Pride & Prejudice
by Admin on Dec.17, 2009, under Latest Celebrity Gossip
Description
One of the greatest love stories of all time, Pride & Prejudice, comes to the screen in a glorious new adaptation starring Keira Knightley. When Elizabeth Bennett (Knightley) meets the handsome Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen), she believes he is the last man on earth she could ever marry. But as their lives become intertwined in an unexpected adventure, she finds herself captivated by the very person she swore to loathe for all eternity. Based on the beloved masterpiece by Ja… More >>
December 17th, 2009 on 8:59 pm
It’s probably impossible to rate this version without comparing it to the 1995 BBC version, which is longer(you get to know the characters), better casted(way better) and more fun.
This version is so short that when you are used to the BBC version it just feels rushed and characters and balls have been completely cut out. Lydia is back home almost before she has run away (or so it feels).
The casting is not very good. The only one who matches the 1995 version is Mr. Collins. He is really good (although not as fun) in this one. He is very annoying which is his job
Many of the lines are delivered in a very flat manor. For example “Are the shades of Pemberly….blah blah”. She does not sound REALLY disqusted by the very thought. It’s like the line is just read without any feeling behind it.
Miss Caroline Bingley is noway as sophisticated and superior as when portrayed by Anna Chancellor. Mr. Bingley is almost too goofy but I have not read the novel, so I don’t know if he is supposed to be so goofy. But I don’t see why the serious and shy Jane would fall for that silly person.
Another thing is the music by Carl Davis which I really missed. In the 1995 version every important character had it’s own tune which underlined the character and really helped with the flow of the movie(well episodes).
This new version is not wholly bad (hehe). Actually compared to many of the other BBC series like Middlemarch, Wives and daughters it is good. But compared to a masterpiece it fails utterly and completely.
2 stars!
Rating: 2 / 5
December 17th, 2009 on 10:07 pm
I did not get into this movie at all. I say read the book instead. Some of the art was good and there was some eye contacts in the movie that made some scenes rather sexy, but other than that, the movie did not do much for me. I had a hard time sitting through it.
Rating: 2 / 5
December 18th, 2009 on 12:05 am
Nothing like the book, or the A&E miniseries, didn’t like it. Kiera Knightley did a bad job.
Rating: 3 / 5
December 18th, 2009 on 2:53 am
If you rent this movie for the car chases, you will be very disappointed…there are none.
Besides that point, there were several things I didn’t like. For one, the special effects were terrible. The CG teacups looked COMPLETELY fake. Also, I couldn’t understand a word that was said, as it was all spoken very quickly, in whispers and in heavy accents. The dance numbers were terribly choreographed, and frankly unimpressive. They looked nothing like the dancing in “Step Up”
The only thing I liked was Darcy. The actor who played him was marvelous, conveying all the emotions you could think of in both his voice, and his expression.
Another bad thing is the plot. It didn’t even make sense. It’s no wonder the author who wrote the book isn’t well known or anything…
Rating: 2 / 5
December 18th, 2009 on 4:51 am
I have both the BBC and the current edition of this movie. The current one, nominated for an award of an Oscar, is a travesty of Jane Austen’s beautiful novel. Where has the taste and judgement of the movie industry gone? I might suggest that Donald Sutherlin go find a sequel for MASH. Please go look at the earlier edition.
John Bowen, M.D.
Rating: 2 / 5