Pride and Prejudice...

[Aurora Ariel]

I happened to go and watch the new adaptation last weekend.
I was just wondering if anyone else has seen the new film version?What did you think of it?Have you compared it to the book since?Your thoughts...

[jakobin]

i watched it recently as well and i thought it was great.

the character adaptation was awesome i think and the casting was great. mr bingley was the best cast character in the movie, and gave a freshness to the role that no one has done before.

mr bennett was also very well cast and you could easily warm towards him in his decisions about his daughters. he was loveable and at the same time, you could see him as a strict father figure in the girls lives.

i thought the movie was great, and would happily watch it again.

any other opinions??

[Rosalind]

I enjoyed the movie a lot--it was fun, romantic, and entertaining. I was skeptical, at first--I like Keira Knightley, I really do. She's vivacious and charismatic and obviously loves acting. But somehow, I just couldn't see her as Lizzy. Having seen the movie, I still don't think she's a perfect fit, but I honestly can't think of any current stars who could have done it better.

I agree with Jakobin on Mr. Bingley. He's a great character, and I'm so glad they gave him the play he deserves. The casting was inspired--that scene where little Bingley approaches Mr. Darcy was great. On the other hand, I wasn't crazy about Mr. Bennet. There wasn't anything wrong with him, but he seemed to lack the full character. He was just a father figure, and not much else. And he wasn't very funny.

Other things: the scenery and cinematography were beautiful. I thought they did well with the characterization of all the sisters, even the insufferable ones. Macfayden (am I getting his name right) was good, in a brooding sort of way. And very handsome, too. ;)

[RobinHood3000]

Haven't seen the new one, but enjoyed the Kam Heskin/Orlando Seale indie version.

[Mortis Anarchy]

Oh jeez, I loved it. The one with Colin Firth was excellent as well. Matthew Macfayden did an amazing job. Its kind of funny but there is a scene when...I forget who she was, the aunt I think, but she said something about the way his lips moved when he talked and I was thinking the same thing. Yes I know this was a run on sent. Beautiful movie.

[Maty]

I am reading the book, then viewing the BBC series, then the new movie. Excuse me, RobinHood3000, what is the 'indie version?' Are there other films or mini-series I am not aware of?

[RobinHood3000]

Apparently. Here's the link. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0366920/combined)

[Maty]

Thank you kind sir!

[RobinHood3000]

You're welcome, California woman!

[kingooo]

i haven't seen the new version of pride and prejudice ...but i'm looking up to watch it
i just heard that it is great movie in its the best of all other versions of pride and prejudice

[Kiwi Shelf]

I am glad that everyone liked this movie. I had hoped to see it but no one I know had ever had the interest and although I will see movies on my own, never had the actual time for this one. Have to rent it.

[toleo]

039_1071~Arnold-Schwarzenegger.jpg hi.I, NEW, GUEST,
I WANT TO MEET WITH YOU I AM INEXPERIENCED HERE

[Vedrana]

Well, to be honest, I wasn't sure I liked this version as much as the bbc. In it's defence, I will say that I think that the cinematography, set design and music were all well done, and the characters were all well played. What I wasn't sure about was the way that certain parts from the book were altered, like the first propsal at Rosings, the letter, the visit to Pemberley, and the final proposal. It seemed to me that the film could do without the changes to be honest. The character of Mr Collins was not as funny as I would have liked, he was much darker, and as a result ended up rather creepy.

Hmmm...as for costuming, well, I was actually pretty appalled. Miss Bingley's ball gown for example seems rather unlikely. I can understand, however, the idea of making the women's dresses in the country less fashionable and more outdated to make them seem more provincial, that was pretty well thought out.

Why do you think, did they throw out Mr and Mrs Hurst? I suppose they were not overly important to the story, but I really think there is some comic merit to their characters.

There wasn't a great deal done with Wickham, which was a shame because he is so important, and his character develops quite a lot in the first half. The point is to contrast Darcy and Wickham, but you can't really compare when you see almost nothing of him in the course of the film.

But it was nice to see actors that were the same ages as the characters they play, that was a relief. It was refreshing to see teenagers played by teenagers, and 26 year old men played by people who at least looked 26.

