Pride and Prejudice

Deal Score0
Deal Score0

Product Description
Jane Austen’s classic is finally available on Blu-ray!

The timeless themes of love and marriage in Jane Austen’s superb romantic comedy Pride and Prejudice have captured readers for generations–the novel has sold more than 20 million copies and has never been out of print. Now, A&E and the BBC have brought this beloved classic to life in a compelling production directed by Upstairs, Downstairs’ Simon Langton. This stunning production captures all the cel… More >>

Pride and Prejudice

This site uses affiliate links and if you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a commission payment.

  1. I am hard of hearing and the lack of captioning makes some of the dialogue difficult to follow and there are language issues. People these days walk on eggshells to avoid offending blacks and gays and Jews and femminists who will have a tempoer tantrum over even accidental offenses against them, but they think nothing of offending God by misusing his name. The use of Blasphemy in this movie is anachronistic, and even if the people making this movie don’t believe in God, they don’t seem to care that they are offending the people who do believe in God with that kind of language. I bought it because 19th century life was clean, and I am deeply dissapointed because it is another example of what i call “Cafeteria Bigotry,” whereby one preaches tolerance and respect for other’s opinion, while in actuality they are hypocritically selecting which groups they mind offending, and which groups they don’t mind offending.
    Rating: 1 / 5

  2. my GF tricked me into watching this movie… she said i would “love” it. well, i don’t.
    Rating: 1 / 5

  3. I had not watched this when it was originally on A&E but have heard how great it was so decided to purchase it. I expected it to be much better than it was. Due to the length it had more of the book in it but seemed to drag and at times be down right boring. I made the mistake of reading the enclosure with the actors/actresses comments as the comments of the lead actress made me dislike her. I don’t remember ever seeing her in anything else and her complaining about how difficult the role was and how long it took to film probably affected by opinion. In a period piece like this I would also prefer the actors project a more masculine image since they have to wear such frilly clothing

    I would say it is an average mini-series, nothing special about it. It was something nice to watch I had not previously seen during the writers strike.
    Rating: 3 / 5

  4. What is it that brings Darcy and Lizzy together? Not sexual attraction, apparently, there isn’t any. This sham romance undermines a beautifully crafted film brought to us by the BBC.

    Glorious cinematography presents the English countryside, lovely homes, and exquisite costumes of this period drama to advantage. In the VHS version, the sunlight is often too bright and the coloring is sometimes off, green piano keys for example. Perhaps this is due to poor film quality because of a low budget.

    Great editing techniques are used to lead the audience to different locations and time periods. The score and sound effects are also noteworthy. Classical music adds emotional depth to several scenes.

    The screenplay is based on Jane Austen’s most popular novel. There is little deviation from the plot of the book, but the dialogue is less subtle. For example, in the film Charlotte says that on some days she sees her (irksome) husband for only a few minutes. Jane Austen’s character has too much discretion to say this; in the original story this information is inferred by Eliza.

    The acting is sometimes overly sentimental but usually of fine quality. A list of the best performers would include Barbara Leigh-Hunt (Lady Catherine de Bourgh), David Bamber (Mr. Collins), Lucy Scott (Charlotte), Julia Sawalha (Lydia), Alison Steadman (Mrs. Bennet), Crispin Bonham-Carter (Mr. Bingley), and Anna Chancellor (Miss Bingley).

    Jennifer Ehle’s performance is not bad, just annoying. Most of the time she appears to be on the verge of tears for no apparent reason. Her only resemblance to standard romance heroines is a pretty face and figure.

    And Darcy is an unusual romance hero as well. Colin Firth portrays him as a feral young man almost totally lacking in social grace. In the beginning, Mr. Darcy acts very weird, which may be an attempt to look intense; this is especially noticeable during the first ball in Hertfordshire. Whether the director or the actor is at fault is not clear. He becomes more human-like over time, which is wonderful to see, especially in the end when he and Lizzy begin to relate well, like old friends.

    It’s interesting that though most characters in the film resemble their corresponding characters in the novel, the lead man and woman differ radically from the hero and heroine of the book. Ehle’s pouty, sentimental, self-satisfied Eliza Bennet is very different from Austen’s sharp, classy, devil-may-care heroine. And the queer, nervous Mr. Darcy in this movie is the complete opposite of the calm, strong, fatherly Mr. Darcy in the novel.

    This does not matter, however, because the screenplay, though of high importance, is merely one of many elements which combine to form the final product – a movie. This is a romance movie, and we expect a romance. Not just lover’s dialogue, sweet music, bared breast and muscle, but the thing itself: apparent sexual chemistry between the lead actor and lead actress. Alas, that one important element is lacking in this faux romance.
    Rating: 4 / 5

  5. The admirable attempt of this film adaptation to remain true to the content and feel Jane Austin’s enduring literary work cannot override the liability of lamentable casting.

    Of the primary characterizations, only Ehle as Elizabeth stands out. Firth is sadly wasted as Darcy (especially so because he SHOULD have made a perfect Darcy) since he spends most of his film time standing or stalking about broodily, and delivers what lines he has in an affected, stilted manner which lends nothing to the character. Both the main players seem unconsciously to be imitating Garson and Olivier in the older adaptation of the film (which despite flaws of costume and a condensed storyline is a thousand times more enjoyable than this effort and should not be missed). Firth even wears a pinkie signet ring like Olivier, and twists it distractedly in his discourses with Elizabeth in uncanny imitation of Sir Laurence.

    Perhaps the most ghastly casting error is Susahanna Harker as Jane. While her acting skills are adequate, her appearance falls far short of the exceptional beauty required for the role; she puts one to mind of a blond, bug-eyed Mona Lisa, and unkind as it may seem this reviewer found it impossible to accept her in the role due primarily to her limited pulchritude. In the same vein, the visage of Mary is also seems unnecessarily unattractive; in the first ballroom scene they either manufactured or left unconcealed a number of acne spots on the actress’ face, which made me feel sorry for both the character and the actress.

    Also lamentable is the overacting done by Alison Steadman as Mrs. Bennet. Her interpretation of the character is no more than an annoying stereotype. One rolls their eyes when she appears on screen, and anxiously awaits her departure.

    Bonham-Carter is likable and effective as Mr. Bingley. Also effective is Benjamin Whitrow as the pleasant but generally inaccessible Mr. Bennet, Adrian Lukis as the two-faced Wickham, David Bamber as the obsequious Mr. Collins, and Lucy Scott as an underachieving Charlotte.

    Beautiful countrysides, excellent efforts by supporting cast members and a consistently strong showing by Ms. Ehle, is in the end insufficient to incite enthusiasm for this adaptation. (Curiously, the latest adaptation of Austin’s work suffers an almost identical malady, except in THAT film it is Keira Knightly who is hopelessly under-utilized in the role of Elizabeth).
    Rating: 3 / 5

Leave a reply

Register New Account
Reset Password