the new pride and prejudice movie

who has seen the new pride and prejudice movie with kiera knightly, and what did you think of it?

I saw it in theatres (several times) when it first came out, and now I own the DVD. I loved it. It captures all the humor and magic of Jane Austen. I think it was very well done.

I love Kiera as Lizzie and McFayden (can't remember his first name) is just dreamy as Mr. Darcy.

I think that most (if not all) our beloved characters are very truthfully portrayed by the actors.

I also loved the scenery and the "look" they chose for the movie. I still prefer the BBC PnP, of course, but I maintain that this was very entertaining alternative if you don't have six hours, and you need your PnP fix.

There are some parts that seem disconnected, but I really enjoy this movie every time.

I saw it in theaters once, then bought the DVD when it was released. Like suge, I absolutely loved it. However, the first time I watched it, I was greatful for having read the book, as it was difficult to make out what people were saying at times. I haven't noticed this in a while, however.

One of my sisters watched it with me once, and became hooked to the story. (Ordinarily, she hates classics with a passion, and claims them duller than any other type of book. I think this says something for "Pride and Prejudice.") She even watches the special features, which are good, I might add.

This is the only movie I've seen of Austen's work. Since watching it, I've wanted to see movies of others.

I've loved Austen for decades, I've seen lots of the movie/TV adaptations of the various books... and I LOVED the Keira Knightley version.

(Even despite the 'Non-canon/Modern/Hollywood' ending.)

It's pretty damn good.

Donald Sutherland was BORN to play Mr. Bennett. The poor guy who had to follow Colin Firth's portrayal of Mr. Darcy had big shoes to fill, and even HE pulled it off.

I also have this version of Pride and Prejudice, however I do not think that this is the best version of this story that I have ever seen.
I think that the disconnection of the story can be off putting and if you have never ever read the book before than you are going to be at a lost as to what is happening. they miss many of the most important sections of the novel and I know that they had time constraints but this means that the meaning and main themes of the story are missed.
the scene where Lizzie is swinging around on the seated swing - while good for symbolising the confusion and isolation that she is feeling in that moment it is very disconnected from this story and adds to the confusion of the responder.
I just see it as a way of Hollywood doing as it sees fit to a story that was perfect to start with.

Yeah, I guess you're right, but I think that the swing was to punctuate the passage of time too.

I guess it was a difficult movie to produce. There are so many adaptations of P&P out there, its like all the "good" bits were already taken. How do you create a film from a book and not have it sound or look like every other adaptation?

One thing that bothered me was (one of my favorite parts) when Lizzie and Mr Darcy meet in the garden after he chases her (I loved that he chased her, btw) in Pemberly. One minute they're in the garden..... then, she walks off and you get the impression that she's been gone for hours... then you see Mr + Mrs Gardener chatting at the Inn with Mr Darcy.... Were they likely to take off and leave Lizzie?

But I guess the rationale is that Mr Darcy would have told them Lizzie had gone walking, and I suppose that they didn't overtake her on the road because she went cross-country?

No need to tell me.... I know I'm crazy. Plus, there's always people closer to home to remind me, lest I forget.

lol, i definitely agree that this book is probably one of the toughest ones to re-create as a movie, there are so many sub-plots and subtle things happening that it is impossible to capture them all in a normal-length film. The producers did make some changes that did not follow along with the book, but i think it was in the best interest of the movie, to keep the plot moving a long and all. I loved the actor who played Darcy, I thought he did an awesome job---what a tough character; and Kiera was great as Elizabeth, but i think the character who was casted best was Lady Catherine, in my opinion, she could not have been better (Mrs. Bennett comes in a close second). All in all, it is the perfect movie when you are not prepared for an 8 hour marathon but still want your "PnP fix"

I agree, what a wonderful movie, even if it did not follow the book exactly. Kiera and did a great job as did the actor playing Darcy. I loved Mrs. Bennett, what an absolutely hysterical woman. Reading about you, one can only picture, but I chuckled quite a bit over her behaviors in the movie.

I also enjoyed Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennett. I thought he did a great job.

