Pride & Prejudice (2005) User Reviews (1,395)

There's a lot to like but the film has one distinct disadvantage.

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 27 October 2012]

Back in 1995, the definitive version of "Pride and Prejudice" was brought out--and everyone I know who saw that one agrees with me that it is simply the best. Much of it is the acting (having Colin Firth as Darcy isn't bad) but the biggest reason to adore the made for TV version is that it's long--very, very long. This allows the story to unfold slowly and is never rushed. Unfortunately, every movie version I've seen is just too rushed--and it's hard to shove this wonderful story into a two-hour time slot. So, no matter how good the 2005 movie is (and it's quite good), it cannot hope to equal the mini-series. It's a shame, actually, as there's so much to like about this Keira Knightly version. The music is great, the locations top-notch and the Bennett girls actually look their proper ages! For example, in the 1940 MGM version, the actual ages of the actresses was their mid-20s to almost 40! And, the Bennetts are supposed to be teenagers (there about)!

My advice is go ahead and watch this 2005 film--it's really very lovely. But then do yourself a favor--find the 1995 version. You'll be thankful, believe me.

One word - beautiful!

[christinejones89 · 9/10 · 10 January 2015]

I honestly don't understand how this film is getting bad reviews, so here's my take on it.

I love Jane Austin films, and I've read Pride and Prejudice many times in the past. I've also watched this film probably around 10-15 times now, which is a sign of how much I enjoy it.

Firstly the story itself is very similar to that of the book, I understand many people have suggested that they've made the Bennetts poor, but that's not how I understood it at all. They were wealthy enough to keep a cook and a maid, which is in keeping with the book. There were other minor differences for example, when Bingley asks Darcy if he has his blessing, this isn't in the book. I thought the setting for the film was beautiful. Very rural and typical England for the time. At some points in the film it seemed very dark, foggy, miserable and then the end scene it brightened up to sunshine (similar to the story I guess). Keira Knightley was by far my favourite in this film, she portrayed Elizabeth fantastically, even if she was a little more forward than the book states. I still got a sense of independence, free will and lots of laughter from her, and Rosamund Pike (Jane) also. Matthew Macfadyen who portrayed Mr. Darcy also did a superb job. He looks the part, and played the part wonderfully, portraying Darcy as a superior, wealthy gentleman who slowly falls in love with Elizabeth, against his better judgement. I even got the impression he was annoyed at himself for it! The props and costumes are wonderful and to detail for the time period. I think all the characters look fantastic, and the soundtracks fits the film also. I actually don't have any negative comments for this film.

It truly is a lovely film to watch, although I do admit, no film will ever do the book justice, but this definitely is by far the best adaptation of Pride and Prejudice around.

Gorgeously filmed, smartly compacted Austen

[secondtake · 9/10 · 19 July 2020]

Pride and Prejudice (2005)

I began my "Pride and Prejudice" attempt with the well regarded 1995 five hour classic with Colin Firth, a BBC mini-series. And it is so poorly filmed (visually) and so utterly about recreating the text (the Austen original), it ends up being awkward and sort of awful. As a movie.

I know that is sacriledge to some. But I switched after an hour to this one, which I had seen before. And in two minutes I was sucked in. I think the biggest first point is this: to be true to Austen, you must find a way to put us there, to make us feel it. It's not about the text, the facts, the truth of the translation to film. It's about the effect and the final "truth" that this movie manages in a short two hours.

So, yes, this is a filmic film. It's gorgeous and thoughtful for how it handles the scenes and the light, the movement of camera and the capturing of space. It's a wonderful film on a physical level. (There are particular scenes, in the middle especially at a party, where the camera follows the action from character to character through several rooms for a glorious long take that just fills the sensation of being there beautifully.)

You might say this is Keira Knightly's movie, since she is Elizabeth. And she's kind of great (I've always had a reservation about her sincerity on screen). The cast around her is terrific--even the somewhat troublesome casting of Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy. I know that Mr Darcy is meant to be unpleasant, but he comes off as somewhat wooden for too long here...as he does in Colin Firth's hands, too, in fact.

But I warm to him by the end, so maybe it's perfect. And the other cast, including stars like Sutherland and Dench, is great.

The director, Joe Wright, is basically unknown to me, though I see he did the more excessive Knightley vehicle, "Atonement." So the tendancy for dramatic ambiance is a given, not to mention Anna Karenina (also starring Knightley). It all works. It's a kind of dramatization that purists probably hate, but for me it makes an original take on a classic that has its own dignity and beauty.

And I'll add that Knightly is just 18 for this filming, and shows amazing depth for a young actress.

Recommended!

brilliance took two decades to arrive

[kristen87 · 10/10 · 6 November 2005]

before i start, i would like to say this. i can read, have read the book, and i read the title of the movie before watching, as should you all. quite disappointed in all the pompous idiots filled with prejudice about the movie.

I know that another version of the well-mined Jane Austen classic would need to be brilliant indeed. Such diverse and beautifully written characters and such a delightful plot, so deeply rooted in a profound understanding of human nature, are timelessly attractive to directors, actors and audiences alike. So give them a break. you couldn't do any better.

Lets start with Mr Darcy. Darcys embodied by Olivier, Firth and now Matthew McFadyen bring differently significance to enjoy in the proud and socially awkward leading male role. Where Olivier and Firth gave us an aloof, arrogant Darcy encased rigidly in a shell so impenetrable it was almost impossible to believe he had been moved by Lizzie's sardonic criticisms or attracted by her spirited independence, McFadyen shows a more accessible Darcy. He's vulnerable, even fragile behind his stiff manners. His aloofness is more believably from social inadequacy than arrogance, yet he is believably constrained by his social standing to regard decorum, fortune and propriety in a wife's family as significant in his choice of a bride. His capitulation to Lizzie is therefore more believable.

Similarly Garson, Ehle and Keira Knightley illustrate the lively intelligence, sharp-minded wit and wry humour of Elizabeth Bennet in equally shining ways that nevertheless bring out different aspects of the character. Keira Knightly's performance as Elizabeth Bennett is by far her best, as she sparkles in this role.

The two have a chemistry that i had yet to see on the big or small screen - one that mirrors real life romances. the dislike on both accounts is obvious, watching it grow to love was beautiful and stunning. the love story is heart-felt and sweetly, deeply affecting to a level that modern romantic comedies rarely achieve. I found this movie to be a a richly photographed, memorable ensemble production in which the romance is predominant over the drama but does not eclipse it. though my one disappointment - the ending?! of course i wanted to see them kiss, who didn't? but the shots of them arguing in the rain, and as they draw close with the sunlight shining between them was breathtaking.

