Pride & Prejudice

7

RebeccaM.Nov 21, 2005

The New Yorker's Anhony Lane reveiw and should be considered, Issue of Nov. 14 Page 101.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

PatrickDDec 13, 2006

I enjoyed this film with the cinematography being the major highlight. My problem with most period pieces adapted from novels is that usually fims are rather stuffy and drawn out. Here the plot moves fairly quickly and makes it entertainingI enjoyed this film with the cinematography being the major highlight. My problem with most period pieces adapted from novels is that usually fims are rather stuffy and drawn out. Here the plot moves fairly quickly and makes it entertaining for some with me included. It is evident that Keira Knightley is very comely, but cannot carry a movie by herself. I would recommend this movie to anyone wanting to see a deftly shot film with quicki pacing. One more note I watched the American version which is worth mentioning because it adds a happier ending.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

ElizabethP.Mar 23, 2006

Cute, fun and pretty (a lot like Keira Knightley herself). For the real thing, properly acted and paced, see the 1995 TV series with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. Elizabeth Bennett should be calm and reserved, not PERKY, the mother should Cute, fun and pretty (a lot like Keira Knightley herself). For the real thing, properly acted and paced, see the 1995 TV series with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. Elizabeth Bennett should be calm and reserved, not PERKY, the mother should be shrill, the father should have more to say. And Colin Firth is just, well, Colin Firth.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

russl.Dec 15, 2005

In a competitive field this production lacks the qualities that made the 1995 production with Jennefer Ehle and Colin Firth so remarkable. Darcy is unappealing; the camera lingers so long on Keira Knightley that it begins to look feel more In a competitive field this production lacks the qualities that made the 1995 production with Jennefer Ehle and Colin Firth so remarkable. Darcy is unappealing; the camera lingers so long on Keira Knightley that it begins to look feel more like a promotional vehicle than a film, and the atmosphere of Austen, writing about 18th century morals and manners, can't survive the hectic pace, noticeable immediately during the first ball where the music is reminiscent of the New York Philharmonic strutting its stuff rather than a small eighteenth century orchestra recruited for a country ball. In this production the book is a excuse to mount an extravagant Hollywood romance. If that suits your taste, you'll probably enjoy it. If you're more interested in these interesting characters and the class complexties of 200 years ago, you'll probably feel shortchanged.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

RhettW.Dec 28, 2005

Kiera Knightly is this generation's Audrey Hepburn. I admired movie more than enjoyed it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

IsabelF.Jan 22, 2006

Although I rather prefer the BBC series, I was quite 'flabbergasted' with the movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

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

6

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

6

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

6

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

5

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

5

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

5

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

5

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

4

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

4

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

4

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

4

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

4

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

chrisDNov 10, 2005

This movie was a huge disappointment for me. It pales in comparison to the BBC version. You just can't replace Colin Firth.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

ChristinaJ.Jan 18, 2006

A complete disappointment for any Jane Austen fan, or anyone looking for a good period story or romance. I am baffled by the positive reviews that Kiera Knightley received from some critics. She is the worst part of the film (which is saying A complete disappointment for any Jane Austen fan, or anyone looking for a good period story or romance. I am baffled by the positive reviews that Kiera Knightley received from some critics. She is the worst part of the film (which is saying something, as it is all horrifying). She looks like an emaciated runway model, not like Austen's Lizzie Bennett, who is supposed to be a bold, bookish tomboy. Knightley could not carry any picture, much less one as clever and nuanced as this story should be. There are many shots in the film that seem to be there only to show the beauty of her face. Okay, the first time you think, "Wow, she really has a beautiful face." But by the 10th time it seems like a never-ending Revlon mascara advertisement--and is about as exciting. For the last hour, the film felt like it was never going to be over. And the last 20 minutes were positively excruciating. We actually laughed out loud in parts. Oh, and Darcy? Who is this actor, and why, why did they cast him in this role? I have never seen an actor in an Austen adaptation with so little charisma. Give me Jeremy Northam in Emma or Colin Firth in the far superior BBC adaptation of P&P. In fact, I swear, the first thing I did when I got home was put in the BBC version in an attempt to erase this one from my mind. I don't think I can ever watch another film with Knightley in more than a supporting role--that toothy grin and that giggle she used to replace any real emotion have prejudiced me against her forever!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

JennH.May 21, 2007

Keira Knightly is possibly the worst choice for Elizabeth. Most of the characters do not come close to achieving their purpose as in the BBC version. To a person who didn't know the story they would be lost as many key moments have Keira Knightly is possibly the worst choice for Elizabeth. Most of the characters do not come close to achieving their purpose as in the BBC version. To a person who didn't know the story they would be lost as many key moments have simply been left out or rushed along. The ending was completely unsatisfying and left me confused as to the point of the last scene as it seemed nothing more than a sappy bit of drivel. Perhaps the only good to come out of this movie is the discovery of Matthew as Darcy and even he is sorely underused int he film. And amazingly under the circumstances and the poor excuse of a love interest in this film manages to give a moving performance. And all that's left is to thank God Austen will never see this catastrophe that I'm sure she would have sincerely regretted having inspired.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