The first time I watched the movie, I hated it as an adaptation of Pride and Prejudice but enjoyed it as a movie. If that makes sense.
I really dislike the way they portrayed the Bennetts as a close knit, loving family. I think when you read the book it's clear that Mr Bennett barely tolerates his wife and whilst Elizabeth and Jane are very close there is very little affection between Elizabeth and her younger sisters. Elizabeth is frequently embarassed by her mother and sisters' behaviour and even upset that her father doesn't do more to control them.
That said, Matthew McFayden was wonderful. My favourite Mr Darcy by far. And the actor that played Mr Collins was so good, I cringed everytime he opened his mouth.

Sodapop-I agree. Reading the book gives a better insight to the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Bennett and Elizabeth and her younger sisters. Although, it is brought up in the movie, it is not expanded on much. I did notice it though, having read the book. I wonder, if someone who hadn't read the book would pick up on it?

Mr. Collins-I agree. I also cringed everytime he opened his mouth. And during the dance with Elizabeth, I laughed at his behaviour. I watched "A Good Year" last night and couldn't figure out who one of the actors was, but I recognized his voice. I finally realized it was the man who played Mr. Collins. He looked so different I didn't recognize him at all.

#10 homeschoolmom:
I recognised the man who played Mr. Collins in the second Pirates of the Caribbean movie, which Keira Knightly was in as well.

I have not seen those yet. I know, I'm really behind the movie times!!

By the way, Kiera is engaged to the man who played Mr. Wickham.

I didn't know. Guess the media hasn't done too much damage on their relationship. :)

I never get to watch the news over here in Japan. Actually it was on the Yahoo news when I signed on to my email. Must have been a slow news day.

Is the BBC television series adaption of Pride and Prejudice widely watched in the US? The casting of Kiera Knightly was an awful decision, obviously made to pander to the american belief that the heroine should always be beautiful. Elizabeth Bennet in the book was only described as handsome, Jane was the pretty sister. And any Mr Darcy without Colin Firth seems so wrong.

#15----> I'm not sure that it is widely watched. I can only speak for myself. However, judging by the fact that the Special Edition DVD is widely available (you can go in any Target or Kmart and buy one) I would say yes, or they wouldn't stock it.

Fair enough. Who among us doesn't see Colin Firth's face when we read PnP? Everyone form Bridget Jones and up is enthralled by the sight of that clingy, semi see-thru, wet shirt....

But Mattew McFayden (Thanks Sodapop) is beyond dreamy!

Can you not see those incredible blue eyes, when he (gasp!) almost kisses Lizzie in the rain, under the shelter of that ruin? There is no physical contact between but I think that there is such sensuality in that scene!

Ah.... I wish you would give the film another try.

And when he helps Lizzie into the carriage when they are leaving Netherfield after Jane's illness....

As Suge said the DVD of the BBC version is widely available here and I think (though I may be wrong) that it's been shown on PBS.
I love Colin Firth but Matthew McFayden's portrayal of Mr Darcy was fantastic. I went from disliking him to thinking , as Suge said, that he was "beyond dreamy". I could understand completely how and why Lizzie would fall for him. I also thought he really did a great job of showing the struggle Darcy went through, with the scene Suge describes above being the culmination of that struggle.

I have to say, I went into the new version all prepared to hate it, because Colin Firth will always be Mr. Darcy, and I'm not a big Keira fan, but I have to say, I loved the new version. Parts of it I'd quibble with a bit, but the casting was spot on (Donald Sutherland was so fabulous), I loved the more earthy feel of it, and Matthew McFayden, who I know and love from Spooks (MI5 here in the states) was spot on - so sexy!!

This goes out to Terrapin Jetta, #15---Matthew Macfayden totally nailed the part of Darcy. the first time i watched the new movie, i wasn't sure if he was the right actor, but by the end of it i was sold. you shouldn't automatically assume that kiera kinghtly was cast for her beauty, maybe it was something more important---(HINT: ACTING ABILITY). i read an article where she admitted that one of her directors didn't want to cast her because she was known for being "pretty" so she had to fight hard for the role to get past that and prove to them that she could act too

I watched this film again yesterday. Dragged my anti-classics sister right into it again. Direct quote from her: "I love Mr. Darcy!"