Giving due significance to the rural environment which plays such an important part in the story, the cinematography captures wide frames of soft, misty fields, copses and winding country roads as an environment which underscores the gentle manners and passionately beating hearts beneath empire gowns and ruffled shirts. The surroundings both detract from the humans and function as appropriately natural settings for the dramas of human nature.

Keira Knightley's swan-like Elizabeth moves with energy and grace, hotly opinionated and profoundly moved by principles and prejudices, and magnetically drawn by the seeming arrogance, reticence and gallant behaviour, finally revealed, of Mr Darcy. For two centuries Elizabeth Bennet has been a heroine much admired for her self-contained independence within a culture more conditioned to female submissiveness. Knightley's portrayal is true to the original.

All in all, i must give this movie 5 stars, 10 out of 10, 100 % brilliance. The story itself, the characters, the actors, everything that was in the movie 'bewitched me body and soul'. i have never been more moved by a movie, especially not one where i found it to be as hilarious as it was moving.

Handsomely filmed adaptation of a beautiful book!

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 18 June 2009]

The book by the wonderful Jane Austen is definitely better than the film, dealing with the consequences of love, and the social differences of the late 18th century. The film is certainly handsome looking, with some truly beautiful locations and costumes, with a nice script and some excellent performances from Keira Knightly as Lizzie and in particular Judi Dench as Lady Catherine. Donald Sutherland (yeah, you saw right) was quite charming as Mr Bennett if you put his awkward accent aside. I liked Matthew MacFadyen as Mr Darcy, with his handsome looks and all that, but I will say I do prefer Colin Firth's interpretation from the sublime 1995 mini-series, Firth seemed to adopt a more likable and sympathetic approach to the character. I liked the way the film dealt with the period look and the social differences, and while there was a lot of the pride I would have liked to have seen a little more of the prejudice. If anything, the film could have done with being twenty minutes longer, as I felt there wasn't quite enough content from the book. Then again, it's been a long time since I read it, so I could be wrong. Overall, a beautiful film, not quite as good as the 1995 film Sense and Sensibility with Kate Winslet and Emma Thompson, but worth watching for the detail that obviously took a lot of effort to get right. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox.

Jane Austen for ever

[katiemeyer1979 · 10/10 · 17 November 2005]

Jane Austen's tale of love and economics reaches us once more with the energy of a thorough novelty. "Pride and Prejudice" has been a favorite novel of mine since I first read it and I've seen Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson, Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle and now Matthew MacFadyen and Kiera Knightly. Amazingly enough I've never been disappointed. The material seems to be full proof. Colin Firth's Darcy, in many ways, is the Darcy I've always imagined. He's been an actor I've followed feverishly since his glorious Adrian LeDuc in "Apartment Zero", Matthew MacFadyen was totally new to me but he managed to create that sense of longing that makes that final pay off so satisfying. Kiera Knightly is a ravishing revelation. I must confess, I didn't remotely imagined that she was capable of the powerful range she brilliantly shows here. The other big surprise is Joe Wright, the director, in his feature film debut which is more than promising, it's extraordinary. The photography, the art direction and the spectacular supporting cast, in particular Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn, makes this new version of a perennial classic a memorable evening at the movies

Spirited Modern Interpretation of Austen's Classic Love Story

[Peter-Adamson · 9/10 · 4 October 2005]

A "modernised" version of Jane Austen's classic novel that should not be compared unfavourably with 1940 Hollywood Olivier / Garson version nor several BBC serials culminating in the most acclaimed TV series version from 1995 with Colin Firth & Jennifer Ehle-a personal favourite.

This 2005 film clocks in 127 minutes (UK / Europe)& 135 minutes (USA & Canada) -the extended version allowing audiences to share more of the timeless love story with the main characters -Elizabeth Bennet & Mr Darcy.

Director Joe Wright plus his screenwriters ( Oscar winner Emma Thompson contributed to the final screenplay) have chosen to emphasise Elizabeth Bennet / Mr Darcy plus Jane Bennet/ Mr Bingley story lines & reduce Mr Wickman, Charlotte & Mr Collins to supporting characters.

Austen's famous wit,satire & humour that forms the basis for her enduring appeal (Pride & Prejudice was finally published in 1813 & continues as an annual bestseller)is sidelined to open up this version as more emotional drama for modern audiences.

If you are open to a newer interpretation, can avoid comparisons to the nearly 5 hour 1995 TV version which allowed for greater depth & detail in telling all the characters story lines & accept some of the new film's rushed story lines-you are in for a treat .....

New British star Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Bennet))excels in her first real leading actress role ably supported by fellow Brit Rosamund Pike (Jane Bennet) as the sisters supportive of each other's & their Bennett family problems.Knightley at 20 is the right age for her character,this allows Elizabeth's girlish personality plus her character's pride, misjudgements & loving nature to shine through....

Great star turns from Brenda Blethyn as their mother Mrs Bennet plus Oscar winner Judi Dench as fearsome Lady De Bourgh (Mr Darcy's aunt)add depth to this film version.Claudie Blakley as Elizabeths's wise friend Charlotte Lucas & Simon Wood's amusing Mr Bingley are delightful supporting performers.

One major surprise is Canadian actor Donald Sutherland's touching performance as Mr Bennet -capturing both the humour of living in an all female household & five daughters to look after with the poignancy of seeing his eldest children's difficult relationships develop -easily his best acting performance in years.

In the difficult role of Mr Darcy rising British star Matthew Macfadyen (BBC's Spy series Spooks & Award winning New Zealand film "In My Father's Den" rises to the occasion.With the short running time, there is not enough time to allow Darcy's repressed & prejudiced personality to be fully represented -Macfadyen perfectly displays Darcy's social & class problems, his unfortunate attempts at gaining Eliabeth Bennet's interest & his painful adjustments to achieve their personal love story.Macfayden & Knightley's objectionable first dance,their embarrassingly moving Collins House meeting,the unexpected Pemberley encounter plus their two proposal scenes are highlights of this film.

Engaging acting performances with wondrous film photography,film locations at some of United Kingdom's most famous stately homes, marvellous film sets & costumes plus one of 2005's best original music scores add greatly to this new film version.

All in all one of the better films of 2005 -not perfect film making and not intended to be as subtle as Austen's novel -but a wonderful surprise with some changes to present a modern version of Pride & Prejudice for current audiences -do see this film as & when it is released worldwide....

