Orgueil et préjugés

before i start, i would like to say this. i can read, have read the book, and i read the title of the movie before watching, as should you all. quite disappointed in all the pompous idiots filled with prejudice about the movie.

I know that another version of the well-mined Jane Austen classic would need to be brilliant indeed. Such diverse and beautifully written characters and such a delightful plot, so deeply rooted in a profound understanding of human nature, are timelessly attractive to directors, actors and audiences alike. So give them a break. you couldn't do any better.

Lets start with Mr Darcy. Darcys embodied by Olivier, Firth and now Matthew McFadyen bring differently significance to enjoy in the proud and socially awkward leading male role. Where Olivier and Firth gave us an aloof, arrogant Darcy encased rigidly in a shell so impenetrable it was almost impossible to believe he had been moved by Lizzie's sardonic criticisms or attracted by her spirited independence, McFadyen shows a more accessible Darcy. He's vulnerable, even fragile behind his stiff manners. His aloofness is more believably from social inadequacy than arrogance, yet he is believably constrained by his social standing to regard decorum, fortune and propriety in a wife's family as significant in his choice of a bride. His capitulation to Lizzie is therefore more believable.

Similarly Garson, Ehle and Keira Knightley illustrate the lively intelligence, sharp-minded wit and wry humour of Elizabeth Bennet in equally shining ways that nevertheless bring out different aspects of the character. Keira Knightly's performance as Elizabeth Bennett is by far her best, as she sparkles in this role.

The two have a chemistry that i had yet to see on the big or small screen - one that mirrors real life romances. the dislike on both accounts is obvious, watching it grow to love was beautiful and stunning. the love story is heart-felt and sweetly, deeply affecting to a level that modern romantic comedies rarely achieve. I found this movie to be a a richly photographed, memorable ensemble production in which the romance is predominant over the drama but does not eclipse it. though my one disappointment - the ending?! of course i wanted to see them kiss, who didn't? but the shots of them arguing in the rain, and as they draw close with the sunlight shining between them was breathtaking.

Giving due significance to the rural environment which plays such an important part in the story, the cinematography captures wide frames of soft, misty fields, copses and winding country roads as an environment which underscores the gentle manners and passionately beating hearts beneath empire gowns and ruffled shirts. The surroundings both detract from the humans and function as appropriately natural settings for the dramas of human nature.

Keira Knightley's swan-like Elizabeth moves with energy and grace, hotly opinionated and profoundly moved by principles and prejudices, and magnetically drawn by the seeming arrogance, reticence and gallant behaviour, finally revealed, of Mr Darcy. For two centuries Elizabeth Bennet has been a heroine much admired for her self-contained independence within a culture more conditioned to female submissiveness. Knightley's portrayal is true to the original.

All in all, i must give this movie 5 stars, 10 out of 10, 100 % brilliance. The story itself, the characters, the actors, everything that was in the movie 'bewitched me body and soul'. i have never been more moved by a movie, especially not one where i found it to be as hilarious as it was moving.

Back in 1995, the definitive version of "Pride and Prejudice" was brought out--and everyone I know who saw that one agrees with me that it is simply the best. Much of it is the acting (having Colin Firth as Darcy isn't bad) but the biggest reason to adore the made for TV version is that it's long--very, very long. This allows the story to unfold slowly and is never rushed. Unfortunately, every movie version I've seen is just too rushed--and it's hard to shove this wonderful story into a two-hour time slot. So, no matter how good the 2005 movie is (and it's quite good), it cannot hope to equal the mini-series. It's a shame, actually, as there's so much to like about this Keira Knightly version. The music is great, the locations top-notch and the Bennett girls actually look their proper ages! For example, in the 1940 MGM version, the actual ages of the actresses was their mid-20s to almost 40! And, the Bennetts are supposed to be teenagers (there about)!

My advice is go ahead and watch this 2005 film--it's really very lovely. But then do yourself a favor--find the 1995 version. You'll be thankful, believe me.