In my profile I write that Mr Darcy has ruined all men for me. He is the ruler I measure other men against.

Be it the "real" Mr Darcy, Collin Firth, Mattew McFayden, Mark Darcy or Will Darcy I love them all. sigh....

I believe that with the exception of the black and white PnP (a huge oversight on my part), I own every version of Pride and Prejudice there is on DVD.

My mom lives in the Dominican Republic and I gave her a copy of this movie, she showed it to some of my cousins and now they are clamoring for me to send them copies of the rest Especially, the BBC. The only problem is that, to my knowledge, it doesn't come in "the" Spanish.

#19 Keira Knightly - hired for her acting ability! LOL.

#21 suge:
I remember reading that. :)

You know, I think she's a good actress. Have you seen her in The Jacket? She plays an American and you literally forget she's English.

I thought it was slightly disappointing, specially as I thought Kiera Knightly was unsuitable. I would have preferred Winona Ryder or someone with a wiser/knowing look about her. As charming as Bingley was, I thought the interpretation of his character was too far off. He appeared weak, silly and childish, instead of merely modest. Jane and Darcy were pretty good. I also like the portrayal of the Bennet parents, showing more of their tenderness and less of their conflicts. All in all, I thought this version to be more love story than comedy of manners, more romance than moral tale, but it was amusing enough and the art direction was superior.

#19 - There are plenty of good actresses who aren't beautiful. Any director worth his salt will know that if he casts someone like Kiera Knightly as a lead, he will score a double hit; not only the teenage girls still at the stage of idolising the latest pretty face, but also the men who will agree to watch it because they fancy her. It also gives the production a bit more gravitas, to have a big name like hers in it. Knightly was the safe choice.

I have to admit, I'm loathe to see this film because I can't stand that stick insect, Kiera Knightly! I just finished watching the Colin Firth mini-series version this very week and loved it - and I have the feeling that this new film can't possibly be a patch on it.

No no no the film was terrible. I like Knightly, but she was so very wrong for the part of Elizabeth Bennett. The order of Darcy’s proposal was wrong and I felt that they were playing at anger and marriage like children. Firth and Ehle were real adults, older and more full of the pride and prejudice which separates them. It felt more real with them, if that makes sense.
Also I hate the way Lydia and Wickham’s abysmal conduct was glossed over in the new film. What she did would have utterly ruinous to a family already precariously positions in finance and status. If Darcy hadn’t paid off Wickham’s debts they would have been ruined. This proves again that Darcy is the true gent. Ugh I suppose as a film it was ok as it had to be packed into 2 hours, but she was too young to play Lizzie and her eyebrows are just too thick.

I absolutely loved it! I saw it at the theatre and I also bought it on DVD as well =)

I enjoyed the new version of P&P. I think that knightly did a good job at playing Elizabeth. Although I missed Colin Firth as Mr Darcy (Firth is the ultimate Darcy) Matthew Macfadyen did a decent enough job in the role.

I have always thought that Ehle was too old to play Elizabeth in the A&E version. She was 26 at the time she played Elizabeth while Knightly was 20 - which is how old Elizabeth is in the novel.

Lydia and Wickham's behaviour wasn't talked about as much as it probably should have been in the books either. Many families concerned with social status in that time would not have been so welcoming as the Bennett's were after Lydia's marriage. Instead they would have shunned the newlyweds and probably never spoken to them again.

So while the A&E is still my favorite of the P&P movies the Knightly version holds a favored spot in my heart as well. As for the comment about Knightly's eyebrows being too thick? To me that's just silly. It wasn't until the 1950's or so that plucking and shaving began a social norm. It most definatly wasn't done in the 1800's.

32: How come the portraits by Gainsborough, and the other famous English portrait painters including Sargent do not show thick eyebrows at all. Were they touching up their subjects?

Most definately.

People have always been vain about their looks and so painters (not just the English ones) would often cater to that vanity. After all, who is going to recommend a painter who paints all the ugly truths?

Now that isn't to say that no body plucked or what not....for people probably did. But its popularity didn't really begin until the more modern times. There are also many people who don't natually don't have thick eyebrows.

I am a terrific fan of the A&E version, so I had some trouble adjusting to Knightly and McFadden in their roles. Still, I thought the art direction and music of the film were lovely.

A&E did a better job staying true to the book. The movie can be enjoyed as a movie, but somehow didn't work for me as an adaptation of P&P.

I enjoy the Knightley P&P as a movie, but I think it fails as an adaptation.

Adaptation flaws:

• Knightley is okay in the role, but she does seem to be more of a modern girl dressed up in period clothes.

• The movie is confusing unless you have read the book.

• They failed utterly at the basic etiquette of the era. Bingley pops into Jane's bedroom while she is laying in bed in nightclothes, with barely a knock and no time after the knock for the girls to even say "stay out please". !!!!!!! Come on! There's no way he should even think of sticking his nose in the room where Jane lay in bed, much less the rest of him.

• They did gloss over the severity of Lydia's offense. You sort of thought, "who cares?"

• The thing with the family listening to conversations behind doors was just lame.

• I don't think Elizabeth would be swinging in the mud in the barnyard, personally.

• The family was portrayed as much happier together than they really were. Mrs. Bennett in particular was softened too much.

• They tried to be funny with parts that are simply not meant to be funny, like when Lizzie comes out crying with the note from Jane about Lydia, and then walks away because she can't talk at that moment, then comes back. I thought that was a pretty cheap grab at humor there, at a moment completely humorless.

• Darcy was too nice. In the book, he actually had to change his attitude and behavior (though underneath the basic integrity is there, of course). Elizabeth's words to him were a valid reproach, and they tortured him until he corrected his behavior. In this version, poor Darcy is just a misunderstood guy who was really perfect all along and doesn't have to change a thing. Perhaps the movie should have simply been called "Prejudice."

Movie Strengths:

• The music was beautiful. The sets were gorgeous.

• The characters, though not entirely faithful to the book, were likeable enough to enjoy watching.

The '95 P&P will always be THE movie version of the story for me, but I do enjoy the Knightley version as a movie. They used all the right movie ingredients... but it makes you wonder how much better it could have been if they dared to make something a bit out of the usual from Hollywood conventions.

#35 Now that you mention it, I agree with your opinion on Darcy's portrayal, the movie did not give his character the growth he experienced in the book. As likeable as he was in the movie, it really made him less real and took away from the one of the main themes. Goes to show that discussions of this nature truly let our minds grow.

#35 -
They tried to be funny with parts that are simply not meant to be funny, like when Lizzie comes out crying with the note from Jane about Lydia, and then walks away because she can't talk at that moment, then comes back. I thought that was a pretty cheap grab at humor there, at a moment completely humorless.

It's been awhile since I've seen the film now, but I don't recall any attempt at humor in this scene - I'm curious why you thought they were trying to be funny with her leaving the room, rather than just emphasizing how upset she was?

It seemed humorous to me too. I'm not sure if it was meant that way, or if that's the way it turned out.

The movie introduced me to PnP. So, that's a good thing. Bringing new fans to classic lit and all... I haven't read much Austen, I prefer the Bronte sisters. Heathcliff and Rochester, etc. That said, I love McFadden as Darcy. I rented the A&E series and it was okay, but it didn't blow me away. I didn't like Firth as Darcy. Maybe it's because I saw the new movie first? Maybe I just have thing for those blue eyes. In the rain. Sigh.

#35

I agree completely.

The best filmed adaptation of "Pride & Prejudice" I saw is the 1980 BBC one with a terrific cast of "unknown" actors. In comparison, the 1995 version is as kitschy and overblown as this latest movie.

Maybe we always fall for the first version we see. When I first saw the Firth/Ehle version, I cried when Elizabeth and Darcy danced at Netherfield. It was so well done!

#50: I just saw the Olivier one recently, and was like "What?" It was just so hokey, especially the ending.

#38 jagmuse wrote: It's been awhile since I've seen the film now, but I don't recall any attempt at humor in this scene - I'm curious why you thought they were trying to be funny with her leaving the room, rather than just emphasizing how upset she was?