And after seeing the film or re-visiting 1995 BBC TV series -read the original novel for its classic storyline, memorable characters & Austen's brilliant writing style,wit & humour.....

9 Out Of 10 for this different interpretation of an enduring classic

Exquisitely filmed.

[isabelle1955 · 27 November 2005]

Pride and Prejudice has always been one of my favourite books, so any screen incarnation has to live up to certain personal expectations of character, style etc. And of course, there is the gold standard of the 1995 BBC series, which, as other reviewers have pointed out, had the luxury of several episodes to cover a story that here takes just two hours. So I was truly delighted to enjoy this movie so much. It had a lot to live up to.

The first thing I must say is that it is exquisitely photographed. The atmosphere set by the beautiful cinematography, is perfect. The film deserves to be nominated for an Oscar on that basis alone. I am in awe of the technical crew and director who could find such unspoiled vistas and such perfect weather in England, and I say that as a Brit who used to live very close to some of the eastern England locations! I sat right through to the end of the credits to see where it was shot, because I assumed it must have been filmed in some remote, rural, continental European locale. I felt quite ashamed that I had doubted the ability of my native land to still provide such delightful scenery! The mist rising off early morning fields, geese on a perfect farm pond, magnificent country estates and enormous trees more usually associated with California than England. Also perfect were the interiors. The air of genteel poverty in which the Bennets lived was well captured. The slightly down at heel scruffiness of the Bennet's farm and house, and the general dirtiness of 18th century life for most people, contrasted well with the ridiculous, rich fussiness of Lady Catherine de Bourg's house and the stark, museum-like beauty of Darcy's home.

The cast were excellent. I thought Rosamunde Pike as Jane Bennet was perfect, Simon Woods as Mr Bingley was charming although perhaps a little too puppyish, I enjoyed Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn as Mr and Mrs Bennet and I'm one who thinks Matthew MacFadyen did a very good job as Mr Darcy, a characterization which was slightly more user-friendly than Colin Firth's 1995 Darcy. Also outstanding were Claudie Blakley as plain Charlotte Lucas, rescued from a life of unmarried oblivion by pompous Mr Collins (a very good Tom Hollander) and Kelly Reilly, as the bitchy Miss Bingley. Is Rupert Friend (Mr Wickham) destined to play Orlando Bloom's brother? Am I alone in seeing a similarity? Of course, Keira Knightley plays the title role of Elizabeth. I have followed her career closely since Bend it Like Beckham, and I thought this easily her best acting performance so far. She captured the playfulness and wit of Lizzie's bright mind wonderfully well, and made me think long and hard how truly frustrating it must have been to be an intelligent young woman in a world that expected nothing more of her than an ability to choose ribbon and to capture a husband possessed of money. The only possible slight criticism I might make, is that Keira Knightley is perhaps a little too waif-like to pull off the 18th century characterization entirely convincingly. She is stunningly beautiful, but her stick thin appearance alongside her more robust looking screen sisters, made her look as if Mr Bennet might well have doubted her parentage!

Romantic, funny, well-acted, well-scripted - give it a try!

[lillianna66 · 7/10 · 12 September 2005]

Having watched a slew of special effects-laden trailers before this film I was reassured to discover that in the brave new world of CGI cinema there is still a place for a satisfyingly romantic story, well-acted and thoughtfully scripted and directed.

Comparisons with the highly-regarded 1995 BBC series are inevitable, but whereas that production had the luxury of time to unfold its plot and characters at leisure, the creators of this film had the unenviable task of reducing Jane Austen's book to just two hours. Yes, Austen lovers will mourn the absence or alteration of favourite scenes. Yes, we do lose some sense of the developing and changing relationships between the main characters (two examples - Wickham appears in only two scenes of any significance and personally I would have liked more time to savour Lizzie and Darcy's rediscovery of one another at Pemberley). Yes, there is occasionally a feeling of entering or leaving a scene partway through (where do Lizzie's uncle and aunt think she has gone when she apparently sets off from Pemberley to walk to Lambton without a word to them?) On the whole though, I think director Joe Wright, and screenwriter Deborah Moggach, are successful in retaining the flavour, the vital essence of Austen's original.

The film also offers some new perspectives on very familiar characters. Tom Hollander in particular, gives Mr. Collins something approaching dignity in his determined but usually unsuccessful attempts to ingratiate himself with those more powerful than him, and he provides some of the funniest moments of the film – witness his attempts to gain Mr. Darcy's attention at the ball. Mrs. Bennet too, who we all remember Alison Steadman playing with an enthusiasm approaching pantomime, is more sympathetic in the hands of Brenda Blethyn because we understand more clearly the reasons behind her desperation to marry her daughters off. Mr. Bingley though teeters a fine line between nervous hesitancy and simple-minded idiocy which made me question why Jane Bennet would ever consider marrying him. And who on earth thought of giving him Cameron Diaz's infamous "There's Something About Mary" hairdo?

Reviews for Matthew MacFadyen seem to have been mixed so far, the inevitable 'Firth Factor' at least part of the reason. Personally I think he has a sexy, brooding presence to equal Firth's and (dare I say it) his Darcy has a little more charm and humanity when he does let his guard down. The scene where he bursts in upon Lizzie at the Collins' parsonage, all glove-twisting nervousness and incoherent attempts at small talk, captures perfectly the bewilderment of a man trained since childhood not to express his feelings, and made vulnerable for the first time by the conflicting emotions Lizzie has stirred in him.

I do think his Darcy is oddly lacking in 'pride' though, his taciturnity attributed to having so many expectations to live up to that he never dares let down the facade of 'Mr. Darcy of Pemberley'. Nor do we get any sense, as in the book, that Lizzie's free-spirited influence alters his attitude or behaviour towards others, the explanation the audience is left with being that really he was a nice guy all along, just misunderstood.

Keira Knightley's Lizzie brings nothing really new to the part, but whilst too stunningly beautiful to be the girl dismissed by Darcy as 'only tolerable', she has an abundance of the playfulness and charm which quickly captivates him. She is also a good enough actress to show Lizzie's own growing confusion and then loss as she realises how she has misread her own feelings.

The chemistry between the two leads works well, their dance at Netherfield a key moment as their verbal sparring gives way to a growing physical awareness which neither of them is ready to admit. Other little incidents such as the touch of hands as Darcy helps Lizzie into her carriage keep the romance heating up, and it almost reaches boiling point in the first proposal scene. It does fizzle away disappointingly though in their final reconciliation, which promises much at the start with a heady mix of very slightly disarrayed nightwear, rolling thunder and smouldering gazes across a misty meadow, but, whilst tenderly played, it ends up being a little too coy for the 21st century. Come on Joe Wright, give us a kiss in the DVD version please!

