Pride & Prejudice
|
List Price: Our Price: $7.00 You Save: $7.98 (53%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $4.60 (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: A movie I loved that I truly expected to dislike
Summary: 5 Stars
In the past week I have seen a movie that I thought I was going to love but ended up disliking and a movie that I thought I was going to dislike but found myself loving. The former was BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, which I found physically beautiful to look at, but whose characters I found to be uninteresting and bland. The latter was PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. The reason I thought that I was going to dislike it was the existence of an absolutely superb BBC mini-series, which seemed to me to be the last word on what could be done with Jane Austen's masterpiece. I was wrong. Not only is there room for a truly great six-hour television version but also for an excellent two-hour cinematic version.
I still prefer the BBC version. There are two reasons. First, there probably will never be a better Mr. Darcy than Colin Firth. Laurence Olivier might have had a shot in the 1940 Hollywood version, but that film was destroyed by an almost inconceivable rewriting of many of the key elements (the worst being making Lady Catherine de Bourgh into a matchmaker between Darcy and Elizabeth). Matthew Macfadyen is an extremely capable Darcy, but it was as if Colin Firth were born to play the part. The other advantage of the BBC production is time: there is simply no way that a two-hour movie can do as good a job of adapting the novel as a six-hour production. In watching the BBC version, one gets the sense that almost nothing of importance gets left out, whereas with the movie I found myself constantly regretting parts of the story that had of necessity to be left out.
Nonetheless, there is no questioning the excellence of this new movie version. Simply because the series does a fuller job of telling the story does not mean that this movie cannot excel in a shorter time span. The film definitely feels abridged, yet one also feels that most (though certainly not all) of the most important bits have been retained. With most adaptations of a novel this might not have been such a problem, but PRIDE AND PREJUDICE is one of the best known and beloved novels in the English language (I have read it five times, see the Garson-Olivier version twice, and the BBC version three times). Given the time restrictions, I believe the movie did as good a job as is possible.
The film does have some advantages over the television version. First, it is remarkably gorgeous to look at. Whether we are beholding household interiors or shots of the countryside, this film was a delight to behold. Also, with the exception of Jena Malone as Lydia and the aforementioned Colin Firth, most of the performances in the film version are a bit stronger. I wouldn't say Keira Knightly is better than Jennifer Ehle, but she is definitely a different Elizabeth. Let's just acknowledge that both are superb. I recently saw Kelly Reilly (actually, all of Kelly Reilly) in the wonderful MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS. Here is plays Miss Bingley and does a fine job. Rosamund Pike is excellent as Elizabeth's slightly more beautiful sister Jane. Well, she isn't noticeably more attractive than Keira Knightly, but she'll do. Two supporting performances stand out. First, Tom Hollander was superb as a completely different kind of Mr. Collins. In all other versions, Collins is presented as an utter buffoon. In defense of previous versions, Mr. Collins is a buffoon in Austen's novel. But it is nice to see him as slightly less absurd. And Brenda Blethyn, one of the great actresses of her generation, manages to make Mrs. Bennett into more than merely a silly cartoon. In his book ASPECTS OF THE NOVEL, E. M. Forster makes a distinction between flat and round characters and argues that Jane Austen loves to mix the two types. His example of a flat character is Mrs. Bennett. And while it remains true that Ms. Blethyn isn't able to transform her into a deep character, she does keep her from being the silly twit seen in previous versions. The one other character that did not appreciably improve upon the BBC production was, surprisingly, Judi Dench's Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Part of the problem is that most of her scenes were shot in a somewhat subdued manner; partly she obviously decided not to play the role as a broad character.
Finally, the movie works in very large part because of the chemistry between Keira Knightly's Elizabeth and Matthew Macfadyen's Darcy. Though one genuinely misses the many big scenes early in the story in the BBC production where Darcy's pride is made manifest and Elizabeth forms her prejudices, in the romantic portions they are great together. Also, Knightly is one of the few actresses to play the part and be the age that Elizabeth is actually supposed to be. All in all, they click onscreen.
So, I guess this should be a lesson that you shouldn't prejudge a film. You actually can be surprised. In fact, in the past couple of months, the two films that I most enjoyed in the theater were two that I didn't expect to like, the other being KING KONG. So I suppose this is a lesson previously learned that has now been reinforced.