It wasn't overt comedy, but it went something like this... Darcy and the Gardners are waiting outside the room where Elizabeth is reading the momentous letter. Darcy is pacing back and forth, very restless, and finally sits down just as Elizabeth enters the room. He pops out of his seat like a jack in the box upon her entry, but then she goes back in her room with a sob because the news is so terrible. Darcy and the Gardners stand petrified until Elizabeth comes back and breaks the news to them. I think what they intended to be funny here was Darcy's tension. Haha, he was pacing, he sat down and then jumped up again as soon as Elizabeth comes in, isn't that funny.

This scene was so much better in the '95 P&P. My heart just does flip-flops when Firth says, "Good God! what's the matter?" with, as the book says (I paraphrase), "more feeling than politeness."

Hmmm... I guess I just didn't 'read' it that way... I'll have to see the next time I watch it.

No problem, jagmuse :-). And of course my sense of humor may be different from yours.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of desideo (*wink* :-P), I will say that I watch the new P&P on occasion as a sort of "fix" when I don't have five hours for the '95 P&P. I don't hate it passionately, though certain parts are certainly cringe-able. I do have to admit that the music is beautiful... we have the soundtrack.

I agree it's best to watch the '95 P&P in one sitting. Once I did that on a lazy Saturday afternoon, and then I read the book in one sitting that evening. Oh, was that wonderful...

#59: Crikey, I'd be walking on clouds, starryeyed, for a week afterwards! ;-)

Go MIA and sneak over to my place, desideo. We can drink tea and watch P&P and then read the book. I'll hide our copy of the Knightley P&P just for you :-P

One thing I would like to do is read a book aloud with friends, as they used to do for amusement in regency England. We have so much media now, with movies and CDs... why can't people just gather round and read good literature to one another? We could have a P&P read for our first book.

*dreams*

I am a HUGE Jane Austen fan. I have read her books over and over and over again. I have seen (and own most) every film adaptation of her works. I was DYING to see this movie, but it was not shown in any theatres where I live. So the day the DVD went on sale I was there to buy it. I drove directly home and watched it.

I have never been so disapointed in a movie before in my life. I thought it missed the mark. The film failed to capture what makes PnP one of the most popular and enduring works of fiction ever.

After extensive debate with friends about the film we noticed that is was more loved by the younger folks that saw it. Perhaps those not biased by knowing the story...or having seen the Jennifer Ehle/Colin Firth version.

That being said if I take the film at face value...a hollywood film trying to appeal to mass audiences. I admit after several viewings I find it 'tolerable'.

#64 -- Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play? ;-)

I'm not crazy about the new P&P -- but I don't have that level of animosity towards it, either. Like #65, I find it "tolerable."

LOL desideo! Remind me to never make a P&P movie you don't like :-P

I never thought about the implications of Mrs. Bennett in the kitchen. Good point, especially because of her comment earlier to Mr. Collins that they could afford a cook. Perhaps she was just down there sticking her nose in everyone's business? I'll have to rewatch to see what exactly she was doing there.

One thing I really didn't care for in this movie was the focus on genitalia... not to be crude, but the part when the camera is focusing on the pig's testicles... come ON. And all the nude statues at Pemberley. And the way that Elizabeth checks out Wickham's behind in the store. And like you said, desideo, the unnecessary cleavage that is displayed. It just doesn't seem to fit in that world.

I agree about the ridiculousness of everyone stopping mid-dance when the Bingley party enters the ballroom.

And you make another great point with the observation on Elizabeth's character. In the new movie she is more concerned with how people perceive her family rather than with their own innate integrity. It seems that the only reason she is not as bad as Lydia is because she is more conscious of social opinion — NOT because she holds herself instinctively to higher standards.

As far as "nobody dies from a cold," I just saw that as Mrs. Bennett pooh-poohing any negative consequences of her actions. Elizabeth certainly seems concerned over Jane's cold, and goes off right away to tend her sister. I would say Mrs. Bennett is an intentional aberration in this case.

Looking forward to Part II of your rave, desideo :-P

Desideo--thanks for your detailed review. I just love this sort of thing. I haven't read such an entertaining review since I saw a 16th-century History professor take on Elizabeth (the Cate Blanchett movie) for extreme historical inaccuracy.