I don't think I have any more gripes to make about the film...overall, it was alright, but certainly not more than average.

[lit-chick-lea]

I saw the new adaptation and loved it. I think pride and prejudice is a great book and this film adaptation is fantastic.

I must admit that I was unsure about Kiera Knightly playing Lizzy but after seeing the film although it is true that she does not perfectly fit the role she played the character incredibly well

[LaurenAthena]

I love the new adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. It's made it's way into my favourite films which is something that rarely happens.

Having said that, I was a little unsure about some of the changes made by Joe Wright (director) but after watching the Director's Commentary on the DVD he was able to justify his reasons very well and they no longer concern me, I can understand why he did the movie the way he did.

I think it far excels the BBC adaptation, the same said for Matthew MacFadyen's portrayal of Darcy - much preferred to Colin Firth who annoyed me so much to the point of me never finishing the BBC version, I must admit.

My only real qualm with it is Tom Hollander's portrayal of Mr Collins, if the physical appearance wasn't the only problem, the personality seemed a little off. However, he did amuse me and he did give a good impression of a ridiculous man.

Other than that, I have no problems with it at all and I praise Joe Wright for creating a film that, I feel, remains true to the novel.

[malwethien]

The new adaptation was good. It's nice to get a visual of the novel. But of course nothing beats the original (novel). The actors' performances were good...not very extraordinary, but not bad. It had good cinematography and good music...but i think the movie was a little too rushed. Everything went so fast and there weren't enough scenes with Mr. Darcy...it just focused mainly on Elizabeth Bennet.

But all in all, I enjoyed it. I actually watched it 5 times :)

[toleo]

la arazda heç türk yokmi

[ewilson]

I recently saw the movie Pride and Prejudice on DVD. I really appreciated the performances of both Knightly and MacFayden. Thought they had great chemistry and brought out both the trials and joys of romantic relationships. I have not read the book, though I have seen the BBC version of P&P.

I have a question. In the movie adaptation, after Mr. Darcy helps Miss Elizabeth into her carriage, the camera shows us a close-up of his hand -- it is flexing. In later scenes, other close-ups of his hands are shown, but this time, without the flexing motion.

What is the significance of this? Does it point to his pride or prejudice in some way? His (progressive) comfort level with intimacy? Perhaps the book made mention of this.

It is a great movie!

[Ballerina]

I actually watched the movie before reading the book so i do not know if i am biased in saying that: it was the best book-based movie I've ever seen. It showed every important part of the book and all the values to be learned, but I think that they could've made Darcy smile more in the movie.

BTW Ewilson, the first flexing hand gesture meant that Darcy was uncomfortable with Elizabeth. Then the second flexing hand gesture (wich was later) meant that he was now comfortable with her presence and accepting her as an acquaintance...

[godhelpme2]

I really appreciate the beauty of the actress and the handsome and gloomy appearance of the actor, and of couse, their excellent skill of acting.
Though no movie can throughly replace the written work itself, i personally think, this movie is quite a success!!!

[sciencefan]

I happened to go and watch the new adaptation last weekend.
I was just wondering if anyone else has seen the new film version?What did you think of it?Have you compared it to the book since?Your thoughts...
I just watched it twice recently, and if my daughter remembers to bring it home from college tomorrow, I will be seeing it again.
Then I borrowed the 5 hour miniseries with Colin Firth from the library.
It was so good, I had to read the book again since it had been about 8 years.
Believe me, there is nothing better to do in Maine right now except avoid being cold! :lol:
I liked the Knightly/MacFayden version better as far as the cast chemistry goes, but I liked the BBC version better for sticking closer to the book.


I enjoyed the movie a lot--it was fun, romantic, and entertaining. I was skeptical, at first--I like Keira Knightley, I really do. She's vivacious and charismatic and obviously loves acting. But somehow, I just couldn't see her as Lizzy. Having seen the movie, I still don't think she's a perfect fit, but I honestly can't think of any current stars who could have done it better.
I have never seen Knightly in anything else, so I didn't have any preconceived feelings about her.
I thought she played the part with excellence.
As I read the book, I could see what an excellent job she had done portraying the hidden meanings that Austen explains in the book.

