Keira Knightley. No wonder she's up for an Oscar.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JaneA.Jan 25, 2009

If you want to see a brilliant adaptation of this book, watch the BBC version. It has an unparalleled cast where Elizabeth and her father are actually witty, Mr. Dary actually comes off as arrogant, and Mrs. Bennet is actually the obnoxious If you want to see a brilliant adaptation of this book, watch the BBC version. It has an unparalleled cast where Elizabeth and her father are actually witty, Mr. Dary actually comes off as arrogant, and Mrs. Bennet is actually the obnoxious woman Austen intended her to be. Unfortunately this film, though of course not able to touch on everything the five hour BBC version or three volume novel encompassed, hardly reflected one theme. Austen titled her book Pride and Prejudice, yet the movie failed to even include Mary's insight on the difference between pride and vanity, or Elizabeth's self-realization at the vanity that caused her own prejudice against Mr. Darcy. This was nothing more than a shortened plot summary of a novel that deserves so much more and should not have been made if it could not have painted a more beautiful character portrayal of Lizzy and society than the BBC series--most definitely not worthy of Academy recognition.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

ChristineL.Nov 22, 2005

I have no idea how people can praise Kiera Knightley in this performance - unfortunately she was the glarring flaw in an otherwise well-cast film. Several times in the movie, the director leaves us staring at her face, which is supposed to I have no idea how people can praise Kiera Knightley in this performance - unfortunately she was the glarring flaw in an otherwise well-cast film. Several times in the movie, the director leaves us staring at her face, which is supposed to be showing us some kind of depth or emotion, but actually just has a blank, weird smirk that someone must have told her looks "enigmatic" or something. She was simply awful, giving us no sense of any personality at all, much less that of Lizzie Bennet. And why does she always talk like she has a mouthful of marbles? The director also seemed to confuse Jane Auten with one of the Bronte sisters - no Austen heroine stands on a cliff in the mist or stares for hours at herself in a mirror. The climax of Darcy walking out of the mist (Heathcliff!) while Lizzie stands in her underwear and an overcoat is just ridiculous. If you've read the novel at all, you're aware this is all blatantly out of character with the tone of the book and the characters Austen creates. A few interesting scenes and the refreshing "non-coiffed" look to the actors saved this from getting an even lower score.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

WillH.Nov 4, 2005

I saw this in Switzerland two weeks ago, and it was weak. Keria Knightley was really miscast in this role, and to boot, she overacts it. Her toothy grin was annoying. There was no passion, no subtle undercurrent of feeling between her and I saw this in Switzerland two weeks ago, and it was weak. Keria Knightley was really miscast in this role, and to boot, she overacts it. Her toothy grin was annoying. There was no passion, no subtle undercurrent of feeling between her and Darcy. Watch the TV BBC version instead. It's a far better rendition.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JenW.Mar 4, 2006

It was good for what it was a hopped up hollywood version of a beautful classic. knightly was what made it good but no one could beat jennifer and colin in the 1995 version. it must be hard for the actors to know that their movie will neverIt was good for what it was a hopped up hollywood version of a beautful classic. knightly was what made it good but no one could beat jennifer and colin in the 1995 version. it must be hard for the actors to know that their movie will never ever come close to the a&e production the plot was undeveloped and the costumes were drab. ball gowns were supposed to be beautiful and flattering not pinched and dull. the lack of colour and taste was disappointing. the novel described the estate(longbourn) to be that an estate not a cottrey cottage. the countrside however was brilkiant. althought the a&e production had a good ending although it wasnt romantic the kiss scene made it worthwhile mr darcy was written for colin firth i think he plays it brilliantly but then again they dont make them like that anywhere else but England do they?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

RobertA.Nov 11, 2005

P and P "Lite" - It felt like it was made for the WB network. Not much dialogue, lots of swirling camera movements. The teenage girls were having a good time, laughing and screaming at the potential love scenes.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

chelseaDec 1, 2005

Pride & prejudice had some lovely moments, beautiful scenery and some very good actors but keira knightley was so wrong for the part of elizabeth bennett!!!!! i was vastly dissapointed, as she is the main character. she was too smirky, Pride & prejudice had some lovely moments, beautiful scenery and some very good actors but keira knightley was so wrong for the part of elizabeth bennett!!!!! i was vastly dissapointed, as she is the main character. she was too smirky, forward, gangly and looked like a street urchin. her hair looked greasy and unwashed for most of the film which brought to my notice the fact it wasn't even her hair but a wig. and would lizzie ever have worn a piece of rag in her hair? -- especially when her sisters were dressed prettily in soft coloured gowns and ringleted hairstyles!!were they trying to make lizzie a tomboy rebel? i did like d'arcy. i thought he was handsome and did a good job showing the change from d'arcy's cold/proud/shy demeanor to the turmoil that we find in him as he exposes his love for miss bennett. oh, i went in with such expectations...but for God's sake does keira knightley have to take every major englishwoman's role even if she is completely not the actress for the part just because her name might herd in the viewers?!!!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JuliaL.Jan 25, 2006

the worst part about this movie was that it could have been so much better. it suffered terribly from lack of proper editing. certain scenes took far too long (i had time to get the point ... wonder if i got the point ... then realize, oh, the worst part about this movie was that it could have been so much better. it suffered terribly from lack of proper editing. certain scenes took far too long (i had time to get the point ... wonder if i got the point ... then realize, oh, yes, i got it! .... several times...); other scenes showed baffling period choices that just seemed silly.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

SusanneR.Nov 18, 2005

Better than I thought given the two parameter. The A&E mini-series still rules.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

TyranianApr 12, 2019

Tedium reigns in this film, desperately needs humour to alleviate its constant soppiness.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

onetimeaccountJan 19, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. "Pride and Prejudice" is an a adaptation of Jane Austen's book. In total 2 films were made: in 1995 and in 2005.
In this film, the main characters are: a girl from a poor family who wants to marry against her will, and a man who is a rich gentleman.The whole film we are watching the development of their relationship.
I did not like this film because I do not like the genre of films about love, but this does not mean that the film is bad. In this film I liked the acting, thanks to Keira Knightley; also in the film the era of the 19th century is perfectly conveyed; great movie sets.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

HabibiehakimFeb 4, 2022

It's a gloriously and beautifully looking film, Dario Marianelli score was amazing, but Pride & Prejudice is just a back and forth stupidity, i mean come on!, this whole relationship story just doesn't make any sense and i'm pretty sureIt's a gloriously and beautifully looking film, Dario Marianelli score was amazing, but Pride & Prejudice is just a back and forth stupidity, i mean come on!, this whole relationship story just doesn't make any sense and i'm pretty sure people know it and they just didn't give a damn, it's hard to review this movie for me because my complaint is way too much just for one person, then the other person, and it basically will spoil everything, but mainly what my real problem with this movie is just how dumb and stupid these people are, Pride & Prejudice it's a non-sense film, it's ridiculously stupid, and it doesn't work for me as a movie, as a novel itself? maybe.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews