Pride & Prejudice
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.98 You Save: $8.00 (53%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $4.93 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Pride & Prejudice
Movie Review: Misperceptions about dress,social mores
Summary: 5 Stars
Where to begin myself? Well, first off, perceptions regarding fashion derived from the book would be almost nil. Austen is known for not being overly descriptive on such things. Secondly, social mores for the Regency period are usually not well served by most costume pieces.
The Regency was dirty, it was smelly, and although there was certainly the veneer of politeness and decorum, underneath was lust, debauchery and gluttony...The reality was far grittier and less pretty than what's presented onscreen or even in Austen's novels
1)Re: Bingley entering the bedroom: He confined himself to the anteroom adjoining the bedchamber. This wasn't considered too over the top as long as there was some sort of chaperone there, aka Lizzie. Did it bother anyone when Captain Brandon ACTUALLY WENT INTO the bedroom of Kate Winslet in "Sense and Sensibility?"
2) Clothing and Hair: "English Women's Clothing in the Nineteenth Century" by C Willett Cunnington explains fashion for every year of that century, and it justifies the look for the Bennet family just fine. In addition here's a quote from the book since many are dissing Lizzie's hair alot regarding the hair trends of 1800(just three years after the movie is set in):" "The front hair is combed forward on to the forehead and parted in full ringlets, or worn dishevelled. Or cropped short; or 'highly frizzed in the front and turned up behind.'" Dishevelled being the key word.
So, I think before others criticize what they perceive as inaccurate Regency period dress and hair and social codes, it's important to realize how large a spectrum there was for various trends and behaviors for this time period-just like our own period today! AND that modern miniseries and movies are not always the best standard to judge accuracy by.
Oh, and yes-loved the movie. A more realistic portrayal that isn't so picturesque, and a nice tribute to the original work at hand.
PS-re: Cheesy Ending: That ending was tacked on for American audiences only-everywhere else in the world basically didn't get that ending! Basically the distributors over here in the states wanted a kissy-kissy ending to make it more appealing to us yanks. As the director mentioned, it seems we Americans like a "little more sugar in [our] champagne." The director and actors actually do not prefer this ending either....
Movie Review: Keira Knightley steals the show in wonderful adaptation
Summary: 5 Stars
How does one steal a movie that sees both Donald Sutherland and Judi Dench hit high notes as supporting characters? Keira Knightley does it by (a) playing one of the best roles in Western literature in Elizabeth Bennett and (b) nailing it.
This adaptation of Jane Austen's beloved "Pride and Prejudice" is a bit more scruffy (and therefore realistic) than its natural complement, Emma Thompson's adaptation of Austen's "Sense and Sensibility." Everyone looks gorgeous, or course, but they also don't look like they had Hollywood hair stylists, either. This helps the movie, as it underscores Austen's theme - England was a dangerous place for young ladies unable to get married.
Indeed, just as with "S&S," marriage is the peril and promise for all the characters in the story. Does a woman grab what she can and hope to make the best of it? Or does she hold out for true love? And what do two lovely parents (Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn) do when they are relatively poor and (gasp!) unconventional but have five daughters they need to send into wedlock?
One is to be delighted when a rich young man rents the nearby manor and brings along his dark friend, Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen of "MI-5" fame). Lizzie and Darcy fall for each other immediately, but are compelled by circumstance as well as Lizzie's pride and prejudice (you knew they'd turn up somewhere) to go through one of the greatest love stories of all time.
This is a gorgeous, funny movie with several thrilling ball and dance scenes, and the camera quietly does yeoman's work as it wanders through chambers and down hallways to keep the large cast in play and the viewer well-grounded in the story. Of course the camera also knew to linger often on Ms. Knightley's beauty just often enough! But she is no mere adornment - this is an excellent acting performance worthy of watching on its own merits. Watching Lizzie how head-to-head with the rich society dame who hates her (Dench) is worth the price of admission.
I have not read "P&P," so I cannot respond in detail to those who complain that the filmmakers have rewritten the story somewhat. All I would say is that there are plenty of other "purist" adaptations of this story as well as the book itself, and that judged on its own merits, this is one heck of a film.
Movie Review: An instant classic love story
Summary: 5 Stars
I've never read anything by Jane Austen, and I suspect I never will. Thus I have no idea whether Joe Wright's version of Pride and Prejudice is an accurate translation of the novel to film. But I do know that it's one of the best films my wife and I have watched together in a long time. The film was like a breath of fresh air to me; I found something almost shocking about the culture of love and marriage the film depicts. As I watched the movie, I couldn't refrain from contrasting the drama of Victorian courtship with the oversexed, hypersensual culture of "courtship" (so-called) that characterizes today's young people.
As for the merits of the film itself, Wright does a fantastic job of whittling down Austen's apparently complicated plot into a coherent narrative. The cinematography is striking as well. When the movie opened up with a slow, Malick-esque reveal of a sunrise over a stand of trees, I immediately knew there was something special going on. There is one shot at a ball where the camera goes from room to room, picking up conversations and characters as they move about, backtracking and picking them up again as they socialize and dramatize. I didn't count, but I think the shot was at least six to eight minutes long. This is a very difficult shot to accomplish, as multiple actors have to hit their lines and their positions in a very crowded area right on time, and if someone flubs their part, that's an eight-minute take that just went down the drain. This kind of shot is the mark of a patient and creative filmmaker.
The largely British cast is also phenomenal. I usually consider Keira Knightley to be the queen of overacting, but here her personality is perfect for Lizzie Bennett. I've never heard of the actor playing Mr. Darcy, but I instantly knew I wanted to see him in other films. He has a weighty screen presence about him that's a joy to watch. My wife immediately declared Pride and Prejudice to be one of her favorite movies of all time, and as for love stories, I'd have to agree. It's not only good entertainment, it showcases a picture of love and romance that all young people would benefit from seeing, especially girls. We'll be showing it to our daughter when she enters the dating world as a counterbalance to the false messages about love and romance the world gives her.
Movie Review: Austen, Mozart, Shakespeare -- all unique
Summary: 5 Stars
P&P is one of the jewels of English literature. It's very robust in that it is so open to different slants on it. This movie is a new slant and adds beautifully to the Ehle/Firth BBC interpretation. It's the more moving. Jennifer Ehle was my own perfect embodiment of Lizzie but Keira Knightley adds a dimension of extraordinary unfolding of the internal turmoil of Lizzie and her kindness -- the scenes with Jane are so subtle in their deep love for each other. Matthew Mcfadyen is a completely different Darcy from Colin Firth's but far more resonant. It is interesting to see Judi Dench in the film as the dreadful Lady Catherine. I am an old Brit who saw her in many performances on stage -- I think Keira K signals in this film that she is in the same league and on the same growth path.
Critics of the film point out that it plays around somewhat with the tone and storyline of the novel. True, but it also enhances one's perspective on this great work. The movie is too kind to Mrs. Bennet but does articulate the truly desperate issue of marriage as the only career chance for young women. Donald Sutherland is a little underplayed especially in not showing his contempt for his wife but brings out so well his love for Lizzie. This is also the best portrayal of Jane I know of.
And so on. Yes, this is not the literal adaptation of P&P but it really is a superb accompaniment to and enhancement of it. Jsne Austen was in no way a romantic but a shrewd and cool observer. She is Mozartian in that the cool and controlled surface is moving in that the depth of feeling their work hides but dignifies is so intense. Only in her last and apparently semi-autbiographical novel, Persuasion, does one get a sense of the depth of her regrets and the pathos of her short life. I think that the main contribution of the Keira/Matthew combination is to bring P&P closer to Persuasion and unpeel Austen's deep insights into and regrets about love in an age where feelings were so rarely expressed.
This is a lovely and loving film. It is almost Chekovian in its style. I hope Knightley doesn't get nominated for an Oscar for her portrayal. It's far too good for that. I also hope she will pick scripts that help her grow beyond the Oscar-ready stuff.
Movie Review: Excellent succinct adaptation
Summary: 5 Stars
The 2005 film version release of Jane Austen's timeles tale Pride and Prejudice does a far better job of representing the original novel than the old Laurence Olivier B&W version. It lacks the thoroughness of the A&E miniseries from the mid 1990s but fits admirably into a two hour time frame.
What struck me most about this version was the depth of the characters. Unlike the A&E rendition, these are all believeable people. The younger girls of the story especially portray characters of the maturity of someone at those ages. Although Kiera Knightly is not what I would picture as Miss Elizabeth Bennet, her skilled acting performance more than justified her selection for the role. In my opinion, she deserved the Academy Award for Best Actress. Tom Hollander as Charles Bingley is also terrific in his social affability yet someone young, naive and unsure of himself in matters of the heart. The characters of Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Collins were more believable while preserving their foibles intact. The elimination of inconsequential peripheral characters such as the Gardner children or Bingley's other sister and her husband contributed to a taut story.
The film is not without flaws. When Miss Elizabeth encounters Mr Darcy unexpectedly at Pemberley, he offers to escort her back to town. She declines, preferring to walk. The next, brief scene shows her doing just that. Lost in the shuffle are her aunt and uncle, who presumably would never have just left her stranded at Pemberley. Again toward the end of the movie, the climatic meeting of the hearts between the two protagonists rests on contrived and forced assumptions about Lady Catherine de Bourgh's visit to Longbourn. Perhaps the result of overzealous editing to fit into a two hour time frame (2:02 of actual story, with credits 2:09), their respective references to the offended Lady Catherine's tirade just does not fit terribly well. The filmakers would have done better to add a few more minutes to make the proper connections so that this crucial scene works better.
All in all, in my opnion this was one of the top two films produced in 2005. King Kong perhaps deserved more the Oscar for Best Picture (and won the British version of it) but Pride and Prejudice was a close second.