Pride & Prejudice
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.98 You Save: $8.00 (53%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $5.05 (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: Real-life adaptation
Summary: 5 Stars
The strongest parts of this film is the real-life adaptation of the Bennet family. We see Mrs. Bennet not as the dim-witted mother who is eager to marry her daughter's off but as a real mother concerned over real-life situations in those days. Yes, back then a woman's ticket to a good life was to marry well but it was even harder to marry for both money and love.
But that's not where the movie ends. We are exposed to breathtaking cinematorgraphy, (Some parts of Britain I never knew exist!) and actors who are molded so well for their parts. Kiera Knightly shines as Elizabeth Bennet in this adaptation and Jenna Malone and Carey Mulligan are not as annoying as Lydia and Kitty in the 1995 version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.
One set back to this movie would be its adaptation. For those who are exposed to the Pride and Prejudice for the first time may be left confused. The story moves forward in some parts through narration or dialogue rather than seeing actual scenes , such as Wickham's dealings and his connection to Mr. Dary's sister. Also, the audience has to pay attention to the background and foreground parts of the film as the story moves forward through background interactions. This movie is so much more 'open' then previous films that (blending background with foreground)the viewer will need to pay more attention to the dialogue and try and understand the feelings of the characters (ex: Eliza's alienation during the Netherfield ball).
BOTTOM LINE:
This is a great film with real-life in 19th century appeal. Mr. Darcy is more of a character to understand in this film and Ms. Bennet shines true. I think we get more of a sense of Ms. Austen's (author) feminist views (abliet they aren't harsh ones). Bits of the movie may need more concentration as there is blending of background/foreground. Also, Austen truists may feel a bit cheated with only an adaptation version of the film. For those who want a more 'true' and stretched out version of Pride and Prejudice, I recommend the 1995 version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.
Movie Review: Not Austen but most invigorating! (contains spoilers....)
Summary: 5 Stars
I love Pride and Prejudice (the novel and the A&E miniseries) most ardently. Joe Wright's adaptation will likely disturb Austenites, so consider yourselves warned and need not watch :) I believe it is also pointless to compare a 2-hr adaptation to any of the 4 1/2 hr versions. So, if you get over that and you would like a movie to entertain you with breathtaking cinematography, adorable updated dialogues, deft acting, and a musical score that inspires without being overwhelming, then this is for you.
The central cast is younger than previous adaptations but equally brilliant. Knightley truly has Elizabeth's "fine eyes," but not distractingly beautiful, expressive but not deliberate. MacFadyen unfolded Darcy's in a compelling manner; proud but endearingly awkward, confident yet reticent, elegant yet subtly sexy (and I love, love, love his eyes).
Cons: 1. the heavy reliance of the film to imagery and nuances (in the novel and in other adaptations, most of the P and P elements are presented as dialogues; follow the camera's movement and be very observant!)
3. use of the napoleonic era timeline, as oppose to the more aesthetic victorian era backdrop that P and P fans have gotten used to
Pros: 1. use of the napoleonic era timeline; makes the film less stodgy, less pompous, more grounded
2. fresh take on the classic but most romantic; the display of emotions are more intense (a more spirited Elizabeth, a less elegant Darcy-in-love; Jane is less sedate and a fleeting scene that shows Bingley reaching for Jane's dress, desperate for any form of physical contact)
3. a sense of urgency was captured without the abuse of a nattering Mrs. Bennet
4. my favorite: unusual for his countenance, Mr. Darcy comes out disheveled in his night clothes and desperately seeks Elizabeth through the mist. It is a powerful show of yearning that romantics will find gratifying
I find most happy endings in romantic films to be contrived, but this is one romantic film where I found myself hoping and staying for the kiss.
Movie Review: Rich truffles for the eye and mind
Summary: 5 Stars
For those of you who loved the 1995 BBC version with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth (I'm an avid fan myself), please don't shy away from this utterly gorgeous rendition of Jane Austen's classic. It isn't an improvement in any way on the 1995 version; it's simply a different interpretation that demonstrates how much richness Austen's book held, with which future adaptations could work.
Where the 1995 version is, I believe, more faithful to the book's dignified, staid and old-fashioned but universal tone, this version sparkles with the eagerness and blunt sincerity of youth. Miss Elizabeth Bennett still is a mature young lady, but she is much more fun-loving and a little less confident than Jennifer Ehle's portrayal of Elizabeth. But both versions are beautiful. Keira Knieghtly brings a suprising depth of thoughtfulness to her role, whereas Jennifer Ehle brought a maturity that was beyond maternal to hers. Where Jennifer Ehle stressed Elizabeth as the lofty standard of reason, poise and discernment, Keira Knieghtly stresses Elizabeth's honest, refreshing, witty and intelligent manners. Both adaptations are superbly rendered.
The scenery in this version was also stunning - you should see this film for that alone. The scenes are also very cleverly shot, with novel imagery that draws you into this by-gone period. I walked out of the cinema feeling as though I had just landed back into the 21st century; that's how real it was.
I also really appreciated the broodiness underlying this film. There was a moody, cloudier aspect to the scenery that brought a pensive thoughtfulness to the production. I felt as though I were really in England. In the BBC 1995 production, every day was sunny. The play of the natural elements in this version formed an intricate background to the tumult of inner emotions that the film portrayed so finely. This film could be analyzed over and over for the many different threads its makers very skilfully used to weave a rich, gorgeous tapestry of an experince.
You will be transported.
Movie Review: not pure austen ... but with dynamic young leads, great chemistry, gritty look
Summary: 5 Stars
what i like about this P&P adaptation is that even if it departs quite liberally from the book, any liberties taken fit into this particular assembly of cast & different perspective taken by the film makers. it is the P&P story told with lots of emotion which makes it very real. though initially dismayed by the shabbiness of the bennet household, the rustic grittiness of longbourn & its occupants grew on me. all of the characters are familiar yet they took on added personalities that, though not faithful to the book, are nevertheless fascinating, hilarious, endearing & so genuine. i got so drawn into the film like i was a part of it.
i never really visualized lizzy as fierce & as giggly as keira's lizzy is but somehow knightley's youthful vitality works in the movie's context. macfadyen gives a fresh dimension to darcy. his soulful eyes & deep timbre of voice are so effective in matthew's darcy who, beneath the sullen & aloof exterior, is shy, vulnerable & so unsettled by his instant attraction to lizzy. you absolutely get that sense in matthew's boyish & understated performance. it is not the mature, reserved, confident darcy from the book but macfadyen makes his darcy work (i expect to see more films from this brilliant `spooks/perfect strangers' actor). above all, macfadyen & knightley have a wicked chemistry, with a youthful passion that just seem to fit right into the overall thread of the movie.
with the fireworks lurking beneath the two protagonists, the movie certainly did not disappoint in delivering a tickle-me-pink finale. the misty dawn `proposal' scene & even the ridiculously romantic `american' ending gave this version a wishfully fulfilling end. so outrageously melodramatic but again, it feels right in this rendition.
i think it was wise for the film makers of this P&P to take the story into a different direction. i loved all previous adaptations but it's refreshing to see how a fresh spin on an enduring novel can still delight & entertain. i just simply adore this film.
Movie Review: Beautiful ADAPTATION
Summary: 5 Stars
seriously, it's an adaptation, I am sick of people reviewing it based on the book. If they wanted to make the book into a movie, they would have. This is supposed to give the director and screenwriter's view on the story, it's not meant to be exact. Study French new wave and maybe some would understand why it is done this way(basically books should not be made into movies, there should be a screenplay made for film, not the exact book because they are two seperate arts. A book cannot have the same effect on film, it needs to be changed. Look at movies like the DaVinci Code, that is how not to do it)
I think the film captured the spirit of the story and characters. The front page reviews express my feelings on the film. Mcfayden was an amazing Darcy and the chemistry and passion of the film was amazing. I am OBSESSED with Pride and Prejudice, and though there are many encounters in the book that I would have enjoyed having knightly and Mcfayden act out because they were so good, I understand the vision the director had. Making it in that manner made it far more passionate then my former favorite, the A&E version. There were scenes that could be watched over and over. The filming was beautiful, and certain scenes lookedlike paintings. Some differences from the book and Austen I believe were made to help understand the story and the feelings, such as the hug between Darcy and his sister. It shows the love between them because we have no narator.
The casting was amazing, I do feel that the characters were more convincing in this version(thank god Jane was cast much better in this than in the A&E version). I think Judi Dench was perfect along with Jena Malone, and actually every other cast member.
I am happy though that many people watched it without expecting or only accepting Jane Austen's vision, because you cannot make a film from a vision that is not your own. Jane Austen is not here to make her own, so I will enjoy the adaptations not basing them on how closely they follow the book.