Waste of time

The greatest movie ever made..!

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Indeed, nothing can clear this adaptation from the iniquitous crime of ruining entirely the lively spirit in Austen's beloved work. I have never seen such a boring show in all my life, and I'm not just speaking of period dramas here. There isn't even a slightest trace of acting! As one of the critics below aptly remarked – "reading in period dress". That's exactly what it was.Practically all actors have a still and unvarying countenance throughout the series. No emotion, no real involvement comes through any of them. Bennet girls are all pretty much the same – you are left wondering why Darcy should single out Elizabeth from among the rest. Overall, I don't like the choice of Elizabeth Garvie for this role. She is simply not attractive! The actress who played Jane would do a better job in her place, I think. There was at least some bright spark in her eyes. Why anybody should have singled out Mr Darcy, apart from his being a rich guy, also remains a big question to me. Someone's comment below that Rintoul is acting like a Terminator movie hero made me burst out laughing. Even the 2005 P&P, which was a modern-day disappointment, made me care for the protagonists to get together – though for different reasons than Jane Austen described.Bland, insipid, dull. There was only one moment when my bored expression changed – it happened during Darcy's first proposal scene, when he arrived at Hunsford parsonage with his doggy :) I spluttered with laughter at the ridicule of this. But the doggy was left outside and my final hope for the liveliness degree to rise was irrevocably destroyed. The proposal itself wasn't much different from Mr. Collins's avowal of his affections.I can't find one good reason to give this more than one star, even though I'm such a fan of the original story. As Lady Catherine would say, I take no leave of you, 1980 adaptation. You deserve no such attention.

This is by far the best version of P&P out there. I have seen all of them but the old TV versions before 1940 (although I did see the 1940 movie which was ludicrous and so far from the truth) thus I wouldn't waste my time on it nor the comedy version = yikes! I just checked the ratings to compare and am shocked to see that the modern Keira Knightley version is rated higher than this one! It must be for those who prefer Hollywood as that version is much father from the book and what Jane Austen wrote or ever could have intended. Even the Colin Firth version was better than that and again, I am surprised to see that version rated higher than this one. Colin Firth is a great actor but he was much too open to be a good or authentic Mr. Darcy. He would have been considered improper back in those days (as would have the Mr. Darcy in the Keira Knightley version). This Mr. Darcy portrayed by David Rintoul is most definitely the closest anyone has come to the true Mr. Darcy. He is handsome and appears haughty and arrogant as he should initially. He is rigid and barely betrays the passion that he feels... making it all the more powerful when he finally discloses his feelings. I loved this version and have watched it many times.If you are a true and authentic Jane Austen fan then you must see this version that is well cast, well acted and goes above and beyond any other versions.

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.

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.