The book by the wonderful Jane Austen is definitely better than the film, dealing with the consequences of love, and the social differences of the late 18th century. The film is certainly handsome looking, with some truly beautiful locations and costumes, with a nice script and some excellent performances from Keira Knightly as Lizzie and in particular Judi Dench as Lady Catherine. Donald Sutherland (yeah, you saw right) was quite charming as Mr Bennett if you put his awkward accent aside. I liked Matthew MacFadyen as Mr Darcy, with his handsome looks and all that, but I will say I do prefer Colin Firth's interpretation from the sublime 1995 mini-series, Firth seemed to adopt a more likable and sympathetic approach to the character. I liked the way the film dealt with the period look and the social differences, and while there was a lot of the pride I would have liked to have seen a little more of the prejudice. If anything, the film could have done with being twenty minutes longer, as I felt there wasn't quite enough content from the book. Then again, it's been a long time since I read it, so I could be wrong. Overall, a beautiful film, not quite as good as the 1995 film Sense and Sensibility with Kate Winslet and Emma Thompson, but worth watching for the detail that obviously took a lot of effort to get right. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox.

I'm amazed at how many people think of books as being encompassed by their stories. When that story appears in a film relatively unaltered, purists rejoice.

How silly. Stories are there as frames on which all the meaningful stuff is draped. Or so it would be after Jane Austen invented the novel. The way an idea appears has more effect than the idea itself, and so with images as well. Jane had two great inventions.

The first was in building two parallel narratives: one of individuals bumping into each other and the other of grander forces of life and society. The two interact at times (and much is made of these turning points) but usually the two are layered one on top of the other, shifting dominance as they go.

The other great invention was devising a narrative style that sometimes centered on the people and sometimes on their containing world, using the one to poke sly fun at the other.

So converting Austen to film is a challenge, indeed, but only if you want to capture Austen's magic. Past P&P projects have used the Merchant and Ivory approach which just takes the people alone. There is a context, but it is there only to provide lushness and decoration, not fate. Not what would become known as noir.

The challenge comes in how to handle the layers. We have already many ways of "folding" in films, but they mostly require structure in the story itself. How to introduce this notion of a second flowing layer without changing the story? Why you do it cinematically.

And that's what we have here. I don't know this director, but he is from TeeVee so obviously is inexperienced in these matters. I credit the producers for specifying the technique.

And we have it to glorious excess. Nearly every shot is structured with at least two layers, with things happening both in foreground and background. The opening scene introduces this to us, a wonderful sequence worthy of Welles, as we follow our girl down the road over a bridge behind laundry to the house. Then we leave her and enter the house and noodle around a bit, always still with layers, then wander to a window where we see her passing by behind the house.

Any movie only has a few moments to introduce itself and tell you how the visual world will be constructed and this does it well. This layering is kept up throughout, with a tour de force in the ball, where a seemingly seamless eye goes all over the building, capturing glances at people we know and those we don't.

It isn't that they do it and it is so effective. It is that it goes on so long, layers shifting and receding to be replaced by others in the scores. It is magnificent. The film is worth it for that one scene alone.

Oh, the actors are appealing, as we expect. The story is simplified and softened, also as we expect. The father is made less culpable, minor characters are dropped. The visit to the great house adds a sensuality the book lacked. Incidentally, that house is the same one used in "Draughtsman's Contract" which was specifically about this layering technique.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

I really hated this - it is OK to modify scenes from the book, but to change the spirit of it completely is too much. And to change Jane Austen's witty dialogue for some of the dross, especially early on in the piece was definitely not an improvement.

This loud, grubby group were not my idea of the Bennetts or their friends. The Bennetts may have been poor and may well have lived in a shabby house, but they had more class than this lot.

As for the proposition that Darcy's aloofness was because he shy and not confident, he just seemed pathetic to me and Darcy should certainly not be pathetic.

Except for the scene where he gave a lovely smile - Mathew MacFadyen wore the same expression pretty much throughout, (which was not surprising as this Darcy was such a boring character), and Kiera Knightly just seemed much to flighty for Lizzy, she seemed more like Lydia.

To me - it is the Benny Hill version of P&P - no subtlety, little wit, almost just slapstick.

Thank God for the BBC.