Outstanding...MacFadyen is a worthy Darcy.

[shopper1952 · 10/10 · 11 November 2005]

Outstanding ... MacFadyen is a worthy Darcy and a darned good actor to boot! The scenery, backgrounds, and country folk were much more realistic than previous versions. The costumes and hairdos also seemed in keeping with the times. Another great addition is the priceless Donald Sutherland who, in a perfect world, would have had more scenes with Judy Densch. If those two can't chew up the scenery, nobody can. And, finally, Keira Knightly is a jewel. Her beauty is so apparent that it almost detracts from the fact that this is a very good actress who can hold her own in any room. This was a delight and I only wish that it could have been 6 hours long.

Still trying to make up my mind

[IridescentTranquility · 7/10 · 25 March 2008]

I don't immediately think this is my favourite interpretation of Jane Austen's novel, but I do not hate it either.

The look is good - rustic England - but the Bennets' home seems a little "farmy". The assembly room (I assume that to be the setting for the first ball) does have a good atmosphere, though - noisy, rowdy, informal, fun English country dancing. (Not in the maypole and morris dancers sense - the type of dancing favoured at this time was actually known as "English Country Dance".) A tiny point I noticed is how "of the period" the windows at the Collins' parsonage look. The one jarring thing was that blue, white and orange ceiling at Pemberley - surrounded by the other decor it seemed tacky in such a grand house.

The wardrobe department doesn't give an impression of any kind of co-ordination. The dress Lizzy wears to the first ball isn't dressy enough (to say balls and such functions were a chance for the unmarried to meet potential partners) - she looks like she should be gardening in it! The Netherfield ball is odd - Caroline Bingley wearing an unusual sleeveless number and Lizzy without gloves, where every other lady (even the extras) is in both gloves and sleeved dresses. Saying that, the striking costume difference when they first arrive at the ball marks them out instantly as "high fashion" people compared to the locals, but their entrance is possibly too dramatic.

Jane looks pretty but Lizzy seems to have coiled her hair, stuck a few hairpins in and hoped for the best. Mary is plain enough to melt into the background - but the family looks mixed when Bingley returns to visit Longbourn - Jane is "dressed up", Kitty and Lizzy are middling and Mary looks like she should be scrubbing the steps.

The Lizzy I envisage doesn't listen at doors to her parents talking (Lydia and Kitty maybe, but not Lizzy) but she is kind - ie. trying to get Jane the carriage to visit Netherfield. Jane listening at the door with her sisters during Mr. Collins' proposal also seems out of character - quite an extroverted action for someone described by Charlotte Lucas as not affectionate enough with Bingley. I missed the absence of Lizzy giving a clear indication after Wickham and Lydia are married that she knows that the story he spun her had a few holes in it.

None of Austen's witty satire on Mr. and Mrs. Bennet's incompatibility is present. I also missed Mr. Bennet's dry wit - he sounds so laid-back, almost half-asleep in some scenes. Although she looks desperate pushing her daughters under Bingley and Darcy's noses as soon as they arrive, Mrs. Bennet obviously cares about their futures - although not shrieky as in the 1995 adaptation, you can see why Darcy finds her behaviour vulgar. When Mr. Collins discreetly asks to speak to Lizzy (as with Bingley and Jane), her haste to clear the room seems like overkill. (Incidentally, why go to the kitchen in the latter scene? Surely they had another "good" room to sit in?) Lydia and Kitty having their hair down adds to their youthful look. They both look about fourteen so it seems odd when Kitty states that she is older by two years. I'm not sure why Mary wears so much black and grey - is she in mourning? Her tears at Netherfield after her piano performance isn't very "Mary-like" - I always thought of her as vain enough to think herself brilliant. There is a nice montage of them all showing themselves up at Netherfield - in a film, time is of the essence and this is an effective way to show a lot in a very short moment.

My crucial issue with the script and dialogue is that, while it is well crafted from Austen's source material, it seems rushed. Darcy (who, incidentally, didn't strike me as handsome) speaks in a rude, clipped, unfriendly way even when surrounded by friends. The Bennets' maid sounds like she's reading her line (although I liked the contrast of this young girl laying out shoes and dresses for girls her own age to attend the Netherfield ball, an occasion she would never be grand enough to attend - it was sad and poignant somehow) and the Bingley footman's "Miss Bennet" introduction sounds silly - I'm sure "Mrs. Bennet and her daughters" would have sufficed.

At Rosings, Lizzy and Lady Catherine seem to be "reading" their lines. Lady Catherine's confrontation with Lizzy regarding Darcy's proposal is also rushed - it's like the film crew only had five minutes of time free in the schedule before lunch to film it. Lizzy's snappy response to her family afterwards is not in keeping with the character Keira Knighley has shown this far - more sulky teenager than witty female. When Darcy first proposes, I think they were hurrying through the script to get out of the rain. They did include many brilliant lines from the book - I especially liked Mr. Collins turning his enquiry about which cousin was responsible for the food into a kind of backhanded compliment by being pleased that the estate can generate enough to afford servants. The only downside is his voice - the "violence of his affection" for Lizzy described in a monotone was ironic.

One small thing I'm not certain of - why is the travelling in this film often done at night? Lady Catherine visits Longbourn at night, Lizzy and the Gardiners come home from Derbyshire at night - do the film makers realise that this was still an era when highwaymen were lurking around at night? I like what the film makers were trying to do - I just can't make up my mind as to whether they achieved it.

A timeless adaptation of a timeless Jane Austen novel.

[Flagrant-Baronessa · 10/10 · 4 August 2006]

The fantastic romantic world of Jane Austen again makes its way to the silver screen in Joe Wright's new adaptation of the classic novel Pride and Prejudice. It is the first feature film to be adapted from it in 65 years, and believe me when I say it does not disappoint. This adaptation is, for lack of a better word, a BRILLIANT achievement that keeps you actively involved from the first scene to the very last scene, just about consuming you with aching romance – and it is sprinkled with humour and intelligence.

Still taking place in the late 1700s and still interweaving its story with timeless emotion, pride, narrow-mindedness and love, Pride and Prejudice (2005) zooms in on the Bennet household in class-conscious, stuck-up England. In this household, we follow five spirited sisters under the idealism of their overbearing mother (a superbly neurotic Brenda Blethlyn providing for the comic relief) who desperately wants them all to marry and thereby secure the future of the family estate. But the standout sister and protagonist in the film, Lizzie (Keira Knightley) is clever enough to have other ideas, but alas too romantic to carry them out... *sigh*

When reviewing period films such as this one, one often focuses on the setting and costume design. I believe this is done because they are often better crafted than the actual story. But in Pride and Prejudice (2005), the stormy emotions of its characters–bottled up but bubbling to get out–completely consume the entire film and places understated set designs in the backseat. Only when it was consciously put forward, like when Lizzie Bennet was admiring the beautiful architecture and Greek statues of Mr. Darcy's estate, did I ever notice the background – and it was, of course, extraordinary. A similar state displaying the dynamics of its central cast should be attributed to the grand dancing scene between Lizzie and Mr. Darcy – the two are so absorbing that when Wright purposely fades out the the rest of the dancing crowd, you do not notice a change. Your eyes are still solely Knightley and Macfadyen. It took me three viewings to realise this.

As for acting performances then, the unspeakably lovely Keira Knightley has finally done it. She has proved me wrong with a truly Oscar-worthy performance and she does it without crying, worrying, moping and sighing like the other nominees that year. Knightley is in fact all about sweet subtlety here, bringing a fantastic presence to her high-spirited character Lizzie. She is the type of character that every girl and woman in the world can identify with and with Knightley behind her to give her oomph, you will not find a more likable creature in films this year. MacFayden is completely satisfactory as Lizzie's love interest Mr. Darcy, but he is no Colin Firth – lacking in charm and is a bit too wooden. But no matter, because these two have the best on-screen chemistry I have ever seen. I'm not kidding, this was sensational. Such magnetism. It is highlighted from scene 1, playfully touching upon their sexual tension and gradually turning it into feverish love that sends chills down your spine.

Every last actor in the cast of Pride and Prejudice (2005) gets to shine in their character–from Dame Judi Dench as a cold rich lady to Donald Sutherland as caring Mr Bennet, all except Jena Malone whose all too Valley-girl American attitude was distracting and annoyingly anachronistic. But it is Knightley who is in focus and who propels the film with her warm charisma. It is impossible not to fall in love with the main characters, and I say this as someone who avoids romance-themed films and who does not care for period films.

This is a truly timeless story and this film will hopefully be remembered, celebrated and praised for breathing life into it with such passion.

10/10 (which is a rare grade for me)

Where are Colin and Hugh when you need them?

[Joejoesan · 7/10 · 28 July 2005]

In 1995 the 5 hours miniseries of Pride & Prejudice, with Colin Firth as Darcy and Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet, was a big hit in England and the Netherlands. It even inspired Helen Fielding to write the Bridget Jones's novels. Therefor, whether you'll like the new 2005 movie mainly depends on the fact if you've seen the version that was done ten years ago. If you have, you'll probably be very disappointed with the Knightly movie. If you haven't, well, maybe this romantic flick may be 'amiable' enough for you.

For those who aren't familiar with the story: Pride & Prejudice is a romantic costume drama that takes place in 19th century England and is based on the famous novel by Jane Austen. The story is about the Bennet family, a father, mother and five or six daughters. The only way to secure the future of the children is to marry a party that owns a lot of money. Jane, the oldest sister, is beautiful but a little icy. She hopes to marry young Bingley, a rich aristocrat who just moved to a castle nearby. Her younger sister Elizabeth, the main character of the movie, wants to help her conquer his heart, but finds out that Bingley's best friend, the rich but arrogant mister Darcy, sabotages her plans. Elizabeth and Darcy start out as enemies, but as the story progresses they both find out that their opinions of each other are based on wrong information, pride and prejudice.

Let's bring the good news first. The new Pride & Prejudice is the big Keira Knightly show. Although she cannot top Jennifer Ehle's performance, Knightly proves that she has real star-power and that she is able to carry a movie. She looks lovely in this flick: she enchants you with her great smile and has the charms of a young Winona Ryder. Dame Judi Dench is excellent as Darcy's powerful aunt who is against a marriage and Donald Sutherland has a both moving and funny scene at the end of the movie when he gives permission to Darcy to marry Elizabeth. The end of the movie is actually better than the one in the miniseries.

Okay, then the bad news. I guess the main flaw of this new version is Darcy himself, a role played by Matthew MacFadyen. In the story he is rather dull and generally uninterested in what's going on. It must be difficult to replace Colin Firth as leading man and the Darcy of the miniseries of course had more (screen)time to show his inner struggle. But the new Darcy is so dull that frankly you don't care if he ends up winning Elizabeth's heart or not. There is absolutely no spark between Knightly and MacFadyen. At the end of the movie they don't even kiss and as an audience you couldn't care less.

But Darcy isn't the only one that seems miscast. The new mister Bingley is – despite his Jamie Oliver haircut – a real nerd, and mister Wickham, who falls in love with Elizabeth but elopes with her younger sister, lacks the depth to be an interesting villain. Because of the time-frame, the movie is less subtle than the miniseries. There's a lot to be told in two hours and because of that there is hardly any suspense. Problems rise but they are solved within minutes. But what I really missed were the great dialogs. In the miniseries heavy emotions were always masqueraded by politeness. Darcy doesn't say "Wow, it's great to see you, Elizabeth" but instead asks if her parents are in good health. The things that are NOT said were more interesting than the things that were indeed spoken out. The encounters between Elizabeth and Darcy always turned out to be great fights in which words and sentences were used as swords and daggers. I really missed that in the new version. Come to think of it, I also missed the humor you did see in Ang Lee's Sense & Sensibility, also based on a Jane Austen novel. Where is Hugh Grant when you need him?

A friend of mine – also a journalist – really liked this movie. But he hadn't seen the Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version from 1995. So perhaps I'm a little hard on what was presented to me last week, because the film does have its qualities.

7 of out of 10

Minor errors? But Pride was constipation, they forgot Prejudice. And Austen come to that.

[evebay39 · 2/10 · 24 October 2005]

Well Wright may have made a gritty depiction of life around 1800 - as he so repeatedly and anally goes on about because of when it was written as opposed to published - but it is HIS not Austen's and shouldn't claim to be an adaptation.

Mrs Bennett looks like a rural washerwoman. This is a pampered woman - they have servants (remember the book scene with the servant dressing the hair, etc)? But Wright portrays her with rough reddened skin all down her chest, rough hands and working in the kitchen. And the pigs wandering through! If he wants bucolic, he should try Tess.