Personally, I wrote off this version of P&P as soon as I saw that Keira Knightly was cast. I find her tolerable at best, but hate her in historical movies. She looks like a very modern girl dressing up in costume.

With a name like "Knightly," maybe she should have starred in Emma :)

Although I liked the Firth/Ehle version far, far better, I am still glad I got to see this movie and that it was made. It just goes to show how great Jane Austen is and maybe it made more fans.

Wasn't this version of P&P described as a re-imagining to appeal to a younger generation, hence the casting of Keira Knightley.

Why is when Hollywood re-imagines a classic book, or film, or television, it usually involves dumbing everything down?

Re Elizabeth - a female critic talking about one of the classic Hollywood actresses asked a very valid question about romcoms - why, in the golden age of Hollywood were female leads strong and witty, equal, if not superior, to the men whereas nowadays they are either neurotic or little girls? This is partly the problem with Elizabeth in this film, she is a little girl, not the witty intelligent woman that Jane Austen portrayed.

Honestly, it's just an opinion, but I refused to see this when it came out onl because I just can't stand Kiera Knightly. And to think of her as one of the greatest literary heroines of all time.... I found her very unwatchable in Pirates of the Carribean -- granted, a very different kind of movie, but far too 'contemporary' for my tastes.

70: agreed. (sorry, i missed some of the thread...)

>80 clareborn: you should start a new thread about Christie adaptations. I would be interested in what you think is good and bad although slightly worried that if you watched them again to confirm your opinions your head will explode due to frustration.

Desideo, you are amazing! When I saw the Knightly version, I do remember thinking how grimy everything was. I thought maybe that was supposedly more realistic. I am glad to know from your posts that the Ehle/Firth I adore is closer to the real thing.

One thing that I missed in both movies was the scene when Elizabeth tells her mother about the engagement to Mr. Darcy. It is one of my favorite things in the book. It is another time Mrs. Bennet (at first) is shocked into speechlessness.

I thought they'd mixed Jane Austen with Cold Comfort Farm. I wonder what Lady Catherine De Bourgh saw....

Oh, excellent reviews. I have been out of town and brought home a nasty headcold for a souvenir... post more later.

Okay, back in action :-)

I do agree that the Knightley version made Bingley rather too stupid. He was funny, but we never really got to see why Jane fell in love with him. And why would Darcy put up with a goofball like that?

I know... we miss the "acid" conversations between Darcy and Caroline. You have to cheer for the BBC on this score—they really nailed those scenes.

I actually like both Mr. Collinses. You're right though, the KK version guy is too short. It fits him, I guess, but Austen's character was "big and heavy-looking." Much more ponderous. David Bamber was excellent in the BBC version. I really liked how they hinted at his darker side. It's not all comedy; there is some depth and danger to him. Elizabeth sees that danger, far beyond the desire to not have a ridiculous husband, and I think that propels her that much more urgently to adamantly refuse him. Her refusals have a desperation to them.

You're right, Sutherland is way too relaxed. Even for a country gentleman.

I knew there was something wrong with Caroline Bingley's outfit, but I hadn't really thought about it. It looks like a modern prom dress. I do like the actress though. She was suitably supercilious.

I didn't like Elizabeth swinging in the mud either. I mean, maybe if she were age eight or something that would be acceptable.

desideo wrote: Haha! The scene in the church? So bad! Again with the unnecessarily coarse.

I know! Now that I think about it, there are tons of crude things in this movie. What were they thinking? Were they thinking? Crudeness does not belong in an adaptation of Austen's books. Period. That's not so hard to understand, is it?

desideo wrote: Why is Lizzie so frosty towards Mr. Wickham? Ridiculous!

I think they had her be this way because that's how we all feel he should be treated. You want him to be punished somehow for his misdeeds, and he really isn't. But as usual, the BBC version got this better: just a little polite needling on her part to let him know that she knows, and it's done. It's called subtlety.

desideo wrote: Lizzie, running up the stairs screaming, ‘Leave me alone!’? To her parents? In front of the servants? When did this turn into a Lifetime feature?

LOL!!!