I agree with Jakobin on Mr. Bingley. He's a great character, and I'm so glad they gave him the play he deserves. The casting was inspired--that scene where little Bingley approaches Mr. Darcy was great. On the other hand, I wasn't crazy about Mr. Bennet. There wasn't anything wrong with him, but he seemed to lack the full character. He was just a father figure, and not much else. And he wasn't very funny.I don't recall the place where "little Bingley approaches Darcy".
I agree that Mr. Bennet's character didn't develop enough.

Other things: the scenery and cinematography were beautiful. I thought they did well with the characterization of all the sisters, even the insufferable ones. Macfayden (am I getting his name right) was good, in a brooding sort of way. And very handsome, too. ;)
Yes, he was much pleasanter to look ay than Colin Firth,
but rushed his lines too much which made him appear angry.
I think Darcy was curt, but not necessarily angry.


Well, to be honest, I wasn't sure I liked this version as much as the bbc. In it's defence, I will say that I think that the cinematography, set design and music were all well done, and the characters were all well played. What I wasn't sure about was the way that certain parts from the book were altered, like the first propsal at Rosings, the letter, the visit to Pemberley, and the final proposal. It seemed to me that the film could do without the changes to be honest. The character of Mr Collins was not as funny as I would have liked, he was much darker, and as a result ended up rather creepy.I agree.

Hmmm...as for costuming, well, I was actually pretty appalled. Miss Bingley's ball gown for example seems rather unlikely. I can understand, however, the idea of making the women's dresses in the country less fashionable and more outdated to make them seem more provincial, that was pretty well thought out.

Why do you think, did they throw out Mr and Mrs Hurst? I suppose they were not overly important to the story, but I really think there is some comic merit to their characters.

There wasn't a great deal done with Wickham, which was a shame because he is so important, and his character develops quite a lot in the first half. The point is to contrast Darcy and Wickham, but you can't really compare when you see almost nothing of him in the course of the film.

But it was nice to see actors that were the same ages as the characters they play, that was a relief. It was refreshing to see teenagers played by teenagers, and 26 year old men played by people who at least looked 26.

I don't think I have any more gripes to make about the film...overall, it was alright, but certainly not more than average.I agree with the other assessments, but I will watch it many more times anyway.;)


I saw the new adaptation and loved it. I think pride and prejudice is a great book and this film adaptation is fantastic.

I must admit that I was unsure about Kiera Knightly playing Lizzy but after seeing the film although it is true that she does not perfectly fit the role she played the character incredibly wellI enjoyed her performance greatly, as well.


I recently saw the movie Pride and Prejudice on DVD. I really appreciated the performances of both Knightly and MacFayden. Thought they had great chemistry and brought out both the trials and joys of romantic relationships. I have not read the book, though I have seen the BBC version of P&P.

I have a question. In the movie adaptation, after Mr. Darcy helps Miss Elizabeth into her carriage, the camera shows us a close-up of his hand -- it is flexing. In later scenes, other close-ups of his hands are shown, but this time, without the flexing motion.

What is the significance of this? Does it point to his pride or prejudice in some way? His (progressive) comfort level with intimacy? Perhaps the book made mention of this.

It is a great movie!I agree with you about the chemistry... much better than the BBC, where there was practically no chemistry.

The hand thing bothers me...
In the commentary on the DVD, they go to the trouble of explaining how "this is the first time they touch" and how back in those days people hardly ever touched each other.
At that point in the book, Darcy is already being bewitched by Elizabeth.
I thought he would have enjoyed touching her hand at that point.
Knightly certainly is sending the message that she has just received a gesture of tenderness,
however confusing that may be.
So if it was a tender moment between them, why is he flexing?
It doesn't fit the moment.
He should have closed his hand slightly to give us a hint about his thoughts and feelings.
To tell you the truth, I don't think MacFayden, as an actor, is very much in touch with his body language.

But next time I watch it, I will watch for the hand close-ups.

[sciencefan]

As I said, I loved the movie overall, and will watch it many times,
but I do have a complaint about it, too.

When they meet in the meadow, and Darcy confesses his love a second time,
her response drives me INSANE! :smash:

"Well, then."
"WELL, THEN!!??!!" Have you lost your mind?!?
How incredibly UNSATISFYING is that?!?
We have been waiting for THIS MOMENT for over an hour,
and "Well, then." is all we get?!?