LunaL.Feb 16, 2010

2 points given for the great visual beauty of the film, and the obvious care taken by the director in composing the shots, as well as the visual artists in designing the sets. 8 points taken away for turning the Bennets and their home into a 2 points given for the great visual beauty of the film, and the obvious care taken by the director in composing the shots, as well as the visual artists in designing the sets. 8 points taken away for turning the Bennets and their home into a muddy wreck; casting such young-looking younger Bennet sisters that I was very uncomfortable during the scenes when Lydia returns after marrying Wickham; turning Mr. Darcy into a puppy dog and Mr. Bingley into a dolt; wasting Judi Dench on the role of Lady Catherine; making me feel sorry for Mr. Collins; and the several times I was completely brought out of the world of Pride and Prejudice because I could clearly see Keira Knightley's short hair jutting out from under the bottom of her wig!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

AliceM.Jul 27, 2006

A really poor adaptation of Jane Austen's brilliance. Keira Knightly looks out of place in Austen's world, and her acting in the role was poor. [***SPOILERS***] The Bennet's are not hugely rich but they are not as poor as this A really poor adaptation of Jane Austen's brilliance. Keira Knightly looks out of place in Austen's world, and her acting in the role was poor. [***SPOILERS***] The Bennet's are not hugely rich but they are not as poor as this film makes them out to be. Elizabeth should certainly not be dressed in near-rags. Darcy was ok at best. Really, there is no comparasion betwee this and the 1995 BBC version. No comparasion at all. I own the BBC version, I will not be owning this one. Ifyou were to see this movie before reading the book you would be doing it a great injustice. No proper feeling of the time it was set and far too much time listening to Lizzys stupid giggling (since when did Lizzy giggle?) and close-ups of her face purely to show us how pretty she is. *yawn* boring. Go see the BBC version and stay away from this Hollywood/American rubbish.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

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

1

V.MillerMar 10, 2006

The movie doesn't compare with the BBC Version. This movie was boring, slow-paced as well as poorly acted by Keira Knightly. The younger sisters acted better than she did. The music was dull. Overall, the movie isn't worth watching.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

KimbaW.May 12, 2006

Despite being a huge Jane Austen fan, I found this version pathetic. I wanted to like it. I really did. However, not only is Kiera Knightly anything but an Elizabeth Bennett with her incessant giggling, Matthew MacFadyen's Darcy comes Despite being a huge Jane Austen fan, I found this version pathetic. I wanted to like it. I really did. However, not only is Kiera Knightly anything but an Elizabeth Bennett with her incessant giggling, Matthew MacFadyen's Darcy comes across as nothing but angry. The costuming is dreadful (this is the era of the empire waistline...so why then are none of the ladies' dresses made that way?), no one (apparently) even considered brushing anyone's hair (people did not run around looking disheveled), and the Bennetts, while certainly not the upper crust, were not poor & nearly destitute as this version seems to portray them. Don't waste your time.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

NancyMay 26, 2006

This movie made me want to vomit in my mouth. The praise and accolades it received from critics and viewers made me lose all faith in people (except those few who are TRUE Jane Austen fans and have seen the 1995 BBC version). Terrible This movie made me want to vomit in my mouth. The praise and accolades it received from critics and viewers made me lose all faith in people (except those few who are TRUE Jane Austen fans and have seen the 1995 BBC version). Terrible casting, terrible acting, terrible adaptation. Just plain terrible.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

LisaS.Jul 25, 2007

Romance yes, but to make it more suitable for modern audiences the main themes are diluted or lost.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

LizzyBMar 16, 2009

This adaptation only deals for entertaining the viewer, but misquots Jane Austen's brilliant novel. The best adaptation I've seen was the BBC-version of 1995. The characters are very true to the original, just like all the This adaptation only deals for entertaining the viewer, but misquots Jane Austen's brilliant novel. The best adaptation I've seen was the BBC-version of 1995. The characters are very true to the original, just like all the dialogues and properties.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

MIkeR.Nov 21, 2005

This movie is a man's worst nightmare. Run for your lives.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

JoJoBeansMar 25, 2009

Didn't like it, didn't like it, didn't like it. No one else holds a candle to an Andrew Davies adaptation.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

[Anonymous]Nov 24, 2005

No 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 No 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

YvetteG.Nov 29, 2006

I absolutely agree with Alice M (who gave it a 2)! Keira Knightly could not play Lizzy's witty and intelligent character and the expressions seemed to be recited rather than naturally out of Lizzy. Keira could not reflect any of the I absolutely agree with Alice M (who gave it a 2)! Keira Knightly could not play Lizzy's witty and intelligent character and the expressions seemed to be recited rather than naturally out of Lizzy. Keira could not reflect any of the strong and intelligent character through her eyes. Her eyes lack any intelligence or vividness. The BBC Series of 1995 is at least 100 times better, with Lizzy's eyes speaking her character. I do not think justice is done to Jane Austin or Elizabeth Bennet. Mr Darcy was so so ordinary in the film and it ruined the legacy of him. The mere attempt at making another "pride a prejudice" is beyond comprehension and should not be encouraged lightly.… Expand

0 of 0 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

0

MarcTornyNov 17, 2005

I'm curious why the New Yorker review is not listed here. Could it be because it isn't clear whether Anthony Lane liked or disliked the film? He finishes his review by saying something to the effect that 'any resemblence toI'm curious why the New Yorker review is not listed here. Could it be because it isn't clear whether Anthony Lane liked or disliked the film? He finishes his review by saying something to the effect that 'any resemblence to the Jane Austen novel is purely coincidental'. I'm not sure what that means, frankly.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

AlanT.Oct 24, 2008

A film that has been thought in terms of ingredients : how much grinning or greenery should be put into into it to do the trick. Utterly artificial and boring.Elisabeth constant knowing smirk is unbereable and her diction is abominable.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

bobrNov 26, 2005

Yawn, boooooooooooriiiinng.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

Pride & Prejudice

User Reviews