loading...
Pride and Prejudice
2005
This version of Jane Austen's fiercely beloved novel has the daunting task of living up not only to the classic book, but also to the excellent 1995 miniseries of the same name. Yet 2005's Pride & Prejudice is up to the task, thanks to lively pacing, a witty script, an excellent cast, and clever direction from British newcomer .. Read more
| Starring | Keira Knightley, Matthew MacFadyen, Brenda Blethyn, Donald Sutherland |
|---|---|
| Director | Joe Wright |
| Genres | Drama |
loading...
Pride and Prejudice
This version of Jane Austen's fiercely beloved novel has the daunting task of living up not only to the classic book, but also to the excellent 1995 miniseries of the same name. Yet 2005's Pride & Prejudice is up to the task, thanks to lively pacing, a witty script, an excellent cast, and clever direction from British newcomer Joe Wright. The surprisingly still-relevant story follows the five Bennet sisters as they deal with suitors and love, as their mother desperately schemes to marry them off advantageously. Sweet-tempered beauty Jane (Rosamund Pike) develops feelings for the equally amiable and extremely wealthy Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods), but forces conspire to keep them apart while Lizzie (Keira Knightley) finds herself first appalled by, but gradually drawn to, Bingley's aloof, intelligent, and socially awkward friend, Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFayden). The movie, at just over two hours, is forced to cut and condense a number of the book's subplots, and at times it tries to heighten the drama of certain scenes. But, for the most part, it's as faithful to the spirit of the original as time and cinematic convention allow. The tremendous supporting cast includes Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet and Donald Sutherland as her wry, withdrawn husband; Jena Malone as teenage twit Lydia; Judi Dench, effortlessly haughty and imperious, as Lady Catherine de Bourg; and Tom Hollander, who steals every scene he's in as the ludicrously pompous and awkward Mr. Collins. The movie's script, adapted by Deborah Moggach, manages to be proto-feminist without becoming anachronistic and, like the novel, it is incisive about the class politics and gender inequalities of the day.
| Starring | Keira Knightley, Matthew MacFadyen, Brenda Blethyn, Donald Sutherland, Tom Hollander, Rosamund Pike, Jena Malone, Judi Dench, Claudie Blakley |
|---|---|
| Director | Joe Wright |
| Studio | UNIVERSAL PICTURES UK |
| Run time | DVD: 2 hrs 1 min |
| Certificate | |
| Genres | Drama |
| Language | DVD: English |
| Hearing-impaired | English |
| Subtitles | DVD: Arabic, Bulgarian, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Hebrew, Icelandic, Norwegian, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovenian, Swedish, Turkish |
| Released | DVD: 06 Feb 2006 Production year: 2005 |
| Format | DVD |
-
Critics' reviews (4)
View all -
Famously, film and TV adaptations of Jane Austens novels used often to be guilty of staid, lazy, Sunday-afternoonish... read more on Time Out
-
... beyond any doubt the romantic comedy drama of 2005
-
Most helpful member's review
View all -
101 out of 134 people found this review helpful
Not remotely true to Austen, just Bridget Jones in silly dresses.
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.
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, mimicing 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 pissed off. 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, completely up for it. 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 she is Caroline not Miss Bingley apparently. And Mr Bingley happily wanders into Jane's bedroom. And and and - Wright can boast about he great he is with period all he wants. But a few panorama shots of rural life (which seem to show he prefers Hardy frankly) 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 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 mess up all over the place? 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) - although for some it was simply a case of bad script.
Tom Holland/Judi Dench alone would escape censure. The former toned down the comic aspects of Collins, and turned in a very interesting approach. Dench does superbly the schtick she can do in her sleep whether it be here or in Oscar Wilde.
The shortened length could have been handled by a competent sreenwriter 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 damn 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. -
Most recent members' review
View all -
2 out of 2 people found this review helpful
no match for Colin
This film tries hard to put a new slant on what is now a very well known story. Its already been done so expertly with the BBC, that this film cannot match the drama production - it even misses out the 'universally acknowledged'. And thats a shame, as it is well acted. But oh dear - who put that poor substitute for Firth in place? No, no no. Firth is the definitive Darcy - and he had the correct proud and haughty (but very attractive)look. Unrepeatable. This guy is nowhere near close in the proud or attractive class.
If you havent watched the BBC drama, you will enjoy - if you have, you may well be disappointed, I was. The big bonus for me was that we could actually watch this film, after a run of such bad discs, we are no longer subscribing. -
News and features
View all -
More like this
View allShowing 1 to 4 of 20
Related user collection
Some of the best Period Dramas around! (24)
96.6% from 3 members
Buy from the LOVEFiLM shop
-
-
-
Pride and Prejudice
This version of Jane Austen's fiercely beloved novel has the daunting task of living up not only to the classic book, but also to the excellent 1995 miniseries of the same name. Yet 2005's Pride & Prejudice is up to the task, thanks to lively pacing, a witty script, an excellent cast, and clever ...
-