It's really too bad that Hollywood didn't think to consult the LT Jane Austen group before they made this movie :-P

I only recently saw the Knightly version and it confirmed in my head that Miss Knightly is quite possibly one of the most over-used and under-talented actors on the planet (with her popping, staring eyes and forced pout - I can barely stand to look at her!). This film was one of the most dire things I have ever had the misfortune to endure. The casting was appalling (with the exception of Dame Judy who was, as always, wonderful and, in this case, the one bright light in a very dark and dreary production) and the direction practically non-existent from the look of things. Costumes were hideous (and, as has already been pointed out, completely inappropriate) and the complete lack of care in bringing what is possibly Ms Austen's finest work to the screen was frightful.

I shall stick to re-watching the BBC version - at least it showed some integrity as well as a cast who turned in fine performances!

#87: . . . it confirmed in my head that Miss Knightly is quite possibly one of the most over-used and under-talented actors on the planet (with her popping, staring eyes and forced pout - I can barely stand to look at her!).

----------

Hear, hear! Well said. She definitely discourages me from seeing any movie that she's in.

#89: Atonement was one of the best books that I've read in years, so when I heard they were making a movie of it, I was pretty hopeful. Until I found out that Kiera-sweetie is in it. So now I'll wait until it comes out on DVD.

Mind you, I believe she plays the older sister, a character that I wasn't all that warm toward, and more of a supporting character than a lead. So she may not ruin the film after all.

I thought she was fine in Bend it Like Beckham, but Jane Austen just might be a stretch. I do want to see Atonement, though.

desideo - excellent! What can I say that you haven't already said? I wholeheartedly agree with your review on the KK version of P&P (although, I did add it to my DVD library only because, well, it's Jane Austen!)

I'm glad to see that I wasn't the only one bothered by the status of the Bennett family. Mr. Bennett was indeed a gentleman, on an estate. The family wasn't poor it was just that the estate and finances were entailed to a male heir. I was appalled at the farm animals roaming around the house, Mr. Bennett appearing as a mere farmer rather than a gentleman. It also bothered me greatly that Mr. Bingley went into Jane's sickroom - that would have never happened.

Well, there was just so much wrong with it and you've already stated it so eloquently that I'm just being redundant.

I'll be silly and just comment on this - what is up with Keira's toothy smile/grimace -whatever odd facial expression it was supposed to be. Also, I thought MM is creepy and not dreamy at all. :p

I've seen all the versions of P&P, seeing them in order of production, and still, the CF version is by far the best and probably one of my favorite movies of all time.

The look exchanged between Lizzie and Darcy while Lizzie is turning the pages for Georgianna is positively swoonworthy! And I love his "happy" walk as walks down the hall with his dog and the candlabra. Sigh!

I can't resist chiming in on one of my favorite books of all time. I despise the KK version like quite a few people above for most of the same reasons. I love the BBC version for most of the same reasons too. No sense re-hashing.

My 14-year old daughter has read the book and seen both movies. She loves the BBC version and watches it with me once or twice a year. She, too disliked the KK version. We watched it again to give it a chance about 6 months ago and still disliked it, although we enjoyed it a little more than the first time we saw it. Not much, though. I can't imagine ever watching it again, although I always look forward to watching the BBC version.

Wow, I finally saw this new version of P&P - what a disappointment. I'd heard so much about how horrid it was and then it was on TV, so I recorded it, basically just so I could hate on it with everyone else. :)

Watching this version made me desperate to see the BBC version with Colin Firth again, just because it seemed so much more true to the novel.

Well I think I am in the minority here as I like both versions. For me the '95 version is the best and I am yet to see a version that compares but the '05 version was cute. Desideo articulated many of the particulars that I can relate to. I hated the way Mr. Bennet was portrayed in the '05 version. To be very frank, he seemed like a drunk most of the time. In many ways I found it hard to respect him cause he just seemed somewhat lazy and a bit of a slacker. Watching him, I kept going "No wonder they don't have money, he drank it all away". And what was up with the sweaty and unkept look of all the women?There was rarely a hair in place. The women looked so dishovelled most of the time and I kept wanting to reach out and hand someone a brush. And I really hated that they made the Bennets seem poor. If I remember correctly from the books, they were not poor by any stretch of the imagination. The line was entailed away from the family because of the lack of a male heir and Mr. Bennet may not have managed the estate as well as he could but poor was never a word that I associated with the Bennets when I read the book. This version missed the complexity and subtlety that are yardsticks of Austen's work, especially P&P. It resorted to easy and immediate answers. To be fair to this version, it did not have the time that the '95 version had so it could not flesh out some of the best parts of the book. I do thank heavens that it did not have as much time cause certain things that I gladly overlooked would have began to really irritate and grate if it was 6hours long(more Mr. Bennet sitting around drinking, the cow walking in during a ball). But aside from those and some other quibbles, I liked it. It was a different point of view and I appreciated it for what it was.