Mr Bennett - the script makes too cuddly and modern and ignored the weakness in him. The scene where he stops Mary playing is supposed to make you cringe - not pass in seconds. If it doesn't - don't include it.

MacFadyen is very weak in the part and seems to be doing some kind of Pride by numbers acting. The first proposal he looks like a nervous schoolboy rather than a man overcoming his pride to make a proposal beneath his station. Most of his lines, he could as well be reading a shopping list.

Lydia is awful. Completely over the top with excessive shrieking and skipping. Indeed, Knightley plays Elizabeth more like the giggling inane character Lydia actually is in the book, at times.

And Elizabeth. Half the time Knightley is, clearly, mimicking Ehle's voice and intonation - close your eyes to see what a copy it is. And in her role you see Wright's major error - there is NO PREJUDICE.

From the first encounter with Darcy she clearly fancies him. When he comments to Bingley on the attractiveness of the women in the hall she initially looks hurt - not shocked and affronted. The latter should set up the prejudice side of things. And when she and 'caroline' are prancing round the room she comes across like a tease, obviously all over him. And by virtually cutting out Wickham you don't get Elizabeth invested enough there to set up the prejudicial aspects falling out of that relationship.

And apparently it is Caroline not Miss Bingley. And Mr Bingley happily wanders into Jane's bedroom. And and and - Wright can boast about how great he is with period all he wants. But a few panorama shots of rural life (which show the preference for Hardy) don't excuse him the glaring blunders all over the place.

The cinematographer - who clearly wants awards - should have been reined in. He veered between Bronte and Hardy throughout the film - and wasn't the last proposal shots/lighting from Tess? The need to see Darcy walk along through the 'scape with unkempt shirt was just dumb. But most importantly - when going between those 2 very different landscapes they forget the most important one - Austen. (She'd have laughed out loud at the Elizabeth = sad, therefore = rain, running through to picturesque folly, wet Darcy rubbish).

I admit I found it impossible the watch the film without using the book as context. I was prepared to give it some leeway as it had to provide the story in a short space of time. But to forget fully one half of the core of the book in prejudice and Darcy to continually look more constipated than prideful, made it almost unwatchable. I could only see it as a mess with generally poor performances (when Knightley wasn't aping Ehle she was gurning or skipping or both and only calmed down a couple of times to indicate she does have some promise - but faffing about on swings to convey emotion isn't a substitute for a poor script and poor direction) - although for some it was simply a case of bad script.

Tom Holland alone would escape censure. While he toned down the comic aspects of Collins, he did turn in a very interesting approach. Dench does superbly the schtick she can do in her sleep whether it be here or in Oscar Wilde - but this was supposed to be Lady Catherine De Bourgh NOT Lady Bracknell. She was just a little too sane.

The shortened length could have been handled by a competent screenwriter, surely? Not characters filling in story gaps and helping along the audience all over the place. Elizabeth couldn't have come up with the £10k figure. And while they wanted to cut time with her learning of Darcy's involvement in Wickhams marriage the lines didn't fit with Lydia. It was the worst case of incongruous exposition in the piece.

It really is appalling stuff. Anyone who reviews it saying it works well in the context of the book is someone I frankly don't believe has read or understood the characterisations in the thing. Wright seems to think his characters are in the 1990s not the 1709s from their behaviour. I'm not convinced he has read the book - he certainly doesn't understand it. He doesn't understand Austen's acerbic wit or lightness of touch - he certainly made a dull plodding film out of it.

What is possibly worse was the sad pathetic need of the chick lit lovers to need the 'I love you, I love yous' all over the place so they can sigh and get off on it. The fact that it has no place in a work by Austen is apparently irrelevant.

Anyone who reviews it as a film alone? Well, more difficult for me except I would note the poor acting, the weak Darcy, and the gurning skipping inane irritation of the whole thing. If you are going to adapt you can change a lot - but if it loses the spirit and key motivations, then don't insult the book by taking it's title.

Acting is superb

[mankindk · 10/10 · 18 November 2005]

While I will say first off, that no movie production ever made will ever equal a novel, especially one of this magnitude, this movie is very well done. I read many reviews going either way, but I must say I enjoyed the film very much. Many are quick to criticize Mac's performance saying he didn't do a good job. I thought he was fine, but believe me he is no Colin. Keira Knightley was absolutely incredible in the film, I would go as far to say it is her breakout performance. Donald Sutherland was amazing, but as can be expected from him. Judi, like always is incredible at her role as Lady Catherine.

If you are a complete avid fan of the book as I am, you may or may not like it. My only complaint was that it was in fact short, but then again it is quite hard to make a 370+ page novel into a two hour movie easily. There is a phenomenal display of acting by the entire cast, and the score is perfect.

One warning though, the movie concentrates on the love story more than Austen's satire of society, so many Austen fans may be angry with that. But overall I thought it was a great film.

A splendid and moving period piece

[showgirl626 · 10/10 · 25 May 2007]

I saw this movie for the first time on a premium channel, and bought the DVD shortly after. I also can't pass it up any time it's repeated on cable. I'll look forward the whole day to watching some program or another, but if I see that this movie is on, I'll forsake almost any other other program for it.

Though I've seen many cinematic interpretations of her work, I must confess that I've never read any Jane Austen. I generally have trouble plodding through the language from books published from the late 18th and early 19th centuries. I just tend not to have the patience for it. Anyway, I've finally, after watching this version of Pride & Prejudice for perhaps the 15th time in less than 3 months, felt compelled to share with you my tremendous love for the story, and I think - when I'm done here - that I'll go to my favorite bookstore's website and buy some of Ms. Austen's work. (Actually, I couldn't wait that long...I just paused from writing this to place an order for the literary Pride & Prejudice.)

The cinematography of this movie is fantastic, the locations very stirring, and the script brilliant - really lending itself to the actors' abilities to realistically interpret it with incredible depth and color. But the director, Joe Wright, deserves extra special commendation for getting such WONDERFUL work from the actors, especially Keira Knightley. Yeah, sure, she was great in Bend it Like Beckham and the Pirates trilogy, but I really didn't think she had it in her to lead a cast...much less a cast with Donald Sutherland and the mighty Dame Judy. But she really did prove me wrong. Much like Rachel Weisz did in the Constant Gardener. Keira did a fantastic job. Mind-numbingly so. Kind of scary that this is the same young lady that did Domino.

