Natal em Pemberley Manor

Which makes sense as their was not a line of believable dialogue. I mean, it's a Hallmark Christmas movie - it's got it's own genre almost. This was more boring & formulaic than most. Can there ever be one of these WITHOUT a holiday festival/fair/ball? It's been done to death. Hallmark writers, gotta change things up!

Oh dear, Jessica Lowndes, never heard of her or seen her before, but her acting skills are clearly overshadowed by obvious 'work' she's had done to her face, which is hard to look away from. Does anyone really have such feline eyes naturally ? and why do Hallmark make their lead actresses wear such awful long curl extensions ? they're a bit last season here in the UK.

Cant complain about Michael Rady, an understated actor if ever there was one. The storyline was ok, but I think its the second one with the D'Arcy /Bennet theme - the last one involved dog shows I believe.

As far as Hallmark Christmas movies go, this was one of the worst ones I've seen yet from them. (A Princess for Christmas 2011 still takes the prize.) This movie had so much hype, being the first of the new "Countdown to Christmas" season. As someone raised on the 1995 Pride & Prejudice (Colin Firth, Jennifer Ehle), drooling over the grounds of Pemberley and the Pemberley mansion, when the camera showed this new "Pemberley Manor" it was as if someone tricked me with a poop flavored jelly bean. I was expecting something yummy, but was left betrayed and disappointed. The discouraging mirage continued. This movie lacked any chemistry. I like Michael Rady, and Jessica Lowndes is still growing on me, but together, they were unconvincing and awkward. Michael Rady should have talked to Colin Firth about how to be "Mr. Darcy."

Overall, there was nothing Pride & Prejudice or Pemberley about this movie, it lacked chemistry, and was stupidly predictable.

I applaud Jessica Loundes for trying to step out of her type casting. Unfortunately this one didn't land well. I'd like to see her take her craft more seriously by getting a voice and diction coach to help her develop the power of tone and cadence. As another said, the valley girl voice was an issue. It tended to quickly pull me out of what could've been an endearing character. However, that was only one issue. Her character was a little too Mary Sue as well. She doesn't really grow as she doesn't see her hypocrisy and projection when she yells at Darcy for his behavior but plays the martyr when it comes to her own boss. More than once I sort of wondered if she wrote the script for herself. Just a vibe even if not true. Honestly I was a bit disappointed as Rick Garman usually writes very well. He's got a long list of films that I just adore. Perhaps what he wrote really was fine and her portrayal just didn't fit well?

She wasn't terrible but I think she could've done better and perhaps she was miscast without more work.

I like Michael Rady as usual. I think he did well in playing a quieter version of his roles, the careful and distant business man who is slowly drawn out of his seclusion. His portrayal of his growing attraction to Elizabeth helped make her a bit more likable. But that chemistry was still lacking between the two. He wasn't perfect but still more enjoyable and believable.

I'll admit it's all grown on me a bit but often I'll skip the less palatable parts upon rewatching.

I loved the supporting cast. The dialogue could've used a bit more work.

Not a total bomb. Good enough but I'll always wish for somethings to be different.

Christmas at Pemberley Manor is a shameless attempt to capitalize on the popularity of Jane-Austen based contemporary romances. Unlike Unleashing Mr. Darcy, however, the story and the characters have nothing to with Pride and Prejudice. Zip. All the writer did was tack on various names from P & P on to the main characters. Sometimes quite randomly. For example, Elizabeth's old boyfriend was named "George" and was a nice guy, the mayor of the town, and trying to win Elizabeth back. The doofus assistant to William Darcy, who wins the heart of "Jane" Elizabeth's last minute assistant, was named Travis. Why not "Charles?" It was insulting to the intelligence. If you can set that aside, however, this was not a bad Hallmark Christmas movie. At least I stayed awake. I am not usually a fan of Jessica Lowndes. Her looks are usually too jaw-droppingly glamorous for the rolls she has played. In this one, however, they were toned down somewhat, so she looked like a relatable woman. Her acting, as usual, was not the best, but at least she didn't stick out like a sore thumb. Also, I loved the actor who played the hero. He had a lot of charisma in this role. The young actress who played Jane had appeal and had a secondary romance of her own. The villain in the piece was "Elizabeth's" boss who was played by the same actress who did such a great job as the prospective evil stepmother in Linday Lohan's Parent Trap. Although the script and the director in this one did not make use of her comedy chops, it was nice to see her again.

Burning questions: Why would the board of directors of a world wide corporation want to demolish the CEO's beloved home? Surely it's but the teeniest fraction of an expense against the mega corporation's humongous assets? Why would a festival that has attracted press from all over the country and is a mainstay of the town's budget and beloved tradition, have only 20 people attend the climactic event? These questions will remain unanswered. The former is the fault of the writer the latter the fault of the director. Maybe my 6 stars is a bit too generous. Yep, down to 5. I just remembered the magic Santa Claus, the most tired Christmas cliche ever.