Pride and Prejudice details
|Formats:||U DVD, Blu-ray|
|Starring:||Brenda Blethyn, Keira Knightley, Matthew MacFadyen, Rosamund Pik, Judi Dench, Jena Malone, Rosamund Pike, Donald Sutherland, Claudie Blakley, Tom Hollander|
|Studio:||UNIVERSAL PICTURES UK|
Pride and Prejudice
|Run time:||2 hours 1 minute|
|Rental release:||06 Feb 2006|
|Subtitles:||Arabic, Bulgarian, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Hebrew, Icelandic, Norwegian, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovenian, Swedish, Turkish|
|Hearing impaired subtitles:||English|
Most helpful review
Not remotely true to Austen, just Bridget Jones in silly dresses.By a customer from Scotland , 14 Nov 2005
[Highly rated reviewer]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.
- Was this review helpful to you?
- (131) Yes |
- No (45)
BBC is better.By Charbird (5 reviews) from London , 28 Dec 2009Absolutely not a patch on the BBC's 1995 adaption.
This effort is greatly flawed by Keira Knightley, and the fact that Mr Darcy is not handsome enough. Whilst well acted, in my opinion the BBC version is better cast.
And where is the wedding at the end?!
Mildly emotive - but I would say that if you want a true translation of the book, watch the BBC version.
This is not Jane AustenBy giliair (3 reviews) from St. Andrews , 23 Nov 2009The early credits are misleading. Beyond the title and the barest outline of the story this has nothing to do with the Jane Austen book.
Apart for the story there are 2 other essential compents of a Jane Austen novel - the characters, and the dialogue through which the characters are developed. These 2 latter qualities are quite missing or so distorted in this film as to be a mockery of the original. Lizzy Bennett is not a giggling little girl but rather a clever and witty and resourceful young woman. Mr Darcy is not the sulky dithering spectre as portrayed, but rather a proud young man of fashion with presence. Mr Bennett is not a rough farmer chasing his pig around the house, but a literate and refined gentleman( even if an irresponsible one) who spends his time at his books in his library. Mrs Bennett is a stupid and nervous and irrational woman,not the rational woman of the film. The loving relationship between Mr and Mrs Bennett is totally at odds with the characters of the book. Charles Bingley is not the gormless idiot as portrayed in the film.
The selection of the cast was not helpful. Donald Sutherland and Matthew MacFadyan were quite wrong, and Kiera Knightley only hit Lizzie's character in very occasional short episodes. I suppose that the leads were chosen with the box office in mind but they might have got a better film if they had chosen actors who fitted the characters from the book rather than adapting the story to the limitations of the actors
Other major characters are so diminished that they cannot play the parts written by Jane Austen. Lydia and Wickham are bit parts and so much so that the fomer cannot be identified on screen with any degree of confidence. The elopement on which so much of the second half of the book depends is hardly mentioned. Noone would know that Jane was a paragon of tolerance and care as she hardly figures as an individual in the fiim.
When it comes to the screen play it is very erratic. The modern dialogue is interspersed with short cuts from Jane Austen. It just doesn't work. Why the directors thought that it was a good idea to have Darcy's first proposal at a Greek temple in the rain (trying to go back to Colin Firth in the BBC production, perhaps) rather than at the Parsonage, and why the interview between Lizzy and her father after Collins' proposal had to take place on the banks of a pond rather than in Mr Bennet's library, only they know. But it didn't work.
In conclusion I would reiterate that this film is nothing to do with the Jane Austen novel. If you know the book or have seen the BBC serial I would advise you to give this one a miss. If you haven't and are a devotee to costume pulp fiction you might find something here to amuse.
I award half a star for the music.
pride and prejudiceBy goofyfan (22 reviews) from Northampton , 04 Jun 2009Why did they make this one????
It was not a patch on the Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. waste of time
good filmBy a customer from england , 06 May 2009Loved it, very well acted by all.
Pride and Prejudice, she would turn in her grave!By chamfrom (4 reviews) from Stone , 27 Apr 2009It is difficult to find anything good about this weak adaptation of a fabulous book. I understand that the dialogue must be cut down to be accomodated into a 'short' film, but surely the best thing about Austin is the dialogue. The acting is just nothing short of poor on behalf of Knightley who was clearly, in parts, attempting to copy the fantastic BBC TV adaptation from several years ago. Infact I would go as far as saying that I found Knightleys attempt as thoroughly irritating!
The dialogue was cut back far too much and, infact, in areas showed no continuity to the rest of the film leaving you with the 'how did we get here...?' feeling.
If you are a lover of Austin you will be appauled at best, if you have never read or seen the BBC's fantastic and perfect production it may be nice but dont be misslead into thinking its 'all that'. I have to admit that this production left me livid at how dear Miss Austins writing had been butchered. How dare they!!!