Matthew MacFadyen stormed into my world with a delicate grace that suggested a deep abiding talent with which I should further acquaint myself (I hadn't been aware of him before I saw this movie). The way he and Keira traded their characters' individual pride and prejudice (they both suffered from large measures of both) was a magic dance. I can't say with any certainty right now that I've seen a portrayal of two such lovers done better.

What MacFadyen REALLY did for me with Darcy was the sublime nuance of his expression. Though his face really didn't change much at all - whether he was stuffy, indignant or angry - when I first saw that dazed look and tentative smile of devout worship on his face when Elizabeth was about to have that profound, private audience with her father toward the end of the movie, it was wonderful. I could really FEEL Darcy losing himself in his love for Elizabeth, and I could feel almost as strongly his relief at not having to fight it anymore. The stoic, starchy, intimidating Darcy has been reduced to a fumbling child. I thought it was the truly naked face of the character madly hinted at, but so well hidden before just then. Bewitching.

Every well-fleshed portrayal in this movie was done really well (it will be the actors from THIS movie that I picture when I read and re-read the book), but I must make a point of saying that Tom Hollander's Mr. Collins is brilliantly pathetic, Mr. Bennett was TRULY one of Donald Sutherland's greatest roles, and it was a great thrill to see the Dame Judy's Lady Catherine put in her place when she made that late night visit to see Elizabeth.

I now understand that the story of Darcy and Elizabeth is one of the greatest love stories of all time, and it's one of those grand love stories that retains its delicacy without being smarmy or ridiculous. I treasure the privilege of being allowed access to this interpretation of Pride & Prejudice, and I'll recommend it to anybody. It's destined to become a legend.

Watch this movie. You'll be glad you did.

Absolutely Perfect 2 Hour Adaptation!

[thingfive · 10/10 · 12 November 2005]

For years I have waited for a Pride and Prejudice that perfectly captured the wit, the intelligence, the passion and the romance of Jane Austen's classic. The 1995 mini is fabulous, and I have watched it many times, but I have always been frustrated that while it got so much of the dialogue and the detail right, it somehow fell flat on some of the more subtle dynamics of the novel.

Finally this movie adaption has captured what has before been missing! True, it took license regarding some of the verbiage and detail of the novel, but it ultimately completely captured the characters, their transformations, their strengths, their vulnerabilities and their passions. You simply cannot do a definitive work on Pride and Prejudice in two hours. And this film doesn't try. But what it does attempt--to capture the story and characters, it does beautifully. It is well acted, well directed and connects as the book connected. While it has to rush and skimp on scenes and characters, it is the most authentic and true to the spirit of the novel version that I have ever seen. You simply do not want it to end...

Well done!!!! It was about time!!!

THE CINEMATOGRAPHY!!!

[fivefilms-55644 · 10/10 · 28 February 2020]

There was a scene where Elizabeth was spinning in a swing, and every time she turned it was a new season, as if months past significantly fast while she was in her thoughts. Then when Elizabeth is dancing with Mr. Darcy and the scene changes to where they were dancing alone was so clean and amazing! Lastly when Elizabeth meets Mr. Darcy after they both were yelled at, because it was speculated they were engaged to each other, the sun and sky in the background was a lovely color palette of whites, blues, pinks, and reds!

Three weddings and no funeral

[rogerdarlington · 18 September 2005]

This quintessentially English film is utterly charming - a very traditional interpretation of Jane Austen's 1813 novel that manages to entertain, amuse and even move. First time director Joe Wright has worked with television playwright Deborah Moggach's script and a wonderful collection of mainly British actors to delight us. The versatile camera-work, luscious countryside, grand settings, period costumes, and atmospheric music are evidence of a work on which much love has been lavished.

At the heart of this triumph is the delightful 20 year old Keira Knightley as the assured and sharp Elizabeth Bennett, the second of five daughters looking to be married off by an anxious mother. Knightley's rise in the thespian firmament has been meteoric and this is her best performance to date in a role for which she is perfectly cast. Matthew MacFadyen is suitably brooding and gauche as Mr Darcy, but the cast list is enlivened with splendid British character actors, including Brenda Blethyn as Lizzie's irascible mother, Tom Hollander as a diminutive cleric seeking a wife, and Judi Dench as the formidable Lady Catherine, plus the Canadian Donald Sutherland (Lizzie's wise father).

This is a Georgian world in which social conventions present a veritable minefield for indiscretions or misunderstandings and in which a formal dance can be as intricate an occasion as international diplomacy. Pride and prejudice are only two of the obstacles to be overcome before inevitably true love brings Lizzie and her dark knight nose to nose (we don't even see a kiss). Passionate stuff indeed.

The realism was unauthentic.

[eduff-4 · 6/10 · 12 November 2005]

I felt distracted by the 'realism' of the film. Jane Austen would not have gone into detail about the 'farm' (chickens, hogs, etc.) portrayed in the film. Jane Austen's world was a gentle one and the Bennets, despite their pretensions, were middle class. The television series got it right. This film did not. The new film deviated too far from the book and the author's intent in dealing with the manners of the aspiring middle class in the early nineteenth century. Although the costumes appeared to be authentic, the makeup was too heavy; the eyebrows on the women too sculptured and the men's beard too unshaven, as are characteristic in 2005. One good feature was the variety of clothing styles form the current (early 1800s) to the outdated of Judi Dench and Donald Sutherland. I remember David Maclean saying about the film Dr. Zhivago that they forgot about the hairstyles. Here they forgot about the makeup.

A lovely tale of love and drama

[SofiaHedge · 10/10 · 23 May 2020]

I love Pride and Prejudice. It's an authentic, genuine, and entertaining film adapted from an interesting classic novel by a great female author, Jane Austen. The characters are interesting, the female protagonist is strong and smart, and that's a great trait for a protagonist. I recommend this amazing masterpiece to anyone who wants to give this movie a try.

