IMDb-BEWERTUNG
6,1/10
1457
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Ben Bennet ist ein wohlhabender, aber scheinbar arroganter AnwaltBen Bennet ist ein wohlhabender, aber scheinbar arroganter AnwaltBen Bennet ist ein wohlhabender, aber scheinbar arroganter Anwalt
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
Empfohlene Bewertungen
In case you were wondering how the title related to Pride and Prejudice, "Before the fall" is from Proverbs in the Bible. That should have been obvious to me, but I had to look it up. I knew the proverb, and I knew Pride and Prejudice, but I didn't make the connection.
That's because this reinterpretation has turned Jane Austen's characters upside down. D'Arcy and Bingley are poor, not rich, and (characters equivalent to) the Bennett sisters are concerned about marrying beneath their status rather than above.
That's clever, and one of the few reinterpretations of Pride & Prejudice that's not a poor imitation, it's completely different. Pride & Prejudice is a social satire, and a comedy of manners. This film, on the other hand, isn't funny. There is a little comic relief, but it's feeble and the film would have been better without it.
By no means is the dialog scintillating, and some plot devices are pretty weak (though probably no less contrived than Austen's). I personally was annoyed by the maudlin piano soundtrack in scenes where it was not only unnecessary, it was distracting.
There are additional flaws that one could complain about, but overall I found myself able to overlook them. There is a lot to admire here, and it easily drew me in. I'd say give it a chance, especially if you are a fan of Jane Austen.
That's because this reinterpretation has turned Jane Austen's characters upside down. D'Arcy and Bingley are poor, not rich, and (characters equivalent to) the Bennett sisters are concerned about marrying beneath their status rather than above.
That's clever, and one of the few reinterpretations of Pride & Prejudice that's not a poor imitation, it's completely different. Pride & Prejudice is a social satire, and a comedy of manners. This film, on the other hand, isn't funny. There is a little comic relief, but it's feeble and the film would have been better without it.
By no means is the dialog scintillating, and some plot devices are pretty weak (though probably no less contrived than Austen's). I personally was annoyed by the maudlin piano soundtrack in scenes where it was not only unnecessary, it was distracting.
There are additional flaws that one could complain about, but overall I found myself able to overlook them. There is a lot to admire here, and it easily drew me in. I'd say give it a chance, especially if you are a fan of Jane Austen.
Before the Fall is bad in every way. Terrible screenplay, terrible direction, terrible acting. Even the potentially beautiful Appalachian Mountains setting (which state it's supposed to be is debatable, but the mountains are not) is ruined by the overwhelming STUPIDITY of everything else. I mean, what lawyer conducts a confidential interview, discussing a third person in a way that would qualify as slander anywhere on earth, in the public hallway of his office, directly in front of the waiting room door, for anybody who may be waiting there to hear?
The whole movie is like that: stupid people saying and doing unvaryingly stupid things in the most unrealistic, unbelievable way possible. And there's an extremely annoying, cloying synthesizer-piano muzak soundtrack, the same dull, soporific notes played over and over, oozing its sappy way through every scene, constantly underlining the unrelenting stupidity of everything we see and hear.
I HATE this movie! The guy who plays Lee is gorgeous -- and I mean breathtaking -- but, just like the mountains, his beauty is buried in the mudslide of stupidity that swallows everything in its path.
Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's best work by far, one of the finest and most deeply satisfying novels ever written. It's so good that it has survived many bad adaptations, including this one. But writer-director Byrum Geisler (whoever he is) really shouldn't have told anybody what he was trying to do, because his failure is so monumental that he SHOULD be too embarrassed now to show his face anywhere. There is no HINT of Pride and Prejudice, or any of its marvelous characters, STILL alive 200 years after she created them -- not the tiniest spark of Austen's genius -- anywhere in this stupid movie.
The whole movie is like that: stupid people saying and doing unvaryingly stupid things in the most unrealistic, unbelievable way possible. And there's an extremely annoying, cloying synthesizer-piano muzak soundtrack, the same dull, soporific notes played over and over, oozing its sappy way through every scene, constantly underlining the unrelenting stupidity of everything we see and hear.
I HATE this movie! The guy who plays Lee is gorgeous -- and I mean breathtaking -- but, just like the mountains, his beauty is buried in the mudslide of stupidity that swallows everything in its path.
Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's best work by far, one of the finest and most deeply satisfying novels ever written. It's so good that it has survived many bad adaptations, including this one. But writer-director Byrum Geisler (whoever he is) really shouldn't have told anybody what he was trying to do, because his failure is so monumental that he SHOULD be too embarrassed now to show his face anywhere. There is no HINT of Pride and Prejudice, or any of its marvelous characters, STILL alive 200 years after she created them -- not the tiniest spark of Austen's genius -- anywhere in this stupid movie.
It helps to have read Pride and Prejudice, but that isn't necessary. The film stands on its own.