I don't remember much from the 2005 version, but I think I have to comment on the "pig in the kitchen thing". I don't know how farm houses are built in the UK, but the fairly big farm house (pretty well-off farmers family) of my aunt has a barn at the left and stables at the right. You get into the stables from the kitchen through the dirt kitchen (used for washing, changing clothes and part of the slaughtering) and a dirt corridor (where the cows could be led through to their places). So for me that particular scene wasn't off at all. Many types of farm houses will have some connection between living quarters and the stables.

^ Part of the point was that the Bennetts were not well-off farmers. They were gentry. The 2005 P&P made them seem so poor, and they really weren't.

#97: "pretty well-off farmers" in my msg did not refer to class in the British sense. My family isn't gentry, but the farm was fairly big for German standards (and the house accordingly sized). I would need to do research on British farm architecture, but I could imagine that unless we are talking of families like the Darcys, who would have a big manor plus farm buildings away from the manor, the buildings would be more compact. Short ways, protection from weather and all that.

In the 1995 series, I didn't have the impression that there was farming involved at all. How did Mr. Bennet earn his money? Mr. Darcy was a landowner who had tenants, that much we learn from the series.

I went to see this version in the theater with my boyfriend who had never read the book. There is moment at the first dance where Elizabeth is actually eyeing Mr. Darcy interestedly. I can't remember if their eyes lock or not. Anyway my boyfriend assumed that Elizabeth was after Mr. Dracy the entire time!

Then there is that atrocious proposal scene. Mr. Darcy stumbles through it like an idiot, not in a prideful and smooth way at all!

So now we have gotten rid of the 'pride' and the 'prejudice'. That leaves us with 'and'. These mistakes completely change the story.

Had Elizabeth had no interest whatsoever in Darcy when would her pride have been injured?

"You are dancing with the only handsome girl in the room" said Mr Darcy, looking at the eldest Miss Bennet.
"Oh she is the most beautiful creature I ever beheld! But there is one of her sisters sitting down just behind you, who is very pretty and I dare say very agreeable. Do let me ask my partner to introduce you."
"Which do you mean?" and turning round, he looked for a moment at Elizabeth, till, catching her eye, he withdrew his own, and said "She is tolerable enough but not handsome enough to tempt me.
They use that very line in the movie too if I remember correctly.

Resurrecting this very old thread to say that I just rewatched this version and from now on will always refer to it as "Grunge Pride and Prejudice".

I finally got around to seeing it late last year.  It felt like a rushed and cobbled version of the 1995 BBC adaptation.

>101 Nickelini: I like that. Very apt.

When I saw this thread resurrected I thought maybe it was going to be about Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. I wasn't going to go see it, but former Doctor Matt Smith as Mr. Collins just may be too fun to miss!

>104 compskibook: I did not know who would be in it. Now I'm intrigued.

#106 -- not at all. The movie burst with anachronisms. Read the critique above for some of the details.

This movie has a special charm for me because it was the first time I had seen Pride and Prejudice on screen.
However, the film had a much more modern feel than I anticipated, and that distanced it from my love for Austen's original.
The setting is gorgeous, though, and the soundtrack as well; just don't expect to feel the influence of Austen's language as much as in the 1995 version or see as many details from the story.
Overall, I'd recommend it as an enjoyable film, but it's definitely not my favorite adaption of Pride and Prejudice.

I saw it when it first came out. I don't remember much--except those infamous pigs. I do recall that the only character that I thought was well-done was Mr. Collins--he seemed to fit my vision of him from the book.