Movie Review: A thoroughly original and absolutely wonderful adaptation
Summary: 5 Stars
Considering that a large majority--if not all--of the negative reviews given to Joe Wright's adaptation of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" is based on their comparison to the ever-popular BBC version, I must defend the other half that finds this movie an absolute delight.
First comes the matter of Wright condensing the novel to a point where it all seemed, I suspect, not enjoyable to many fans of the novel. But the fact is that Wright had two hours to portray Austen's rather lengthy novel as compared to the BBC version, which was a miniseries and, I believe, went through every single scene and detail of the novel. Not that I'm saying that there's anything wrong with that, but as a major movie fan, seeing Austen's book basically copied and pasted from the pages to a movie script, to me, lacks originality. Wright had his own original way of capturing the main plot of the movie in two hours, without dulling the characters in Austen's novel. Quickly going on a tangent, I will say that Wright's addition of the scene with Darcy and Elizabeth kissing was exceptionally romantic and it absolutely was consistent with their characters. But going back to the topic at hand: yeah, if BBC fans were disappointed that Wright seemed to rush everything, the truth of the matter is, he only had two hours. And yes, he could have included every little detail if he wanted to make the movie 5 hours.
Concerning the issues regarding Keira Knightley's role as the ever-proud Elizabeth Bennet and Matthew McFadyen's role as the timid Fitzwilliam Darcy, from the negative reviews I have read, viewers are complaining that Knightley and McFadyen did not do the characters justice. However, I must strongly disagree. Knightley, the wonderfully talented actress that she is, fulfilled Elizabeth's role to the fullest extent that any person could. Elizabeth's proud and stubborn nature was fully portrayed by Knightley and I can't think of any other reason to be dissatisfied. Although, yes, Knightley might be a bit too beautiful to play the role of the more comely Elizabeth, that is just about the only possible flaw with Knightley's role as Elizabeth.
As for McFadyen's role as Darcy, one reviewer stated that Darcy seemed "dull and generally uninterested in what's going on." Again, I must defend how Darcy was depicted in the film. To me, McFadyen acted out Darcy's role as his character is; initially, when the viewer is introduced to Darcy at the ball, he is seen as "dull and uninterested," which is mistaken by others--mainly Elizabeth--as pride and conceit. That was how the reader originally felt about Darcy in the book, and that is how the viewer originally felt about Darcy in the film. Others stated, "Austen's Darcy was well-spoken, proud and elegant, not in need of a Prozac." However, is it just my lack of memory, or was Austen's novel not written from Elizabeth's point of view? Therefore, as Elizabeth found out about Darcy's true character, so did the reader. Wright, I believe, tried to depict Darcy's actual character to the viewers throughout the entire movie, rather than have him portrayed based on Elizabeth's prejudices. Also, Wright's version of Darcy is `well-spoken, proud and elegant,' so I don't know why one would say otherwise. As for the remark on the Prozac, is Darcy's character not clearly revealed to the viewer when he is with Georgiana in his home? I don't know what else there is to say about that. And then there's the infamous comparison between Colin Firth's acting abilities as Darcy as opposed to McFadyen. I, myself, have only seen bits and pieces of the BBC version, and from what I can tell, Firth does seem like a worthy actor to play the part of the loveable Darcy. However, I found McFadyen to not only fulfill the role as Darcy incredibly well, but I also think that McFadyen's appearances are far more handsome than Firth.
The next problem many viewers had was the lack of `spark' Knightley and McFadyen seemed to have on-screen. First of all, I don't think that Wright could have picked a better couple to play the parts of Elizabeth and Darcy; not only were Knightley and McFadyen's acting abilities flawless, but their compatibility on-screen was simply amazing. One reviewer even claimed, "[a]t the end of the mov[i]e they don't even kiss..." which is entirely wrong. In fact, it should be switched around; Elizabeth and Darcy aren't mentioned to have kissed in the novel, but kiss at the end of Wright's film.