Where it stands fairly well is in its direction and editing. The film is crisp and goes where it needs to without a lot of fuss. Cinematography shows off the scenery quite well.
Where it fails is twofold: one, the script -- and, thus, characterizations -- and, two, the chemistry between the leads. The film indulges in embarrassing cliches, such as the two gay best friends who are ostensibly meant to be taken ironically, I suppose; but they come off as a couple of losers. Cringeworthy, even. The women don't fare very well, especially Darcy's girlfriend. Their acting is fine; it's just that the women -- and some of the men -- appear to be in a different movie. The girlfriend is a homophobic shrew....which gives rise to a related problem, that of open homophobia clearly expressed. While it's certainly understandable that these attitudes exist, why this film, ostensibly about a slow-brewing romance, indulges homophobia to the extent it does is problematic. We've all heard these things before; and rather than make us dislike more the characters who are homophobic, you are aghast that the script is so in-your-face about this. Less of this would have been better.
The two leads are fine; yet in so far as they are physically quite different so too is there zero chemistry. Bennett is all sincerity and feelings while Darcy is all brooding and impenetrable. They are oil and water and it just does not work. The ending -- and this is a sort of spoiler but not really, as the ending is clearly what you think it will be, especially if you know the novel -- where they kiss has to be the most unromantic moment I've ever witnessed in a film.
Huge plot hole: a neighbour believes she sees Darcy hit his girlfriend -- he doesn't -- and hears him threaten to harm her. No one challenges this, not even the police officer, by saying "Where were you when you heard the threat?" She was in her own house next door and all the windows were closed; even if she had been outside she couldn't have heard a thing. This is just sloppy.
One final point: the music / soundtrack. It's like you're in a shopping mall. I get that scoring a film costs money. But the producer could have avoided this simply by using less music but of better quality.
Where it stands fairly well is in its direction and editing. The film is crisp and goes where it needs to without a lot of fuss. Cinematography shows off the scenery quite well.
Where it fails is twofold: one, the script -- and, thus, characterizations -- and, two, the chemistry between the leads. The film indulges in embarrassing cliches, such as the two gay best friends who are ostensibly meant to be taken ironically, I suppose; but they come off as a couple of losers. Cringeworthy, even. The women don't fare very well, especially Darcy's girlfriend. Their acting is fine; it's just that the women -- and some of the men -- appear to be in a different movie. The girlfriend is a homophobic shrew....which gives rise to a related problem, that of open homophobia clearly expressed. While it's certainly understandable that these attitudes exist, why this film, ostensibly about a slow-brewing romance, indulges homophobia to the extent it does is problematic. We've all heard these things before; and rather than make us dislike more the characters who are homophobic, you are aghast that the script is so in-your-face about this. Less of this would have been better.
The two leads are fine; yet in so far as they are physically quite different so too is there zero chemistry. Bennett is all sincerity and feelings while Darcy is all brooding and impenetrable. They are oil and water and it just does not work. The ending -- and this is a sort of spoiler but not really, as the ending is clearly what you think it will be, especially if you know the novel -- where they kiss has to be the most unromantic moment I've ever witnessed in a film.
Huge plot hole: a neighbour believes she sees Darcy hit his girlfriend -- he doesn't -- and hears him threaten to harm her. No one challenges this, not even the police officer, by saying "Where were you when you heard the threat?" She was in her own house next door and all the windows were closed; even if she had been outside she couldn't have heard a thing. This is just sloppy.
One final point: the music / soundtrack. It's like you're in a shopping mall. I get that scoring a film costs money. But the producer could have avoided this simply by using less music but of better quality.
Honestly, mediocre gay themed films are a dime a dozen. So I had low expectations for this small indie. But, surprise of surprises, I was pulled into this film and invested in the characters. First of all its quite beautifully shot with gorgeous locations capturing the charm of small town Virginia. The two main actors are nicely portrayed with refreshing subtlety and actually have good chemistry. I've never seen Chase Connor before but he has a natural charisma. The side characters are also enjoyable especially the two gay friends. Unfortunately, the writing of the homophobic girlfriend is much too broad and stereotyped. Overall, a nice diverting gay film. I barely noticed the Pride and Prejudice references.
Solid with a somber, low-key tone. It begins slowly, but draws you in due to the fine performances and lush photography. Very good, and definitely worth a look.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesJane Austen's novel of manners 'Pride and Prejudice' was only published in 1813, even though it was originally titled 'First Impressions' and was written between October 1796 and August 1797.
- Zitate
Jane Gardiner: I hope I'm not defined by the worst thing that I've ever done.
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Before the Fall?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizielle Standorte
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Пре јесени
- Drehorte
- Grayson Highlands State Park, Virginia, USA(hiking scenes, listed in end credits 'filmed on location in')
- Produktionsfirma
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 32 Minuten
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.35 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen