-
I have not seen the 1940 version featuring Olivier but I have seen both the BBC and 2005 version. The BBC version was an, in my opinion, more truthful representation of the novel, more like I had imagined it would be. Besides these three versions there is one that I have really enjoyed as well. In 2008 itv made a really fun adaption of the novel which loosely follows the story as written by Austen but it has a fun modern twist to it when a girl obsessed with Austen gets to explore the world she's been reading and dreaming about for so long. Although it's not a very accurate depiction of the novel it was not meant to be one, and for what it is it was really worth watching.
-
Just so!
Joe Wright is just trying too much.
We all love Colin!!
-
I found the film adaptation to be lacking in so many ways. The quality of the acting in the BBC version was outstanding, from the amazing Amanda Steadman as Mrs Bennett, to David Bamber as the odious Mr Collins and Colin Firth as the surly Darcy. I make a point of watching the BBC series at least once a year, this is one DVD set I will never be parted from. Absolute brilliance !!!!! Kiera Knightly will never be Elizabeth Bennett !!!
-
Are we actually talking here about Pride and Prejudice characters, or how gorgeous certain male/female actors are? For me the BBC series was far better than the film which couldn't possibly do full justice to the book in two hours plus. Knightley and McFadyen were indeed very good, but the omisson of key characters and the plot/dialogue changes didn't help my view of it competing with the BBC version in which Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle were superb. I have seen both versions a dozen times (owning the CD's) and read the book even more times. BBC wins hands down for me due to its adherance to the book. There's also, I believe, another newer version of the film in the pipeline.
Just a view as a new poster.
-
OK, sort of torn between the two because I actually sort of blame Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice adaptation for turning me into an Austen fangirl! The quality of the film's score, that amazing cinematography (just look at the opening shot, och), and some damn emotive scenes just hit me right in the teenage feels. And then just after I saw it PBS decided to do a Masterpiece Theatre special with a whole lineup of brand new adaptations of nearly all of Jane Austen's novels. My best friend and I have never looked back since.
But anyway I digress. Now being slightly older and more read-up on Austen, I find the 2005 adaptation really doesn't seem to have the core of the novel at heart. It's still really really good at what it does, which is loosen your eyes, ears, and soul up like you're at the spa, but it won't nearly be the same experience as reading the novel or watching the 1995 adaptation of it, which is hardly as polished but is much more about the society and personal values various people would have had in the drawing rooms of Regency-era Britain.
My vote's with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth (hell yeah)! (Still love you though, Mr. McFadyen, Ms. Knightley!)
-
Hi,
I just joined the forum and have a question about the 2005 maybe someone here can answer. In the scene where Elizabeth first comes to Pemberly with her Aunt and Uncle she is shown grinning and smiling and a moment later with her Aunt and Uncle looking astonished. Was this a cut scene with something else intended or done on purpose? The entire scene struck me as unnecessary and failed to do anything to add to the movie or move the plot forward. If anyone can help me understand it better, I'd appreciate the assistance.