Wright's adaptation of Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" is not only original, but also highly romantic and enjoyable. For the most part it follows Austen's novel, but for the parts that it didn't, so what? It is it's own individual movie and is an `adaptation,' not an exact replica of the book; if it were, it would just be boring. I think that if people would stop comparing Wright's movie to how off it is from the book or other adaptations, viewers would actually enjoy and appreciate Wright's brilliant piece of work.
Movie Review: Kiera vs. Colin P&P
Summary: 5 Stars
I think this movie is very good and has a great soundtrack.(Think I have watched it 3 times in the last 3 months) I do also have the Colin Firth version which I absolutely love. (Think I have watched it 3 times during the same 3 months) Both have Pros and Cons.
Keira Knightly version
Pros:
1)Absolutely love the music - had to buy the soundtrack - it does so well to set the mood, every time I hear it, the emotions that coincide with the screenplay return.
2)The character of Jane Bennet is prettier than the other version (I didn't find her pretty enough for Jane in the Firth version) which is necessary to the character
3)Keira perhaps is too lovely for Lizzy Bennett, but she is gorgeous and for some reason we humans are wired to like that so I don't think it hurts the film.
4)Easy to sit and watch to get an Austen or P&P fix
5)*SPOILER* The scene where Darcy first asks to marry her is in a totally wrong setting according to the book, but running after her in the rain is sooo romantic - I really like the screen writer liberty on that one.
6)The principal actors (Lizzy and Darcy) are very good.
7)I personally like the ending of this one better.
Cons:
1)Too short - Left out a lot of good stuff, but that's what you get in a regular length film of a Austen novel.
2)Some of the scene changing or character dialogue changed from the novel, I think, unnecessarily; however it wasn't horrid.
3)Left out several minor characters and incidences or shortened their role in it which makes sense in a shortened film, but their "flavor" is very much missed.
Pro or Con??
When I first watched it the initial attraction of Darcy was so understated that I was actually "surprised" when he declared his love, but rewatching it, I caught the subtleties, so it is better on the second view, but totally appropriate in the context of Lizzy being surprised as well; however in the novel, the author gives you some pretty good hints. Not sure whether this is "bad" or "good."
Colin Firth Version
Pros:
1)Very faithful to the book with few liberties, if you love Austen and like movies to follow books this is a great one for that.
2)Very detailed, 6 hours to tell the story for all it's worth is just about right - but don't fool yourself into thinking you will just watch a section at a time, you'll watch it straight through, trust me!
3)Love the detail of character especially in Darcy (Colin Firth). He acts this part very well.
4)Extraordinary actors for some of the secondary parts - I think the minor character actors in this version are very superior to the Knightly version secondary actors. The subplots that affect the main plot actually make you feel like they are necessary whereas the other version goes over their parts so slightly that you almost feel like they are unnecessary.
Cons:
1)Length, not something you can just throw in to your movie watching schedule, you will watch it straight through and lose 6 hours of your day, but an enjoyable 6 hours.
2)As my grandma (who is blind) said after starting it, all they do is talk and dance (now why that mattered to her since she can't see things anyway is beyond me). The other version does give it more of an "action" movie like feel, but that is not an Austen story - the witty dialog is the great feature of her novels.
3)I don't know why it bothers me, but the actress who plays Jane Bennett in this one pales in comparison to the Knightly version's in both looks and acting I think. She is supposed to be the handsomest girl but I think the Lizzy character actress is actually better looking which kind of goes against the story, and her acting isn't that bad, but watching the other one shows how much better it could have been done.
4)I also don't like the Caroline Bingley actress, but I can't really tell you why, I just don't think she "fit." I liked the Knightly version Caroline better.
5) The mother's voice grates on you (which is appropriate for the character) but 6 hours of it has affected a few of my family members that have watched it with me.
6)The ending left me a little unfulfilled - the Knightly version or the book does a better job than this. This is sad because I think the rest of the movie is almost perfect. This is actually the only thing that I think could have really been done better.
Most likely the Colin Firth version will be the one I watch most (and currently is), but if I need a quick fix in a short amount of time, the Knightly version will do, and I love listening to the score as the movie plays - background music is normally not something I am normally tuned into or care about, but this one was done so superbly it makes me love it; however after several viewings it doesn't hold my attention as well as the Firth version does since it is not as detailed and not as faithful. So I suggest: Get Both!!