Now read the book

[square-peg · 7/10 · 24 September 2005]

Please pay attention - this is not the lengthy 19th century novel by the genius Jane Austen, it is not 6 hours of glossy, BBC drama, this is 2 hours of cinematic story telling. Once you realise that you can forgive the omissions - quite a lot of the Wickham subplot, for example. The film-makers have pitched this back a few years and muddied it up a bit. The Bennets are well-off - they have servants and property - but it's all relative and we are encouraged to see the brink on which the fates of these five young daughters teeters. Only Mrs Bennet, often despised, but here much more than a comic caricature, realises how important it is for these girls to make a good marriage. Austen knew this only too well, as she wrote her marvellous novels in the corners of other people's houses, with never a room of her own. The look of the movie is interesting, no glamorous, bust-line enhancing empire-line dresses, no powder on the noses of the genuinely youthful cast (save Ms Knightley, I suspect), and the curls, even when pinned up for parties look a little untidy. I liked this aspect very much. Donald Sutherland's casting was a little eccentric, but he brought out a side of Mr Bennet I had always suspected - a fond, weak man, aware of his daughters' vulnerability, but unable to do anything about it - knowing as he does that marriage may bring more disappointments than mere lack of money. Now to Ms Knightley, whose charms have always bemused me. I am prepared to admit that I may have been wrong, for here she is delightful. She delivers the difficult lines with conviction and passion, her bright eyes watching everywhere for examples of human folly and frailty, her affectionate nature not able to dismiss even her irritating mother from her care and concern. And falling in love. As she pieces together the clues as to Darcy's nature she is beguiled, intrigued and, at last, smitten. And he gains a partner who understands him, something that Mr Bennet knows is far more important than mere physical attraction. Matthew MacFadyen as Mr Darcy, suggests severe self-consciousness, arrogance masking his exposed and sensitive heart. Their scenes together are potent and persuasive. The minor characters do their part in expressing the other dimensions of the Georgian world - Lizzie's friend Charlotte making the hard-headed practical choice of marrying a man her inferior in everything except fortune; Wickham's seduction of the youngest Bennet requiring substantial pay-off before she is rescued (along with her family) from debilitating scandal. I didn't think I could come across an actor to top David Bamber's performance in the BBC dramatisation, but Tom Hollander is marvellous, raising even a little pity in the audience. The superior budget of the movie shows in the packed ball scenes, which are carried off with much bounce and energy, shadowed corners for Lizzie to catch her breath in, the sweep of the camera showing other intrigues and liaisons this film could not tell, but at least suggest are going on, in this pre-Victorian society. This film delivers a successful re-telling of an adored book. Which I now intend to re-read. Again.

Charming and beautiful adaption of the novel Pride and Prejudice

[linneaw-86805 · 10/10 · 24 April 2016]

My favourite adaption of the beautiful novel by Jane Austen. Joe Wright captures the beauty and romantic sphere and gives the audience beautiful photography and amazing dialogue. Keira and Matthew are a perfect match in this love story and looks so good on the screen. It has those moments where you cant help but smile and laugh and the cast couldn't have done a better job getting their characters to life. It really feels like you are walking with Elizabeth Bennet through her story. Everything in this film feels naturally and genuinely. The story as most of us probably know is that of a young girl that meets a handsome but reserved man with a big fortune. Circumstances around the two main characters makes them first wound each others pride and give in to their prejudice. In the end we get the happy ending. I strongly recommend anyone to see this beautiful and charming adaption of Pride and Prejudice.

surprisingly enjoyable!

[clairlsmith11 · 7/10 · 29 September 2005]

It was with some trepidation that I went to see this film, believing that I would not enjoy it and that it would in no way compare to the book or the 1995 adaptation. However I floated out of the cinema! A lavish production with lots of giggles and I thought brilliant performances from Keira Knightley and Matthew McFadyen. The romance was believable, if somewhat 'rushed', having to squash lots of happenings into a 2 hour film, but I think I'll have to go and see this again. For a big screen production it works. However I suspect die hard Austen fans may object to the differences in the film to that of the book. But go and see it and judge for yourselves...

Jane Austen is spinning in her grave.

[mkazmierczak · 1/10 · 11 November 2005]

This film is one of the worst adaptations of Pride and Prejudice ever filmed and if Jane Austen were alive, she would demand that her name be removed from the film. Austen's novel is only superficially a story of the development of true love between Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy. It is also a commentary on the class structure of Regency Britain. This film focuses only on the love story, thereby disappointing viewers who hoped it would do justice to the novel.

There are numerous problems with the historical accuracy of the film. In the film, the dance at which Darcy snubs Elizabeth is not the refined dancing done by the gentry, to which the Bennet, Lucas, Bingley, and Darcy families belong, but is rather the dancing of the lower classes. The gentry would not have been dancing as if they were at a peasant barn dance. There are costume and hair problems, too. The custom of the period required married women to wear white cloth hats to cover their hair and for women to wear bonnets when outdoors. Women of the Regency period were not so liberated as to forego the bonnet requirements in public. The worst historical inaccuracy is the early morning meeting of Elizabeth (in her nightgown and coat) and Mr. Darcy (sans cravat and vest) at which they admit their love for each other. This is an unforgivable liberty with the novel. No respectable young woman or gentleman would venture out of doors in such a state of undress or seek to meet someone of the opposite sex at such an early hour.

But the worst thing of all with this film is the mangling of Austen's dialogue and the atrocious modern dialogue. Austen's dialogue needs no assistance from a writer who thinks he/she can write like Austen. The writer of the non-Austen dialogue not only lacks Austen's talent but also has no feel for Austen's style. The juxtaposition of the two styles is jarring.

As for the acting, the best is done by Judi Dench, who clearly understands the imperiousness of the aristocracy. Brenda Blethyn takes some liberties in making Mrs. Bennet less awful than Austen's portrayal. Her portrayal is interesting and seems to work. Donald Sutherland is miscast. His affected British accent is terrible and he portrays Mr. Bennet too much as a father of the 20th century and not a father of the late 18th century. Matthew MacFadeyn's portrayal of Darcy is flat. I can't imagine anyone falling in love with his Mr. Darcy. Keira Knightly is a pretty Elizabeth, but her portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet is far too modern. Knightly focuses on the Elizabeth's forthrightness, but her portrayal completely lacks an understanding of the social mores and conventions of the time. She would have done well to actually read the novel before attempting to portray Elizabeth and to do research on the behavior of women of the period.

If one is making a period movie, one must be true to the period. This film needed an historical adviser who actually knows something about the Regency period. It also needed a writer who has a better appreciation and understanding of Austen's text. I can only hope Emma Thompson decides to do a film of Pride and Prejudice in the near future to erase this abomination from our minds.

The best thing that can be said about this film is that it contains many pretty scenes of the English countryside. Chatsworth is well used as Pemberly (as it was in the 1995 BBC adaptation). But pretty scenery and pretty actors cannot save this film. True fans of Austen will rush home to watch their DVDs of the far superior 1995 BBC production with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth or to read Austen's text in order to wipe this version from their minds.