Pride & Prejudice Review (1 Viewer)

[Chad R]

I've read the book. Admittedly, it was in college, and I'm a guy, so it hasn't enveloped my soul like it has a great many young ladies over history (my wife included).

The movie is not the book. It leaves out a lot (quite a bit in fact) and changes its fair share as well.

However, the movie captures the spirit of the book, and the characters, very well. This, to me, is the most you can hope for from an adaptation. It is impossible to get everything up on screen that was in a book. Besides time restraints, you still lose much of the humor in Austen's writing. Sure, you could repeat the dialogue verbatim, but you'd lose the rest.

I'm happy with this adaptation. It's fun and romantic, exactly what the book was. To expect slavish faithfulness is fruitless. This is an interpretation of the story by modern filmmakers, not a reenactment of the book.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Caveat: I've never read Pride & Prejudice or any other Jane Austen book and I've never seen the earlier movie(s) or mini-series based on this story.

The movie is a delight. I enjoyed every minute of it and was completely wowed by a couple of virtuoso moving-making instances. Well acted throughout and it obviously well written since my wife and I followed the many intersecting story lines and characters easily without being familiar with the book. Some of the locations were breathtaking while the costuming, set design and particular sound editing did complete justice to the material. We're eager to see it again whenever the DVD is published.

 

[TheLongshot]

Spoke to my wife's best friend over the weekend and talked about her problems with the film. The biggest for her is the cutting down of the subplot of Wickham and Lydia. Apparently in the book there is a lot more between them, instead of Lydia just going away and all of a suddend falling in with Wickham. I think it is supposed to act as a counterpoint to Lizzie's relationship with Darcy. (Also, Lizzie is suposed to have some romantic intrest in Wickham as well.) Personally, I didn't really think it was needed, since we get plenty of counterpoint with the Jane/Bingley relationship.

She also thought Caroline was being played way too much like a vamp, rather than trying to impress Darcy with her class and abilities. Personally, I don't see it. Maybe it was a costuming issue.

She also didn't like the fact that they changed the conversation Lizzie has with her father at the end, telling him what Darcy did, and the convincing her father of her love for Darcy. Most of that wasn't in the book, and her father takes her word that she does love him. Since I haven't read the book, I don't know if it is better or worse.

Interesting to see the difference of opinions between her and my wife. While my wife wasn't impressed wtih MacFayden and Sutherland, but really liked Dench and Blethyn, her friend was the opposite. She really felt that Blethyn was playing Ms. Bennett way over the top, and she felt that a lot of the power of the Lady Catherine was taken out of the movie by the script, which really weakened Dench.

Course, this is from fans of the book. I really think this film wasn't made for those people, where a 4 hour adaptation would really be the only way to satisfy those who want all the dialog. I think it succeeds in what a good film adapation should do: encourage one to read the book.

Jason

 

[ThomasC]

I saw Pride & Prejudice for the first time today. I haven't read the book or seen any of the previous adaptations. It's the best movie that I've seen all year. I plan to see it at least once more in the theater. A pure delight.

:star: :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[JohnRice]

I thought I'd resurrect this thread since I just watched Pride & Prejudice for the second time. I am a huge fan of literary adaptations and I have to say this is possibly the best I have ever seen. For those who have been harsh about it departing from the novel, the simple fact is, if you want the full novel, read it. Movies can never truly capture every single nuance, and even if they tried, the truly rabid fans would still be unhappy since so much of a novel is personal perception and movies have to take their own perceptions, which will invariably be different from those of individual readers. So, if those perceptions are presented the same as what an individual reader had, they will proclaim it successful, while those with different perceptions will proclaim it a failure.

This is one of the best ensemble performances of recent years and succeeds in capturing the essence of the novel in so many ways, which is all a movie can be expected to do. Yes, the final scene is probably a bit melodramatic, but hey, it's hardly terminal.

I found this to be one of the best films of the year, possibly the best. so much is done right. I recommend everyone at least give it a try.