Movie Review: Gorgeously-filmed & delightfully-enchanting new film adaptation!
Summary: 5 Stars
First off, the casting: Keira Knightley was a good choice for Elizabeth Bennet. She would not have been my first choice after the lovely job by Jennifer Ehle in A&E/BBC's 1995 version, but Keira played the part very well and I believed in her Elizabeth from start to finish! Matthew MacFadyen as Darcy: all I can say is WOW! MacFadyen is a relative unknown (I know him only as the gambling loser Felix Carbury in Trollope's "The Way We Live Now"): his portrayal was passionate, gritty, determined, loveable, heartfelt and moving: I was completely convinced and fell in love (as other Colin Firth fans will likely do so shortly). Added to these two top-notch choices is some other great talent: Rosamund Pike (Lady Harriet Cumnor in "Wives & Daughters") as Jane Bennet, Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet, Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet, Tom Hollander (Osborne Hamley in "Wives & Daughters") as Mr. Collins, and Judi Dench as Lady Catherine de Bourg: the only somewhat puzzling choices were Rupert Friend as Mr. Wickham and Simon Woods as Mr. Bingley...they seemed to make Mr. Bingley's character incredibly naïve and almost silly in this film (which I must admit, did add some nice comic relief), whereas the 1995 P&P chooses to make him only too apt to believe the best in everyone too easily influenced by others. Mr Wickham was only slightly likeable to me, and was not given enough screen time for us to truly believe why Elizabeth defended him so much to Darcy. The cast was rounded out with Jena Malone as Lydia Bennet, Talulah Riley as Mary Bennet, and Carey Mulligan as Kitty Bennet, as well as a few others.
The overall storyline and feel: I thought they did an excellent job condensing the storyline into a theatrical movie-length version. I was mighty impressed with the screenwriter, and was not surprised to find out that Emma Thompson (who wrote the screenplay for 1995's "Sense & Sensibility", as well as giving an Oscar-winning performance as Elinor Dashwood) did an un-credited and unpaid rewrite of the new "Pride & Prejudice" script: she is given a special thanks in the end credits. The cinematography of the film was well done, with gorgeous scenes and imagery created: the soundtrack score is excellent, soft and unassuming, but seems to blend perfectly with the film: highly recommended. There is little that I would like to change overall: a few content issues (as described below), and otherwise, my changes would be: 1) the final scene: it is a bit too modern-feeling, and not true to Jane Austen as it should be 2) one scene where Lizzie reads a letter: she is upset & crying, only I thought it felt a bit stilted and not quite credible 3) Lady Catherine's speech to Elizabeth: I felt it could have been stronger, and have more "umph" behind it. Set design and costumes: the costumes work perfectly with the mood and feel of the film: at first I was a bit disappointed that they put Elizabeth in so much brown, but it works very well with the grit and feel of the film (and makes it seem much more real), and there are times (like at the Netherfield Ball), when you get some gorgeous white & light-colored costumes on the characters (including a beautiful snow-white dress on Elizabeth, with a lovely upswept hairdo). I thought the set design was very well done, and loved the very realistic feel of the film: the comparison between the Bennet house and Pemberly is quite drastic and added to the credibility of Darcy's wealth.
For those of you interested in "family-friendly" remarks, read this paragraph, otherwise you can skip to the next one. Content: There is one scene with a character walking through a room full of white, marble statues, mostly nude, and admiring them: mostly the shots show behinds, though some naked breasts are shown as well in a ceiling painting. There is one use of a*s, and little else in the way of language. There is some dialogue that alludes to the fact that an unmarried man & woman ran off together, not necessarily with any plans to get married, but it is eventually resolved; there is some cleavage shown, but nothing too drastic. All in all, the content is kept to a minimum.
This beautifully-filmed and well-acted movie is well worth the time & effort of going to the movie theatre, in a day and age when there is often little that does such. The romance they created in a few scenes was, I felt, beyond compare. For those of you who loved & enjoyed A&E and BBC's 1995 version of "Pride & Prejudice" with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, you are in for a treat: there are enough differences in the movies to make them both loveable, but enough similarities in dialogue that you don't feel you are missing anything. This new film & soundtrack is highly recommended (I bought the soundtrack from Amazon UK a month ago, as it is being released Nov 15th in the USA): this movie will also end up being a must-add to any woman's DVD collection!!