In the book, Austen has gone to the trouble to explain Lizzie's changing thoughts and feelings.
Lizzy is mortified at herself, and now realizes Darcy's condescension at asking her for her hand.
In the book, Austen doesn't write out dialog right there, because she has already explained Lizzie’s feelings to us.
She merely describes Lizzie's response.

I was so disappointed by the movie on that point.
What a let-down. :confused:

[seasong]

Haven't seen the new one, but enjoyed the Kam Heskin/Orlando Seale indie version.

I liked it too! Not as much as the BBC version, that being the book carbon copied beautifully into film, but it was funny. The new one is alright, but I just have a problem with black spots. I know they have to do it, but when I love the book, I have a hard time liking movies because they invariably leave out my favorite parts.

[RobinHood3000]

I forget - has the Bollywood take been discussed here yet?

[Eels]

It certainly is an entertaining movie, but it's a bit over the top, don't you think?

When Lizzy almost faints before his statue in Pemberley, or when she is crying in bed... in the novel, she doesn't even like Darcy yet at that time.

There's an important contrast between the over-romantic mother Mrs Bennet and the realistic, rational Elizabeth. Yes, she does has feelings, but not the over-romantic feelings this movie wants you to believe!

[prankster]

i have not seen the movie, but ye si definitely enjoyed reading the book.:D It is actually one of the best of Jane Austen's i have read...........and i think its a lot better than SENSE AND SENSIBILITY......:yawnb:

[dramasnot6]

I forget - has the Bollywood take been discussed here yet?

you mean that WRETCHED Bride and Prejudice one? ugh, let us not discuss it! Absolutely superficial, meaningless garbage that was. They stripped Pride and Prejudice of all it's sophistication.

[sciencefan]

It certainly is an entertaining movie, but it's a bit over the top, don't you think?

When Lizzy almost faints before his statue in Pemberley, or when she is crying in bed... in the novel, she doesn't even like Darcy yet at that time.

There's an important contrast between the over-romantic mother Mrs Bennet and the realistic, rational Elizabeth. Yes, she does has feelings, but not the over-romantic feelings this movie wants you to believe!I watched the movie (again) yesterday.
When Lizzie arrives at Pemberley, she gets her first inkling at what she turned down, and what Darcy was referring to by the inferiority of her connections, among other things.
I thought Knightly portrayed the feelings of the book perfectly by her "What a fool I have been" laugh, when she first arrives at the house.
I watched yesterday with your "fainting" comment in mind.
She did not “almost faint”.
She was growing in her realization of what a fool she had been.
The blinders were coming off and she was beginning to appreciate the fact that he was indeed handsome- which she had never considered before.

I watched the Director's Commentary today.
He said that in this scene, she realizes Darcy appreciates beautiful art,
and she is falling in love with Darcy's soul.
-I agree. I felt that when I watched it the first time.

The "crying in bed" was when she says to Jane,
"I saw Mr. Darcy while I was in Derbyshire." ?
One tear rolled down her cheek.
Jane answers, "Did he mention Mr. Bingley?"
Lizzie answers, "No."

This scene parallels the part of the book where Lizzie is so afraid of accidentally mentioning to Jane what she has learned of Mr. Darcy's interference in Mr. Bingley leaving Netherfield, that she doesn't mention until much later that she saw Darcy.
In the book, Lizzie suffers her secrets in silence.

I thought the movie did well to portray Lizzie silently suffering, and withholding the truth about Bingley.

If you have to turn the book into a 2 hour movie, some sacrifices have to be made.
While I thought they took a lot of liberty with changing the settings of where things happen, i.e. Darcy's first proposal, Lady Catherine's talk with Lizzie at Longbourn, on the whole, I thought they did well in communicating the spirit of the book, if not the book itself.

Anyway, that's how I saw it.

[RobinHood3000]

you mean that WRETCHED Bride and Prejudice one? ugh, let us not discuss it! Absolutely superficial, meaningless garbage that was. They stripped Pride and Prejudice of all it's sophistication.~shrug~ P&P doesn't have to be sophisticated - just look at the indie version. Besides, song and dance is the premise of Bollywood, anyway. I thought it was all right.