Truly Dreadful Film

People are voting emotionally.

best movie i've ever seen.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Definitely the worst of the three versions of P&P that I've seen. (The others being the best, the 2005 movie, and in the middle, the Colin Firth TV version.) While it may be somewhat faithful to the book, almost none of the energy, vitality, or even wit of the book comes through here. The production is overcome by too many dull scenes, some bad acting (esp. David Rintoul as Darcy, who provides another answer to the question from Monty Python's Sir Bedivere, "What else is made of wood?"),and way too much inappropriate music. At times I thought I was watching a nature film made in the 60s or 70s.Skip this one. If you want something faithful to the book, try the Firth version. If you want one that captures the feeling, the energy, and the spirit of the book, then definitely try the 2005 Keira Knightly version.

Without doubt, this is the truest to the original novel by Jane Austen of all the versions made to date, and equally the quietest, the most stately and sedate. I won't worry about the story; anyone likely to watch this now will know already what it's about. It seems more and more likely to my sense that Elizabeth Garvie's Lizzie best represents the vision Jane Austen had of her brightest, most sparkling character: the sweetness is there, an interesting but not a perfect face (just as it should be); though perhaps just a little of the liveliness and archness that Austen wrote about is missing that you can find more easily in either Jennifer Ehle's excellent 90s TV Lizzie, or even Keira Knightley's more recent film outing. But in her bonnet and parasol, her curls wilfully asserting themselves, she's almost exactly what I imagined (apparently not everyone agrees).David Rintoul's Darcy is on first watching, excessively stiff and not particularly entertaining to watch. There is so little mobility in his face, and on occasion even in his voice, that only careful repeated viewings reveal nuances in his performance. I do find myself liking his portrayal more now: it's very subtle, to be sure, no diving into pools or striding open-shirted through dawn meadows, but once you're used to the subtlety, the great formality provides a backdrop against which Darcy's own wit and growing interest in Lizzie stand out in the gentlest relief, like the pattern on a damask cloth.So rich a text is bound to be full of favourite moments; and Weldon's script manages to include much of the wit – and some of the humour – of Austen's original, while also teasing out themes on marriage and happiness which suit her personal brief as a great feminist writer. I particularly love Lizzie's singing (I think it's dubbed but Garvie's acting of the singing is itself a pleasure to watch). The supporting cast is on the whole very good; I liked Uncle and Aunt Gardner and thought Mr Bingley and his sisters well cast. Mr Bennett was a little severe, and didn't seem to take the requisite pleasure in tormenting his wife.I didn't find Mr Wickham very charming; but then I never do. It seems to me they never make him handsome enough – how else could he charm her so much as to blind her to real goodness and excellence? I guess the makers of these programmes are always afraid he'll steal the limelight from Darcy – but since that's exactly his function in the book, take the risk! Perhaps this version has receded into time and been superseded by later attempts that speak more directly to women now. But I'll be keeping it on my DVD shelves for a long time to come, to remind myself how well a little stately simplicity can work.

Pride and Prejudice has been my favorite book since I was eleven years old, and I've seen every other adaptation of it--even taken a class on Romantic Comedy, in which P&P was included. However, I was determined to take this version on its own merits and try not to compare it to the other versions. Those don't matter as much as its trueness to the book in spirit and content.This is what I told myself when I put the DVD in. During the first scene, my hopes were dashed--Mary brings the news of Bingley? They just cut out the great opening banter between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet! Really, it's all downhill from here.The greatest complaint is that the people behind this movie completely sucked the life out of the story. This is a comedy of manners, people, not solely a love story. It's about human character, and here, the characters have no life at all. Look at Mr. Darcy: Aie! He looks like a walking corpse with a burr up his you know what. It seemed as if every line was painful to utter and that he was bored to death. Elizabeth has altogether no wit and shows a strange contradiction regarding her family: She whines and pleads with Jane to get better faster so she can go home! What!?!? Whining, selfish creature! She then comments with a sign of satisfaction how good it is to be home, and coddles her mother too! Agony. Because of these flaws in writing/acting, the ending is improbable, even laughably ridiculous. Sorry, did the casting director think that chap playing Wickham was a hottie? Youch.Did anyone notice how awful all of the grand houses looked? I mean, since Darcy has ten thousand pounds a year (that's a LOT of money) he could at least have the stone on Pemberley cleaned up a bit. It was all stained and icky. *shudder*If I detailed everything that was wrong with this, I'd be here for hours. I know many of you love it dearly, but I'm sorry, I see nothing to love. I see a dried-out husk of an adaptation of the most brilliant book ever.

I did like this version of Pride and Prejudice. There were just a few things that I didn't care for, especially compared to the 1995 version.I hated Natalie Ogle's Lydia. I don't know why all of these BBC productions of Jane Austen with immature girls have the worst actresses playing them? Sense and Sensibility (1980) is the same way. They choose these young looking actresses on nothing more than their looks and their ability to read a script apparently. The only Lydia I've liked is Julia Sawalha, she played it genuinely, at the right age, and laughed naturally. Everyone else, including Jena Malone, plays her too young and with forced laughter. Like perhaps they are overcompensating for age, even though Sawalha was the oldest to play her, I believe. All the other Lydia's shriek and carry on, and I never really got that impression from the book. I don't think she is that different from other teenagers nowadays, well a middle schooler from now. Ogle played her like a 10-year old.My other problem was that they didn't do any voice-over until the the 3 or 4th episode. It was very strange that everyone was reading their letters that they had written aloud. As I watched I was seriously wondering if they just didn't know how to do them, but then I remembered that they have been doing voice-overs since talkies have been in existence. It is a worthless point but it really bothered me.Other than that, I have very few complaints. I did find it interesting that they used the same girl who played Elinor in Sense and Sensibility (1980) to play Charlotte. I was always under the impression that Elinor was relatively attractive (at least not plain), and I had resigned myself, while watching S & S, into thinking that tastes have changed.. but apparently not, if they used her to play the plain Charlotte. Anyway, that was a big tangent.I do agree with some of the other posters that the levels of beauty in the Bennet girls were better portrayed in this film than the 95 version. I think Susannah Harker is very handsome and I appreciate that now, but when I first saw it I kept thinking how much more attractive Jennifer Ehle was than Harker. I would say that classically speaking and for the time period, Harker would have been the most beautiful girl, she has a lovely neck and profile. Another tangent, sorry.But yes, it is a good film, but for me, the 1995 version will always be my number one. All the actors are great and I prefer the locations much more.