Movie Review: This movie has bewitched me body& soul!
Summary: 5 Stars
I simply love this movie. I also like the BBC version with Colin Firth and J.Ehle but honestly this version is my favourite. Although the adaptation of the novel is not really faithful to the novel(unlike the BBC one) I think that Joe Wright, the director, still did an amazing job by making a two-hour movie with all the major passages of the book. The first thing I noticed about this movie is the unique, wonderful atmosphere that the director and his assistants managed to create, with a beautiful-yet-down-to-earth setting, the movement of the camera (I was impressed by the way the camera moves, turns or follows the characters through the ballroom at Netherfield) the long shots mingling with close-views of the actors. Even the sounds are perfect -you can hear birds singing in the morning, rain pattering down- and just for that, the movie is a pure joy for me because it feels somewhat real. The atmosphere in the Bennett's house is so familiar and pleasant that you feel almost immediately a connection with this family. I just love every moment of the movie, I love the dialogues even if they don't correspond to the ones in the book (the Darcy's proposal is a moment of anthology! as this `lovers' spat'- kind of argument between Darcy and Lizzie gets more and more intense) The pace of the movie is fast, the good thing is that you don't have time to get bored, there is always something going on in every scene, the bad thing is that there are not enough scenes with these wonderful characters and I don't want the movie to end!!!
Right from the start, you feel so close to the characters that you don't want to leave them. They seem so alive (Lizzie Bennet has never been so flamboyant!)I couldn't help feeling as emotionally charged as them. All the actors are great, not only the leading ones but also the minor ones: the younger Bennet sisters -Jena Malone is so funny-and R. Pike is perfect as serene, beautiful Jane -.It is a pity though that we don't see some characters like Caroline Bingley or Charles Bingley or Wickham very often.
And of course Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen are really perfect for me as Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy. Keira Knightley gives energy and a mix of wit and mischievousness to the heroine. MacFadyen's Darcy is different from the book, I grant you, but this shy, love-struck and vulnerable is simply irresistible!! OK, maybe you don't have Colin Firth's wet shirt but you can still see MacFadyen drenched to the skin at one point while he is proposing to Lizzie and he is downright sexy too. Plus, his deep voice gives me the shivers! Knightley and Macfadyen have powerful chemistry, and when Darcy proposes to Lizzie in the rain, you can feel the heat, the passion growing more intense between them. The long stares between them, the way they passionately spar and their near-kisses are so sexually charged that they make me almost swoon with delight. One particular moment that I like too is when he helps her getting into a carriage and by doing so, he touches her hand. This is such a magical moment because it is not something you would do at the time especially when you've just met. And the climactic scene , oh boy, this scene in which Macfadyen appears in the misty dawn, desperately seeking Lizzie is so beautiful and rich with sensuality that it always makes me sigh just as it does Lizzie. At that point, I always feel the urge to tell Lizzie that she would be crazy to say 'no' to him now! I think that for once there is the perfect combination between Lizzie and Darcy: (They are both young), he is shy, reserved and socially ill-at-ease while she is free-spirited, flamboyant, lively, always speaking a mind of her own, and so they seem to complete each other very well.
The DVD, the English version,is worth the money because the special features are very interesting and ...there is also THE ALTERNATE US ENDING with the balcony kiss. About this US ending, I still think that they could have made a better scene although it is downright sweet. I can feel that Wright wasn't a 100% behind this last conversation between Lizzie and Darcy. Not that I am really complaining, it is still very nice to see them together one last time. One regret, where are the cut-off scenes? I am probably asking too much since the DVD features are already excellent but I 'd love to see the deleted scenes. And I am sure that Joe Wright must have deleted some scenes... Let's hope that there will be one day a special edition with two DVDs. This 'Pride&Prejudice'movie has become one of my favourites (I think that I must have seen it 4 times in the movie theater before buying the DVD.)I am definitely a big fan because not only I have the book and the music but I 've also been to England just to visit Chatsworth/Pemberley,the Peak District and Burgley House/Lady Catherine De Bourgh's house!!!