 

[ThomasC]

Definitely. I went into it the first time just wanting to see a good movie, but I was blown away. It's one of my top 3 favorite movies.

 

[danton_]

i appreciate that movie too....

 

[Seth Paxton]

I just finally saw this on DVD the other day, and I think it makes a good point about why remakes and new adaptations continue to be made. If done well they can be great, which is pretty much the same for original material as well. It's just that with original material the filmmakers can hide behind the fact that maybe it was the script/story/treatment.

In fact if a film NEEDS to be hold surprises over you in order to be interesting to watch, then it probably is less good and more gimmick and won't stand the test of time. All remakes/re-adaptations do is put the filmmakers more on the spot to prove their value if the material has already been done well before.


I put it at 8.5 of 10 and consider it strong, but perhaps a bit skimpy on some parts (but by a consistant style choice IMO). The flaw already mentioned about the way Blethyn played Mrs. Bennet too broadly is one that I agree with.

As for Pike vs Knightly, I think it was very good casting as you must have a lead that can be the shining star, yet the story requires someone that can match her. Knightly is beautiful, and in this film her smile really goes a long way, but at the same time Pike is still mighty fine and perhaps has a less tomboy, more mature beauty to her character design.

And come on, Die Another Day. Pike. Oh mama!

This is going from rental into purchase.

 

[JohnRice]

I think the complaints about Knightley being too attractive and Pike not being attractive enough are a great example of how much we are consumed with appearances. For one thing, as Seth points out, the lead needs to be able to carry the movie. For another thing, when is the movie set? I believe it is early 19th century, or 200 years ago. Jane is sweet, quiet and obedient. Elizabeth is strong headed, vocal and opinionated. This is in a time when women weren't allowed to make money or have any sort of occupation. Plus, Jane, is the more "conventional" beauty and anyone who doesn't think Rosamund Pike is gorgeous, needs to look again. They were both kind of dressed down, because they weren't the most wealthy people.

 

[JohnRice]

BTW Seth. When you get the DVD and watch it again. make sure to pay particularly close attention to a shot during a party which starts just after 42:00. I think you'll appreciate what they did. Incredibly complex shot.

 

[ThomasC]

I'm not Seth, but yes, it's an incredible take.

 

[TheLongshot]

I think the thing with Lizzie and Jane can be simply explained by the fact that the standards of beauty have changed since Austen's time. Back then, Jane probably would have been the better catch, while now, we have caught up as a society with Austen's viewpoint. My wife had the same problem with the miniseries until she realized this.


That was when I was really became impressed by the director (or the DP). It serves to squeeze a bunch of plot in just a few minutes, and does a damn good job of it. I saw the same section in the miniseries, and it basically passes on the same information, but the miniseries scene is quite longer.

Jason

 

[JohnRice]

There is another scene late in the film with the camera outside the Bennett house and moving from window to window as various converstaions are going on. The cinematography in this movie is definitely stunning, but it has substance as well and uses creative ideas to tell the story.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I can't picture the 42' moment just now, but if you are talking about a long take shot, how about the opening of the film. I had to stop and go back to look for the cuts.

The direction was a bit more "upbeat" than an Austin/English costume drama typically warrants, including the now cliche "jumpy zoom" that Bruck/Bay first brought us but which also has shown up in Attack of the Clones and other places. It was not in your face here, but definitely used to go for a livlier "you are there" placement.

It was risky and could have gone too far and come off as pressing for the youth market, but in the end the approach hit its pattern and stuck to it without pouring it on. They just simply went for different tones from the source material than other Austin adapatations have typically, though you can't get too far from the core romance of course.


Wait, as I reread the response from Jason I do recall thinking the same thing, about the deliberate and clever compression of information in that party scene, done mostly by slipping the camera and Knightley from room to room. At the time I even recalled the 1940 version spending a lot more screen time on this party to cover all the aspects. That's the scene where Mr. Collins is a step behind her throughout the party, right?


Even McGrath's Emma lingers longer on a similar party scene. It's not better or worse, just different. The key is that it effectively fits his whole approach and doesn't sacrifice the tone he has chosen or the content that should be told.

 

[Tim Glover]

The past couple of months I have FINALLY caught up seeing some of the great films from 2005 that I missed in theaters. Recently saw The New World and regret not seeing that one on the big screen

...The Weather Man is another one, saw this one-Pride & Prejudice a few weeks ago and LOVED it. Sorry for the delay in this review. Wanted to give it another viewing so thanks to Blockbuster online...it arrived yesterday.

What had already landed in my 2005 top 10 now is firmly planted there and even perhaps rising.... It's late so I'll be brief as I can. The performances are rich, the direction is tight, and the cinematography and score are just downright beautiful. Stunning.

The story is a familiar one to those who've read Jane Austen's books etc...and this film does it justice as any film really could. I was moved from beginning to end. As some have stated, Mrs. Bennett needed some valium...but other than that a truly wonderfully acted and directed film.


I think Pride & Prejudice will appeal to many people who think at first they might not be interested. It's a meaningful film that is accessible to the viewer. You care for the characters.

This one I must own...and the soundtrack.

10/10

 

[Holadem]

Would anyone be kind enough to break down for me the extreme tragedy in Lydia's elopement? I thought I had a reasonnable understanding of the culture of the time, but this one sorta went over my head: They were acting as if her indiscretion was sure to bring ruin to the entire family?

With the Illusionist on Friday, then this, I've had a terrific weekend with period pieces.

--
H

 

[Josh.C]

I saw this film a few weeks ago, and thought it was incredibly well done. What can I say about Keira Knightley. Beautiful woman, and a sensational actress. She strikes me as a modern day Audrey Hepburn. I loved the way she played her part in this film, and brought a lot of attitude to the role.

Well done, and great movie all around.

9 1/2 of 10

JC

 

[Tim Glover]

H,
I rationalized this as this was somewhat disgraceful since her partner was not considered to be a good match and the bigger deal was the partner's lack of coming to the father beforehand.? Need to see it again though.

Sounds like you had a good movie watching weekend.

Glad you enjoyed this Josh.

 

[Gabriel>P]

Let me start by saying that I didn't expect much from this film. My love for Keira is why I saw it in the first place. It instantly became my favorite film of all time, and I saw it 9 times in theaters. The script was tight and well written, the acting was superb, and the camera work was shockingly elegant.

As to the Lydia question. There are many problems with the situation. One being the fact that she ran away from home with a man. At the time it was seen as inappropriate for women to even be alone with a man in a room, much less run off with him. The automatic assumption is that she already been compromised of her virtues. Secondly Wickham seemed to in debt up to his eyeballs, and many knew of this. Thus she ran away from a dishonest chronic gambler. Who was running away from his debts.

Finally it is a black mark on the entire family. It is a sign of dishonor for the father, a it gives the idea that he could not competently raise his daughters to become "proper" women. Thus the daughters are basically become outcast. No one would dare marry one of them, because the stigma would spread to their family. This is why when Darcy says to Lizzie “You must realize it was all for you.” It was his way of correcting his error in the situation between Charles and Jane (By giving them a way to be married), which he believed would allow for Elizabeth’s happiness.

If you want a better grasp of the situation you should check out Scorsese's underrated classic "The Age of Innocence". The film is sent about 70 years later and in the US, but it conveys what even the slightest sign of impropriety could possibly do to one's reputation.

 

[Holadem]

Gabriel, thank you. After thinking about it some more, I did realize I had underestimated the consequences of her actions in that setting. Yet some stuff is unclear:

How exactly did Mr Darcy help? He clearly lent the whole affair the legitimacy it lacked, and I understand money was involved. But the family appears to have learnt of his help after the fact, and this suggests they were not involved in the wedding at all? So how could the union be socially palatable if the family was clearly not involved?

--
H